Talk:Antitheism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the word for opposing GOD?[edit]

that depends whether you believe god exists, or "not", because; opposing an entity you do "not" believe exists, compared to opposing a god you believe "does", or might, exist, are completely different.

the question here is flawed, because there is no need for a word to specify the opposing of "god", but there needs to be a clarification to the definition of what it is we mean when we claim "someone, or something is opposing "GOD".

-) opposing a god one believes exists, would mean one's "personal judgement", even if through "sanity", or "insanity" (caused by i.e mental illness), is taking a higher priority over the word of "supposed" god.

-) opposing a god we do "not" believe exists, makes us directly clash with the "supposed" entities that claim god does exist.

History[edit]

(Moved from User talk:Snalwibma because it seems to belong better here. Refers to this edit)

My inclusion of the number of deaths caused by Soviets not only provides an example of what militant atheism does, rather than purely a definition of the concept, but puts into context the actual significance of it. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism has an entire section related to attacks and deaths and pages on the Nazism or the Holocaust will also cite figures. There is no valid reason to leave such key information out. I will be adding this back to the article unless you can provide an explanation of how it (statistics) is 'political' and why related areas of wikipedia include statistical information but this section shouldn't. Utopial (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_Semitism specifically cites the number of Jews killed by Nazis: "In Nazi occupied Europe, oppressive discrimination of the Jews and denial of basic civil rights, escalated into a campaign of mass murder, culminating, from 1941 to 1945, in genocide: the Holocaust.[48] Eleven million Jews were targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and some six million were eventually killed.[48][49][50]"
Leaving out such valid information is political, as it is deliberately concealing information that demonstrates the result and significance of this event. Utopial (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Reply - You are quoting the number of people (allegedly Christians) killed by the Soviet government, and assuming that they were killed because of "militant atheism". Where is the evidence that it was the state's atheism that resulted in the deaths? Adding this information tells us nothing about antitheism, and it is clearly being inserted to make some point about the evils if atheism, in breach of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. It should be deleted, not in order to "deliberately conceal information" (the typical accusation of someone trying to slant a WP article towards a particular POV) but because it adds nothing of value and distorts the article. Furthermore, the section in question is about the use of the term "militant atheism", and the number of theists killed by the Soviets is irrelevant in this context. If it belongs anywhere in this article, it is not in this section. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merely adding statistics and being consistent with other articles is not propaganda, political or slanting. The Soviet state had the objective of elimination of religion (ie antitheism) and did this through military means (ie militant). This equates to militant antitheism. To be a militant antitheist you have to be atheist, therefore this term is the same as militant atheism. It adds value by clarifying what the Soviet's 'untiring atheist fight' means. All other similar articles include these statistics, such as Anti Semitism and the number of jews killed by nazis. This section should be made comparable to the Anti Semitism article. Utopial (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of compromise, I am going to move the stats to the section above and rename the title of militant atheism to something like 'Terminology - Militant Atheist'. Utopial (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we can add statistics but if they are not relevant they we can't. Are these statistics relevant ?. A quick Google books search of the book World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, I don't find the word "antitheism" or "antitheist" and in the charts cited I don't see these words, so the reference doesn't really seem applicable to this article. The actual chart is misleading in that it fails to highlight that it is double-counting. If you look on page 229, it lists in the chart the same data in PERSECUTORS AND THEIR VICTIMS and at the top, "State ruling power" and then underneath that it has "Atheists (overlapping with above)". The problems are obvious in that it fails to show what the overlap is. Is it 100% overlap i.e. all Atheists persecutions are as a State ruling power ? or is it a smaller percentage i.e. few Atheist-driven persecutions are as a State ruling power and are because of the "atheism". Without that information we cannot reliably make any claims as to the percentage of atheists that persecute because they are atheists or because they are a State ruling power. The other entries don't get this same treatment. They claim a subtotal of 63 mil persecuted by non-Christians but of you add the non-Christians (including the state and atheists) then you get around 109 mil which is over 45 million more. So the chart is showing significant double-counting. The table 4-5 is also partisan in that it does not show how many atheists have been killed because of their faith (or rather lack of faith I guess) and for the specific case of Russian Orthodox they have listed as around 21 million victims but listed as having 0 as the persecutor. Is that likely ? Not likely - the values seem very suspiciously presented, fails to fit into the scope of this article and so I fail to see how it can be a usable reference (though at least you gave a page number this time !). Ttiotsw (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent). I've deleted the lot. We seem to be crowbarring in Bolsheviks and Communisms to fit a number of misconceptions about what is Communism and the causes of any deaths. The Bolsheviks were democratic centralist (as embodied in the Twenty-one Conditions) and their drive was for class war. As the Russian Orthodox Church levied taxes and was part of the government of Tsarist Russia then it is pretty clear they're going to be on the losing side in a revolution or class war against the Imperialist state (the same revolution in France with the Royalists+Clergy against the People. The Eastern Orthodox Church clergy supported the White Army in the Russian Civil War, and occasionally collaborated with it or were anti-Bolshevik. What the section fails to highlight is how the Russian Orthodox got embroiled in politics and war and ended up on the losing side. Thus it is certainly not clear if any deaths cited can be accurately allocated to "antitheism" (which is what this article is after all), or as a result of taking sides in a civil war, or opposing the ruling Bolshevik/Communist mechanisms of governance that would preclude a competitive class. Oddly enough under Stalin we have the promotion of the Church (for political purposes) though Stalin is cited as loving his purges but he purged those he saw as political enemies irrespective of their faith. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is thoroughly documented (militant+atheism+soviet/russia in google scholar) that the Soviet Union had the objective of state atheism and the elimination of religion - ie the 'militant atheist fight'. The source has further dedetails in table 4-10 of the soviet massacres (including specific elimination of clergy,members,churches etc) of russian orthodox, roman catholics, autocephaleus church, lutherans, underground churches, etc. It is clearly anti-theist behaviour, irrespective of what caused this behaviour, and it merits inclusion in this article. Your arguments (unsourced opinion) are equivalent to saying that the Nazis wanted the Jews out of Germany because they were dominating the economy and it was purely an economic power struggle and thus this shouldn't be defined as anti-semitic. Maybe that was the Nazi's reason, but the actions/policies are still anti-semitic. The soviet information definitely should appear in the article. Removing it is unjustified and if any well sourced counter arguments exist then that only means they should be included in the article as well to balance off the multitude that label it militant atheism (for example or 'all against forms of religion'). Let information and minds be free, rather than conceal & deceive.
There is a general misunderstanding (and probably fear) by editors of this article that the soviet democide was caused because of atheism, ie atheism causes these events. This is untrue. The cause may have been due to many factors that aren't exclusively or necessarily 'atheistic'. However, the cause is irrelevant. This article is about antitheism, antitheists, antitheistic events and antitheistic policies, irrespective of what the cause was. The soviet event was undeniably an antitheistic event/policy. The causes of antitheism can be discussed elsewhere in the article.
This article is a mess and needs cleaning up - virtually the entire 'Further examples of the term militant atheism include' is unencyclopedic pop culture rubbish. This article should document well sourced definitions, reasons/causes and historical examples/events.Utopial (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the Nazi it was expkictly anti-Semitic that caused the deaths. With the Russians it was too many things to pick the antitheism as a cause. The problem are the inconsistencies in the timeline. Using your own cite e.g. [1], - it says that "1918 the government had nationalized all church property, including buildings. In the first five years of the Soviet Union (1922-26)..." whereas we have, "The Soviet Union imposed state atheism and antireligious campaigns were directed at all faiths[3], including Christian, Buddhist and Shamanist religions. The government nationalised all church property, executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted members of religious groups[4][5]. ". See the problem ?. We seem to imply it was the Soviet Union that had nationalised the property when in fact what government that was in charge in 1918 was the Bolsheviks who took over at the October Revolution and the whole country was embroiled in fighting a civil war - a war which the church took sides obviously given the Church was in fact a Government department anyway in the old Tsar Russia. The activities during that civil war can't easily be stated as anti-theistic. So in summary, the Soviet Union was created in 1922 and so post-dates the 1918 date for the nationalisation and the claimed date of 1918 for the nationalisation was in the middle of a civil war. We need to highlight the correct timeline and correctly attribute the deaths to "antitheism" rather than simply associating the deaths with antitheism when the deaths could have been caused by more important differences. That is what the references have not established. I've already shown the severe data errors in the source for the reference for the table 4-5 that you use and table 4-10 is equally very partisan and biased as it only shows "Christians" and fails to show overall figures which are substantially higher [2]. Your cites have clearly biased POV and seem to care little for anyone other than presenting the Christian POV. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'martyr' is used in the data source, and it is a respect, credible and referenced resource. p235 defines this as someone who dies in witness of their faith and explicitly describes it in number of table 4-10 as only the ppl that were killed for their faith, the other killings being excluded. I don't believe there are sufficient grounds for data errors in table 4-5, just insufficient information to interpret how the figures in that table relate to one another. Table 4-10 can be used in any case. It is a resource primarily focused on Christian trends, although it does have data related to other groups. I don't think it's because they don't care, it's prolly because they have limited resources/money so cant do something more comprehensive. Also, I'd appreciate if you or others can help me in cleaning up the rest of the article. It's like a teenagers diary recording every time theyve heard anything related to antitheism. If necessary, a category article can be created for 'militant atheists' rather than discussing them all over this article. The evangelical section should also be cut back to a few lines and perhaps some simple reasons/motivations for antitheism can be put in the the terminology section. Utopial (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figure of 20 million is the total number of deaths attributable to Stalin, see the Wikipedia article on Stalin's rule which also cites Christian Trends. It is not our job to pass judgement on Christian Trends counting all the victims of collectivisation and famine as "martyrs", or as unproblematically Russian Orthodox, but it is certainly not legitimate to treat them all as victims of the USSR's policy of "militant atheism". It is a misrepresentation of the source. Christian Trends does not make the claim that Famine was a consequence of antitheism; and of course it wasn't. --Dannyno (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article on State atheism. Antitheism and state atheism are not synonyms, though there may be a relationship. But this article should not become a POV fork for material that belongs in the State Atheism article, which, by the way, already contains facts and figures about the Soviet Union's anti-religious campaign (State_atheism#The_Soviet_Union) --Dannyno (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my comment above addresses this. p235 defines martyr wrt those tables (as someone who dies due to their faith) and they explicitly state this excludes christians who were killed for things other than their faith (my understanding is that in total 70m were killed by the soviet union). various articles talk about jews killed by nazis, including the anti-semitism article. Btw thanks for drawing attanetion to the stalin article - it is wrong and what is causing the confusion. those

tables are only martyrs and dont include the other deaths caused by stalin - which as i said and have read is more like 70m.Utopial (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving undue weight to Christian Trends' definition of a "martyr", which is not in line with historical scholarship on the question of the number of deaths attributable to Stalin. 70 million is the upper range of estimates. Scholarly consensus has rested at around the 20 million-ish mark. This article should not give such emphasis to such a questionable figure. --Dannyno (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology of those behind World Christian Trends has been criticised: Sauer, Christof (2008). "Researching persecution and martyrdom: Part 1. The external perspective", International Journal for Religious Freedom, Vol 1 (1), p.46., "Librarians, Publishers, and Theological Reference Resources: A Way Forward" --Dannyno (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the offending reference to a marginal, fringe, source again, on grounds of wp:undue. The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stephane, et al, 1999) gives an estimate of 20 million deaths from all relevant causes in the USSR. This is the judgement of mainstream historians, as stated elsewhere on wikipedia. It is absolutely not legitimate to use the maximum upper estimate of deaths in the USSR here as though they represented the consensus, and then to use that extreme upper maximum estimate to defend this marginal fringe claim about the number of "martyrs". Also, other articles exist exploring religious persecution and "militant atheism" in the USSR, and insisting on the inclusion of this fringe claim here looks like an attempt to create a POV fork. --Dannyno (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have severe doubts about including "militant atheism" (i.e. the particular policy of the USSR) in this article at all, I would be prepared to compromise, and even to include estimate figures of numbers of victims of religious repression in the USSR (though that does replicated other articles). However, such figures should clearly say what the consensus is, or explain divergence of opinion. Supplying a range of estimates from multiple sources is fine, so long as the generally agreed number (if there is one) is also made clear. The Black Book has some discussion, which I will look at. What do other editors think? Do we do that, or move such information to the relevant other articles, such as that on the Society of the Godless among others? We cannot keep reverting one individual's fringe citation forever. --Dannyno (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess these sources are fringe. The New York Times article for example which is about just 1 location. As for the making apologies for the murder of theists according to your above statements Father Paul Florensky just could not have died the way he did- because he mixed math and religion is inexcusable,[3] and was not for political reasons as it is shown in the articles above atheism was the only acceptable position. As the edit warring now leaves NO MENTION AT ALL. Which is totally unethical and historically dishonest. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an administrator needs to address how a little tiny bit of research gives some validation to the 20 million figure not just coming from one source (see Dimitry Pospielovsky [4].[5])[6][7] [8] How the information is there and editors who don't like the facts or history being addressed are edit waring and behave as if they have no intention about documenting these inhuman and wretched events. Recording not only what happened but from the witness of its survivors and what they speak to as its cause=antitheism. Blanket deleting wholesale is not even remotely attempting NPOV. A more conservative figure while attempting dialog is more inline with someones behavior if they were seeking to have good faith and collaborate. Rather then repress.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket deleting any reference to the numbers of deaths is not only trying to silence an issue and historical documentation, it is also POV (besides being disrespectful to those killed). The numbers of jews killed by nazis is covered in numerous articles (ww2, nazism, genocide) including the anti-semitism article. Just because it's in one doesnt mean it shouldnt be in the others. Appropriate wikipedia behaviour is to research, collaborate and document, not to try and delete out all the content you don't like seeing. Also, i wouldnt call a purely statistical and noted large source like 'world christian trends' fringe/marginal, especially compared to jounralistic (non-statistical) articles.Utopial(talk)01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an editor to refer to something as fringe that I just sourced as

  • World Christian Encyclopedia (2001): This book is the standard reference work for religious statistics of all kinds, and both Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it.

It is not acceptable. If someone criticizes a source that is not the same as defaming it wholesale- as fringe. Now that type of wholesale platitude and blanket generalization is true fundamentalism.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterisation of my position is unfortunate. I am very open to the inclusion of mainstream historical research in the article, and indeed said so clearly in my last edit on this talk page. I have also made it clear that I have no interest in edit warring, but wish to arrive at a sensible solution. Note that I cited the Black Book of Communism, hardly a source which whitewashes communist repression, and have have offered to source some non-fringe estimates from that, as a start. --Dannyno (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions betray your words. You have blanket deleted. You have defamed by trying to disregard accepted research under the justification that it is now fringe. However it is not just because you say so. You have blanket deleted without getting consensus and then repeated that tactic. Your actions are what I am addressing. And since they do not reflect your words. It is your actions that I will continue to speak to. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct that research is not fringe because I say so. No, it's fringe because the consensus of historians is that the total figure for victims of Lenin/Stalin is lower than the extreme high end of the range of estimates. I have also posted links to sources which discuss the reliability of the source, but the central point remains one about scholarly consensus; it would be wp:undue to include the marginal 20 million figure as referring to unambiguous victims of specifically anti-religious persecution. Not because I say so, but because the weight of scholarship says so. I'm sorry you don't like that, but scholarly consensus is scholarly consensus. --Dannyno (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WELL I'LL SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NOW,---

A perfect example of "ANTI-THEISM, was when the emperor HIROHITO was made to publicly express to the country of Japan that he was IN FACT, (OR WAS IT IN "UN"FACT?), NOT a descendant of ANY GOD.

The relevant question here is of course, WHY DID THEY MAKE HIM DO THIS? -- and then again, of course, we will have plenty of answers that go in to MANY different directions... BUT ONE THING IS UNDENIABLE!

THE FACT THAT HIROHITO WAS BELIEVED TO BE SOME MYSTICAL GODLY DESCENDANT WAS IN FACT GIVING HIM AMAZING SUPER POWERS, THIS MAN WAS THE HIRO NAKAMURA OF HIS TIME.

SO TO OPPOSE THIS SO BELIEVED TO BE GOD WITH ANTI-THEISM, WAS NOT TO SPREAD DISBELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY GOD, OR EVEN DISBELIEF THAT HIROHITO WAS A DESCENDANT OF ANY GOD, BUT IT WAS MERELY TO FLIP THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN THAT THIS MAN AND HIS FAMILY WERE PLAYING, AND MANIPULATING MASSES OF PEOPLE WITH.

THE ROYAL FAMILY HAS STRIPPED HOW MANY COMMONERS OF THEIR POTENTIAL BELIEF TO BE DESCENDED FROM A GOD!?

ANTI-THEISM OR EVEN ATHEISM, OR WHATEVER YOU WILL FOR IT TO BE CALLED IS NOT THE REJECTION OR DISBELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING, BUT MERELY THE REJECTION OF YOUR JUSTIFICATION TO YOUR SELF RIGHTEOUS BELIEFS TO DEFINE WHAT IS GOOD AND POSITIVE, WHILE RIDING ON THE BACKS OF BILLIONS OF STUPID PEOPLE, WHEN YOU ARE TRULY JUST ANOTHER WITCH WITH A VOODOO SPELL BOOK!

NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT GOD DOES "NOT" EXIST, JUST LIKE NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT HE "DOES". IT IS MERELY OUR EMOTIONS THAT TAKE OVER WHEN STRUCK BY THE HARDSHIPS OF WHATEVER THAT HAS CAUSED THEM, OR EVEN THE EMOTIONS OF OUR JOYS, AND FOR SOME REASON WE ALWAYS FEEL LIKE BEING POETIC ABOUT IT.

BUT ONCE AGAIN UNDENIABLE IS, THE FACT THAT THEISTS ARE OBSTRUCTING THE PROGRESS OF FACT DRIVEN RESEARCH, AND ARE MAINTAINING A STRUCTURE AS BIG AS THE FACT DRIVEN INDUSTRY, AS CORRUPT AS THE FACT DRIVEN INDUSTRY, BUT REFUSE TO JOIN THE ART INDUSTRY, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO LOSE TO THE FACT DRIVEN INDUSTRY.

-DROP MIC- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.104.104.33 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange facts?[edit]

Religious Martyrs

  • David Barrett, Todd Johnson, Justin Long

o World Christian Encyclopedia (2001): This book is the standard reference work for religious statistics of all kinds, and both Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it. It has a single page [9] estimating the number of martyrs since the origin of each religion:

  • Muslim martyrs: 80M
  • Christian martyrs: 70M
  • 20th Century: 45.4M
  • At the hands of...
* Atheists: 31,689,000[10]I cant act as if I wrote this..LoveMonkey (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LoveMonkey. Read the article you just cited. It's about the unreliability of those stats. :P
To call antitheism the cause of the Soviet atrocities is like calling Christianity the cause of the Holocaust. You've generalized too much from the immediate cause, violating WP:NPOV. The immediate cause of the slaughters you are talking about is state atheism and Stalinism, not antitheism; antitheism is a much broader beast, and connecting the dots here is no more appropriate than connecting the dots from antisemitic statements in the Bible to start listing Holocaust death tolls on Christianity. Stick to the specific ideology responsible, rather than generalizing, and you'll have much more success. -Silence (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean 'to call atheism the cause of the soviet atrocities is like calling christianity the cause of the holocaust'. That i can more closely agree with. but this article is about antitheism and antitheistic events/ppl, and this clearly was antitheism - these ppl were persecuted because of having a religion. that is antitheism, whether or not it's caused by atheism is a different and irrelevant issue. likewise, jews were killed in ww2 due to anti-semitism, not necessarily christianity.Utopial (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean what I said. To call atheism the cause of Soviet atrocities would be like calling religion the cause of the Holocaust. Antitheism is opposition to an ideology, analogous to anti-fascism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Scientology. To directly connect opposition to/criticism of belief in God with a willingness to slaughter millions of people is equivalent to directly connecting all critics of Western society with the 9/11 attacks —, or, as I said, Christianity with the Holocaust. Just as Christian doctrine maligns Jews, yet that does not make the Christian religion unambiguously culpable for every act of anti-semitism, so does antitheism's opposition to an ideology in no way justify equating it with mass murder of that ideology. We already have articles for that—they're called state atheism and Stalinism.
"these ppl were persecuted because of having a religion. that is antitheism" - I've heard that said twice in this discussion. Think before you leap. The article you seek is Antireligion. :) -Silence (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is equivalent to saying that anti-semitism wasnt the cause of jews being killed by nazis, because it is incorrectly connecting being opposed to jews with willingness to murder them. both anti-semites and anti-theists can take their positions peacefully, but these are examples of violent positions. soviets were both antireligious and antitheists - martyr was defined as someone killed for their faith (i oversimplified and said religion). (on a side note, a non centric view of 'holocaust' wasnt only jews - the highest percentage genocide was roma, and various christian denominations such as catholics were killed) Utopial (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I am saying is equivalent to saying that not everyone who criticizes the West for its excesses is relevant to a discussion of the 9/11 hijacker's motivations and philosophies. In the exact same way, not every one who criticizes theism (i.e., not all antitheists) is relevant to a discussion of the atrocities of state atheism. Just as we have plenty of articles on anti-semitism (which is not simply a critique of an idea, Judaism, nor even the violent or intolerant critique of an idea, but is rather something radically different—a racialized notion that Jews are inhuman, subhuman, or a deviant and wicked class of human, which is why even people of Jewish descent who had been Christians for generations were targeted in the Holocaust—the motive was to exterminate a race) and the Holocaust, so too do we have plenty of articles on the Soviet Union's atrocities; this is not one of them. I am not opposed to briefly mentioning state atheism, along with the numerous other forms anti-theistic activism can take; but once we get into the level of detail where we're listing detailed statistics (even accurate ones, which seems in insurmountable requirement in and of itself for those who can't bear to have a realistic headcount, as though that makes the atrocity any less incomprehensibly nightmarish! (?!?)) we've clearly crossed the line into POV-pushing, just as we'd be crossing the line into POV-pushing if we listed the death count in the Holocaust on Christianity, or the death count of 9/11 on Islam (or on 'criticism of Western culture' or the like, even). And no, 'atheism' is not analogous to Christianity, Islam, or any of the other ideologies under discussion, because atheism is not an ideology or belief. Antitheism is—but it's such a broad and multifaceted one, like Christianity, that it cannot be equated with any one particular branch or application, whether it be heinous or laudable. -Silence (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All i've managed to extract from what you've written is some kind of notion that anti-semitism cant be compared to anti-theism because criticism of race and ideology are different. this is irrelevant. as i said, you can be a peaceful anti-semite or a peaceful anti-theist. that doesnt mean violent versions of both shouldnt be documented. inconsistency and leaving out information is POV pushing, not consistency and thorough documentation.Utopial (talk)
Listen closely to what I've said, now: 'What I am saying is equivalent to saying that not everyone who criticizes the West for its excesses is relevant to a discussion of the 9/11 hijacker's motivations and philosophies. In the exact same way, not every one who criticizes theism (i.e., not all antitheists) is relevant to a discussion of the atrocities of state atheism. Just as we have plenty of articles on anti-semitism and the Holocaust, so too do we have plenty of articles on the Soviet Union's atrocities; this is not one of them. I am not opposed to briefly mentioning state atheism, along with the numerous other forms anti-theistic activism can take; but once we get into the level of detail where we're listing detailed statistics (even accurate ones, which seems in insurmountable requirement in and of itself for those who can't bear to have a realistic headcount, as though that makes the atrocity any less incomprehensibly nightmarish! (?!?)) we've clearly crossed the line into POV-pushing, just as we'd be crossing the line into POV-pushing if we listed the death count in the Holocaust on Christianity, or the death count of 9/11 on Islam (or on 'criticism of Western culture' or the like, even). And no, 'atheism' is not analogous to Christianity, Islam, or any of the other ideologies under discussion, because atheism is not an ideology or belief. Antitheism is—but it's such a broad and multifaceted one, like Christianity, that it cannot be equated with any one particular branch or application, whether it be heinous or laudable.' Cleared up for you? I removed the tangential text that apparently distracted you from reading comprehension last time; my apologies for the digression.
You are confusing this article with State atheism and violating Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. There is no point in making this article into a POV fork of State atheism. To say 'you can be a peaceful antitheist' is equivalent to saying 'you can be a peaceful Christian'; we do not spend half of the Christianity article listing head counts on any atrocity committed by a Christian, and applying a double standard here does not serve the encyclopedia's educational goals. -Silence (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've failed to address the inconsistency with the anti-semitism article including violent forms of anti-semitism and head counts. The reason the islam/christianity articles are relevantly different is because the central idea of their systems/articles isnt about opposition to a group. violently carrying out antitheism/semitism would be to kill those you are opposed to. what is violently carrying out buddhism? holding a gun while you meditate and try not to harm other organisms?Utopial (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you've failed to address the simple fact that antitheism and anti-semitism have nothing in common, aside from both including the word "anti". You might as well equate antisemitism with anticommunism while you're at it. Anticommunism's central idea is certainly opposition to a group (more correctly, opposition to an idea), yet that in no way makes it the equivalent of antisemitism, just as antitheism being about opposition to a group (more correctly, opposition to an idea) in no way makes it the equivalent of antisemitism. It is itself rather antisemitic to trivialize the persecution of Jews by equating all opposition movements with antisemitism, though I assume this is simply an error on your part.
But this discussion, though fun while it lasted, isn't really seeing any progress. I notice that a previous editor, User:Ttiotsw, already resolved this issue one week ago by removing all information from Antitheism which either (a) lacks a cite, or (b) has a cite that is not explicitly quoted as using the word "antitheism". Any incorporation of citations which do not use the term this article is about constitutes a violation of the aforementioned Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position policy. Since it is impossible to tell from the paraphrasing you and LoveMonkey have employed whether you've cited any reliable sources that actually use the term "antitheism", I'm going to remove those sections until unambiguously relevant quotations are provided. To be fair, I will remove all other sections which do not explicitly discuss 'antitheism', as Ttiotsw did; if they are to be re-inserted, they should be done so following discussion of the scope of the article, rather than in the inconsistent, piecemeal, and POV-pushing fashion they were haphazardly done, inserting POV-supporting segments removed by Ttiotsw but neglecting numerous other portions of the article of clearer relevance that were also removed. -Silence (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-semitism & antitheism are both: (1) beliefs (2) opposition to groups (3) not necessarily violent, but can be. One could equally say it is disrespectful (and pro-violent antitheism) to trivalise the persecution of theists by equating it to all belief systems such as christianity. All you have said is that the way they justify their opposition is different, but this justification is irrelevant. The lack of progress is that you have been unable to justify a relevant difference that justifies the inclusion of stats in one article while precluding stats from another.
The 'synthesis' policy is invalid. No position has been advanced through using multiple sources - one source details the events, the other details the stats. Also, there is no policy that states a source has to use the title of the article. All that is required is that information included meets the definition of antitheism, which many events do without their sources using the word antitheism. If a source detailed races killed by nazis in ww2 (because of their race) but didnt use the word anti-semitism, this would still be a valid source for the anti-semitism article.
It is POV pushing to exclude relevant information from an article and be inconsistent across articles. And the POV it is pushing is that violence antitheism does not exist (or is insignificant), something 21m russians would object to.Utopial (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-communism, anti-racism, anti-elitism, anti-scientology, anti-sexism, etc. are all (1) beliefs, (2) opposition to groups, (3) not necessarily violent, but can be. (Anything can be.) You clearly missed the point of every single one of the counter-examples I provided. Equating every belief that opposes a group with anti-semitism is anti-semitic. For the sake of your arguments' credibility, I'd recommend dropping that little tactic.
"trivalise the persecution of theists by equating it to all belief systems such as christianity" - You're the one who trivialized and denigrated the suffering of Jews by suggesting that antitheism (opposition to the belief in deities) is the same thing as antisemitism (hatred of a race of people). I simply pointed out that antitheism and Christianity are equivalent (both, by their nature, oppose beliefs — Christianity (or at least common denominations thereof) is opposed to every religion contradicting its dogmas, particularly Judaism). You're the one who tried to draw the fallacious equivalency between antitheism and antisemitism, so if you aren't willing to suffer the unfortunate side-effect of your double-edged sword, and concede the equivalency to all other beliefs 'opposed to groups' as well, you're free to withdraw your own argument that's causing you such distress. :P
"All you have said is that the way they justify their opposition is different, but this justification is irrelevant" - I don't recall even mentioning justification. It's slightly bizarre that you'd say that "All I've said" is something I haven't even mentioned or thought about. That's not so much a straw man as a lint man. o.O;;
"you have been unable to justify a relevant difference that justifies the inclusion of stats in one article while precluding stats from another." - I'm afraid you're the one who's been unable to justify that, as you failed to justify including such stats in Antitheism and not in Christianity.
"The 'synthesis' policy is invalid." - If you think so, go to WP:OR and complain. Once the policy has been changed there, come back here and we'll talk again.
"If a source detailed races killed by nazis in ww2 (because of their race) but didnt use the word anti-semitism, this would still be a valid source for the anti-semitism article" - No, it wouldn't. "Jew" isn't the only race killed by the Nazis in World War II. Now, I remind you that you are on the wrong article. State atheism is precisely the article you're looking for, as it covers exactly the topic you want to POV fork here. -Silence (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(3 2) is where your argument falls apart. by trivialising violent anti-theism and describing all belief systems as oppositional beliefs, you are effectively saying that anti-theism and pro-atheism are the same, or that christian and anti-nonchristian is the same, or that pro-black and anti-non black are the same. they clearly arent. oppositional beliefs are a distinct group from non-oppositional beliefs, as as a distinct group their must be consistency in the way their articles are written.
I meant that the synthesis policy is not relevant to this situation since no view is created.
Note: numerous sources mention the words anti-religious and anti-theistic in discussing soviet and other events.
Btw, id appreciate if you stop the name calling and trying to silence a debate through denigration of others, a method i have shown i could equally use by labelling your arguemtns as pro-violent anti theism.Utopial (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(3) is most certainly not where my argument falls apart, unless you're suggesting that Christians cannot be violent. :) Remember, (3) simply said "not necessarily violent, but can be". You're stuck. Either you have to assert that antitheism is innately or broadly violent, which is even more obviously a violation of WP:NPOV than your current position, or you have to include pretty much every intellectual group on earth, including all or most religions.
"you are effectively saying that anti-theism and pro-atheism are the same, or that christian and anti-nonchristian is the same" - They're the same to Wikipedia, in that Wikipedia has no innate bias for any of those 4 positions. All that matters, what differentiates them, is what reliable sourcing explicitly says about them. Hence the importance of your using reliable sources on this article that actually talk about antitheism, rather than simply talking about something you closely associate, in your own mind, with what you personally think of as 'antitheism'. Wikipedia's reliable sources, not its editors—however well-intentioned—are the ultimate arbiters of its content.
oppositional beliefs are a distinct group from non-oppositional beliefs - Be that as it may, oppositional beliefs are not equivalent to antisemitism merely by virtue of being opposed to something. Anti-racism is not the same as antisemitism, any more than antitheism is. (Incidentally, the only difference between terms like anti-racism and terms like pro-racial equality is how they are framed and related to other terms. The beliefs themselves are identical.)
Note: numerous sources mention the words anti-religious and anti-theistic in discussing soviet and other events. - Then cite 'em, if they're reliable sources. If they use 'anti-religous' you can use them on antireligion; if they use 'anti-theistic' you can use them here. 'Tis really not that difficult. -Silence (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
correction - i meant (2).
pro black and anti-non black, see the relevant groups on wikipedia (the black panthers and the 'new black panthers'). the original black panthers are insulted by the anti-non-black views on the new black panthers.
"Incidentally, the only difference between terms like anti-racism and terms like pro-racial equality is how they are framed and related to other terms. The beliefs themselves are identical." see existentialism (christian or wateva kind), or think about pro-black & anti-non black. if you are pro-liverpool and pro-juventus, does this mean you are also anti-liverpool and anti-juventus?
Oppositional groups all have unique beliefs, but that doesnt mean they should be inconsistent. including stats in an article on anti-italian but not on a page about anti-arab would be unjustifiably inconsistent, and POV by assuming that anti-italian violence is more important/noteworthy than anti-arab violence. It is not up to wikipedia editors to make value judgements as to which violent act or oppositional belief is worse, it is merely our duty to consistently document them. Utopial (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, what you're calling "consistency" is another way of saying "treating all opposition groups as though they were antisemites". If you would not equate anti-racism with anti-semitism, then you have no grounds for equating anti-theism with it. Case closed. -Silence (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would equate/group them. It could be argued that within oppositional groups you have groups opposed to oppositional groups, although right now i cant see any reason that this is relevant. If you find any (significant) examples of violence related to anti-racism, they should go in the anti-racism article. For any belief that is centrally focused on opposing another group, it is very relevant that any (significant) violent form of opposition is documented consistently. Your rationale so far has been to consistently state that anti-semitism deserves special treatment. The reasons why you haven't established and can only be seen as a value judgement.Utopial (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How POV does someone have to be to follow up the posting-*statistics of all kinds, and both Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it.
  • At the hands of...

* Atheists: 31,689,000[11]
and
The Ottawa Citizen (20 Dec. 1998)

  • 15M Christians d. in Soviet prison camps because of their faith.
  • citing Paul Marshall, Their Blood Cries Out

The Ottawa Citizen (6 Feb. 1993)

  • Citing D. Barret, Our Globe and How to Reach It
  • 40M Christians martyred throughout history.
  • ca. 24M by secular governments and atheists
  • ca. 8M k. by other Christians
--With--
LoveMonkey. Read the article you just cited. It's about the unreliability of those stats. :P
--!--
That speaks for itself on what kind of mentally the poster/editor has. A mentally of total and complete denial. Again if someone criticizes a source that is not the same as defaming it wholesale- as fringe.

LoveMonkey (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Deep breath everyone. There are two questions here.

First: Is "antitheism" the same as "militant atheism" in the context of Soviet repression of relgion? If not, then this dicussion should be happening on other pages. That's the first issue to resolve. I am surprised to see "antitheism" regarded as a synonym of "militant atheism", because I do think they represent different things. This is a question about the scope of the article, and we need to resolve this first.

Secondly: what sources do we use to cite figures as to the numbers killed by repressive State Atheism? Not, I would suggest fringe sources such as those suggested, or even the Ottawa Citizen, but mainstream historical research published in reliable mainstream sources. I've already suggested the Black Book of Communism as one possible source, but I will find some more historical papers and publications. However, this is all academic if the information belongs under other articles on the Society of the Godless, or State Atheism or whatever.

I have no interest in downplaying what was the often brutal Leninist/Stalinist repression of Christians and others. I just want wikipedia to reflect mainstream research, not just estimates on the extreme high end. This is how Wikipedia policy says we should proceed.

So, I will go away and find some good research which we may be able to cite here. In the meantime we should talk about whether "militant atheism" belongs here at all, or if it should appear in another article. --Dannyno (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have many a loved one who simply choose to not believe. As Christian I believe and have to believe in free will. Therefore I can not vilify anyone because they are free. Nor do I believe that atheist=Psychopathic amoral murderer, not in least. However a great many of individuals who perpetrated these above lists of crimes against their fellow human beings explicitly called themselves anti-religious and atheist. As individuals against the belief in God. I did not write these articles. I did not fabricate them. I can only reflect what is being said and I have to seek to not defame but rather give the victims a voice. If the numbers are wrong then we'll fix that. This need not be some make up nonsense like the Burning Times. But that is a far cry from no numbers no victims' at all. Your edit style is one that silences. As your edit today on the Soviet persecution of Christianity shows. But the Time Magazine article I posted above makes in general the statement you removed. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if we can find reliable sources equating, or at the very least closely linking, 'antitheism' and 'militant atheism' (in those exact words), then we can keep the section, albeit modified a bit. Otherwise, I think WP:NOR forces us to ditch it as an original synthesis of information. Until good sources of this sort do pop up, I recommend removing the 'Militant atheism' section (along with the 'Evangelical atheism' section) and turning it into a dab page linking to (1) Antireligion, (2) Antitheism, (3) State atheism, and (4) Criticism of religion (which seems to be the common defining behavior of 'militants'). That would be more useful, I think, than doing something boring like redirecting Militant atheism to just Atheism, though 'Atheism' is the best, most neutral place to very briefly discuss the militant strain.
  • Y'know what I bet would be a lot easier than trying to synthesize 'Antitheist' with 'Militant atheist'? Have we considered the possibility of making an article on 'New Atheism', a neologism I've heard applied surprisingly often of late? I bet it would be exceedingly easy to find direct, explicit, sourced linkages between 'New Atheism' and 'militant atheism', much more so than to find links to the more obscure and philosophically technical term 'antitheism'. I'm wary of just jumping into making an article for such a neologism, even a common one, but it seems like something that should at the very least definitely be debated on by the Atheism WikiProject, no?
  • Also, incidentally, LoveMonkey, you seem to have found yourself on the wrong article. The article for anti-religious people is Antireligion. The article for atheists is atheism. An anti-theist, depending on definition, need be neither anti-religious nor an atheist. -Silence (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You as an administrator on Wikipedia know what pedantic wrangling is. The Soviet persecuted Muslims and Buddhists as atheists their agenda was anti-theist. As atheistic regimes have engaged in anti-theist persecution. NPOV is all possible sides not just one and not at the exclusion of the obvious colloration between anti-theism and anti-semitism. You will silence, that is what this is about. Not policy or history. But getting rid of what you don't like. This is what you seem. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to be careful. I haven't seen any disagreement here that the State Atheist regime in the USSR was responsible, especially up to the second world war, for the arrest or murder of a great many people for their beliefs or opinions, including religious opinions or positions. There is debate about the numbers, and objections to fringe sources being used instead of mainstream research, but the fact of repression, including murderous repression, is not in question. However, State Atheism has its own article. As does Persecution of Christians. As does Society of the Godless. And as does antireligion (though I think that's a dubious subject for an article). Your personal preference is to call the antireligious policy of the Soviet Union "antitheist". But there appears to be little warrant in the literature for your particular preference to carry the day; and the term "antitheist" has established meanings which are not synonymous either with "militant atheism" (either as the policy of the USSR or as a phrase used for campaigning or vocal atheists). In your opinion, "antitheism" is the label that best characterises State Atheism in the USSR. But your opinion is not the subject of this article, or of any interest to Wikipedia generally. If I had my way, "antitheism" would be a subsection of "atheism", because I think it's main use has really been as a synonym for atheism, then as a signifier or either strong atheism or campaigning atheism; and in the philosophy of religion for the notion of an evil deity. But unfortunately I'm not dictator of Wikipedia and I don't get to impose my preferences on everyone else. Please understand that whatever our particular theological position, our concern should be to build an enyclopedia, not to classify political systems according to individual desire. The fact is, "antitheism" is simply not what State Atheism is the USSR is called. --Dannyno (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again your actions betray your words. For you can not justfy this edit you did today.[12]

It does not stand that you can claim to be informed about this and have such an opinion and then make the edit I listed. I can not deny this obvious --Non sequitur-- between your edits and your comments. And I will continue to point them out. I am here to collaborate not delete and silence. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"NPOV" stands for "neutral point of view", not "every point of view"; if all views were required to be included, we'd spend as much time on Earth expounding the flat Earth theory as the round Earth one. It is more accurate to say that Wikipedia is required to take no point of view (or an indifferent one) than to say that it is required to take every point of view — and that is precisely what is occurring here, since Wikipedia isn't say "antitheism is great! those guys didn't slaughter anyone at all!"; nor is it saying the opposite, as you would like. It simply isn't broaching the issue here, because the relevant citations only establish the issue's relationship to state atheism, not to antitheism per se.
If you think it is pedantry to demand that you provide a citation that actually uses the word this article is about, then you are simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Before continuing this debate, I recommend thoroughly reading Wikipedia:No original research (particularly (Wikipedia:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (particularly Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a memorial). It's really quite a brisk read. If the Soviets persecuted Buddhists as atheists, that suggests that their actions weren't antitheistic, but rather antireligious. You are on the wrong article. I understand your indignation, since you do not seem to comprehend Wikipedia's original research policy, but you came to this article seeking to push a particular point of view, and when requested to provide sources that actually explicitly demonstrated your point's relevancy, you have simply complained and made accusations rather than doing the work needed to improve the article. I recommend a slightly different approach. -Silence (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV also does not mean no point of view. Again it appears that editors here and now an administrator are trying to reduce what they don't like to fringe. As NPOV hinges on, not no point of view as you imply but the most significant ones. Policy states that the obvious does not have to be sourced. As for the your comment about policy, your wasting your time. As my AFD on the article Libertarianism (metaphysics) shows that due to the ambigious policy here on Wikipedia the term here can be used in exactly the way you are denying it. Since no libertarians of the past are now no longer libertarian simply because no one with a peer review work explicitly called them that. This does not follow. Either there is policy or the whims of the administrators. Right now it looks like policy is a joke and it pretty is whatever the bias of the article administrator is. And your explicit bias is an atheist one as your personal page explicitly shows.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can justify the edit you draw attention to. I did so in the comment on the reason for making the edit. It's a fringe source which is out of step with mainstream scholarship on the victims of Lenin/Stalin, that's the first reason. The second reason is that the way it was written was a misrepresentation of the source anyway, i.e. it didn't say what the text said it said. It's really a straightforward couple of points. --Dannyno (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "It is more accurate to say that Wikipedia is required to take no point of view (or an indifferent one) than to say that it is required to take every point of view"; Wikipedia (at least ideally) does not take a particular point of view, it reports on points of view. (I also noted the noteworthiness/'equal weight' corollary in the "flat Earth" example.) I have no particular interest in this article's contents, so I don't care what ultimately gets included here; for the sake of neutrality, however, it seems clear that we cannot include anything which does not use the word "antitheism", since then we will be relying on our own, personal opinions and judgment calls to discern relevant material—if we aren't careful and discerning, this article could just become a POV fork of criticism of religion, antireligion, and state atheism rolled into one, since it sounds like the editors here are not being careful to at all to differentiate 'antitheism' from 'antireligion', at the same time that they are completely disregarding the NOR requirement that we not synthesize information in a substantially novel way, or 'connect the dots' as it were, much as we'd like to.
I would also remind you that personal attacks are not welcome on article talk pages. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you disagree with a policy, take it up on the policy page itself. -Silence (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Personal attacks and name calling aren't welcome.Utopial (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I disagree with the contents or edits being made to an article I am to take it up on the articles talkpage. I think it noteworth that the policy on wikipedia is to bend to the whim of administrators and that it is not a matter of sources it is a matter of the whim of administrators as the argumentative sorrowful browbeating of editors here and my afd on the libertarian metaphysical article shows. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administration abuse[edit]

Administrator Silence posted this comment.

You are on the wrong article. I understand your indignation, since you do not seem to comprehend Wikipedia's original research policy, but you came to this article seeking to push a particular point of view, and when requested to provide sources that actually explicitly demonstrated your point's relevancy, you have simply complained and made accusations rather than doing the work needed to improve the article. I recommend a slightly different approach.

LoveMonkeys response.
These are the sources I posted. Plenteous. You are being argumentive.

Also........ see Dimitry Pospielovsky [13].[14])[15][16] [17] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't yet answered my question: Does any reputable source you've provided actually use the term 'antitheism'? That is all that matters for the purposes of this article. I have visited all of those links, and do not see the term in use. Some of those sources might be of some use on articles that are actually about this topic that so concerns you, so I do not know why you're wasting valuable time on a tangentially-related article like this. I'm also not clear on what 'administration abuse' you're referring to, since I haven't utilized any administrative ability in this discussion. If by 'administration abuse' you simply mean 'an administrator is voicing an opinion I disagree with', I would respectfully advise against throwing that phrase around quite so casually. My actions here are as an editor, not as an admin. (If you do have an objection to my conduct, do feel free to explain how I've erred on my talk page; this Talk page is just for discussion of the article antitheism.) -Silence (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true since anti-theism is used to describe the offending and guilty regimes I am referring. Here is a piece or two doing just that.
"This was the time when Starets Alexis Metchev opposed the calls for an anti-Bolshevik crusade made by some emigre bishops, and declared that a powerful spiritual renewal was the only way in which Russia would be able to overcome anti-theism."[18][19][20][ So its not that no one is doing it, your wrong. This is not coming from just me.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem with having a whole page for a word which has been used in various ways but is not clearly and unambiguously the recognised term for a particular viewpoint or ideology.

I'm saddened by the way in which LoveMonkey has presented those supposedly conclusive sources. In fact, they are odd. First of all, the issue is what historians think happened, not various martyr memorial sites; second none of the sources posted support the 20 million figure from World Christian Trends. Indeed, only one even mentions that figure, and then only to say they've not been able to consult World Christian Trends or assess the figures. I own Storming the Heavens, and it does not support the 20 million figure or cite World Christian Trends. I searched Their Blood Cries Out on amazon.co.uk, and it does not support the 20 million figure or cite World Christian Trends. I also own the three volume set on Soviet Antireligious Campaigns, and that doesn't support the 20 million figure or cite World Christian Trends either. In other words, each and every of the "sources" you have posted is irrelevant, even the one which mentions the figure and the source (only to say they've not read it). Third, the "New Martyrs" concept is new to me but appears to be widespread, and there is a wikipedia entry on New Martyrs. Perhaps you could legitimately refer to some of those sources on that article? --Dannyno (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovemonkey response to Dannyno[edit]

Dannyno wrote
I'm saddened by the way in which LoveMonkey has presented those supposedly conclusive sources.

LoveMonkeys response
Comment is meaningless conjecture and does nothing at best it muses over and makes unproductive comments on editors emotional state that no one has requested.

Dannyno wrote
In fact, they are odd.

LoveMonkeys response
I guess that's almost an improvement over your previously calling the figure and the source fringe.

Dannyno wrote
First of all, the issue is what historians think happened, not various martyr memorial sites; second none of the sources posted support the 20 million figure from World Christian Trends.

LoveMonkeys response
Forgive my restrained but frustrated response, in that you are misrepresenting the data posted and what is only defaming a widely used and valid source in that you continue to misrepresent and mislead by leaving out Whites comment that Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it Site from the World Christian Encyclopedia.

  • David Barrett, Todd Johnson, Justin Long

o World Christian Encyclopedia (2001): This book is the standard reference work for religious statistics of all kinds, and both Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it. It has a single page [21] estimating the number of martyrs since the origin of each religion:

  • Muslim martyrs: 80M
  • Christian martyrs: 70M
  • 20th Century: 45.4M
  • At the hands of...
'* Atheists: 31,689,000

[22]

You also ignore

Let alone I posted that the Ottawa Citizen validates at least 15 million...

The Ottawa Citizen (20 Dec. 1998)
   * 15M Christians d. in Soviet prison camps because of their faith.
   * citing Paul Marshall, ---Their Blood Cries Out--

So the Ottawa Times is lying about --Their Blood Cries Out--? And the Ottawa Citizen then validates the larger number of 24 million total.

The Ottawa Citizen (6 Feb. 1993)
   * Citing D. Barret, Our Globe and How to Reach It
   * 40M Christians martyred throughout history.
   * ca. 24M by secular governments and atheists
   * ca. 8M k. by other Christians

So is White lying about the Ottawa Citizen? Is the Ottawa Citizen? I have now posted this repeatedly and you keep ignoring and denying it, why?

Not just this but you are also defaming the historical and scientific evidence of a horrible and evil tragic human set of atrocities (martyr memorial sites). Your sad over some sort of perceived wiki policy violations, but even if the numbers 10 million it seems completely lost on you. You edit and revert warred when all you had to do was post the total as 15 to 20 million depending on source.

Dannyno wrote
Third, the "New Martyrs" concept is new to me but appears to be widespread, and there is a wikipedia entry on New Martyrs. Perhaps you could legitimately refer to some of those sources on that article?

LoveMonkeys response
I already have. Post the figures from the books you claim to own. What are the figures from those works Dannyno. Post them..I posted them as quoted by the Ottawa Citizen via White. Thats 2 sources using and posting numbers you say are not there. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dannyno response to Lovemonkey's response to Dannyno[edit]

That's the worst format to respond to! --Dannyno (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


LoveMonkeys response

Forgive my restrained but frustrated response, in that you are misrepresenting the data posted and what is only defaming a widely used and valid source in that you continue to misrepresent and mislead by leaving out Whites comment that Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it Site from the World Christian Encyclopedia.


This issue obviously upsets you, but I’m not trying to “misrepresent” or “defame” anything. All I’m doing is pointing out that the source is fringe, and that citing it gives it undue weight. The figure you have in mind of 70 million total victims of Leninist/Stalinist oppression is on the far extreme upper range of estimates. That’s why the source is fringe and quoting it is undue weight. Other statistics in the source may be fine; the general methodology used by the editors may be entirely mainstream – but this particular figure is fringe. You accuse me of misrepresentation and being misleading by leaving out the comment “Britannia and the World Alamanac cite from it”. Strictly speaking, this is irrelevant because the problem here is with a particular figure which is out of line with the scholarly mainstream, not with the source as a whole (though serious questions have indeed been raised about the source as a whole, by professionals and academics – why, after all, was World Christian Trends, intended to be vol 3 of WCE, not published by OUP?). Unfortunately, it is White’s statement which is at very least misleading. What does it mean, exactly? Does it mean that the World Almanac and Encyclopaedia Britannica quote WCT’s martyrdom statistics? Neither do so. The fact of the matter is that David Barratt, of the WCE and WCT, calculates Britannica’s Book of the Year world religious adherents table of statistics – which are the basis for the World Almanac’s data. [23]. This is not relevant to my point.

--Dannyno (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

LoveMonkeys response

Let alone I posted that the Ottawa Citizen validates at least 15 million...

The Ottawa Citizen (20 Dec. 1998)
   * 15M Christians d. in Soviet prison camps because of their faith.
   * citing Paul Marshall, ---Their Blood Cries Out--

So the Ottawa Times is lying about --Their Blood Cries Out--? And the Ottawa Citizen then validates the larger number of 24 million total.

The Ottawa Citizen (6 Feb. 1993)
   * Citing D. Barret, Our Globe and How to Reach It
   * 40M Christians martyred throughout history.
   * ca. 24M by secular governments and atheists
   * ca. 8M k. by other Christians

So is White lying about the Ottawa Citizen? Is the Ottawa Citizen? I have now posted this repeatedly and you keep ignoring and denying it, why?

When you first cited the Ottawa Citizen stuff, I observed that we need reliable, mainstream, scholarly historical sources. This is neither ignoring the Ottawa Citizen, nor “denying” it . All the Ottawa Citizen is reported to have done is quote a couple of books, which use data I have already pointed out conflicts with mainstream historical estimates on total deaths in the USSR. The Ottawa Citizen advances the discussion not one iota further. No, I don’t think White is lying about the Ottawa Citizen. I’m sure he’s quite right that the Ottawa Citizen quoted those books. The issue is with the data, and the fact that the data is fringe. Of course, it’s worth saying once again that White, in quoting the Ottawa Citizen, is not doing so out of approval, but as part of a critical discussion of such figures. However, I double checked the Ottawa Citizen, using Nexis UK. I found the article of 20 December 1998 cited by White. And it turns out that although Marshall is quoted, he doesn’t provide the 15 million figure. No, that figure is quoted from the World Christian Encyclopedia. The article says, “It is estimated that at least 18 million Eastern Orthodox and Catholic believers died between 1917 and 1980, most of them in the Soviet Union's prison camps.”, which is a different claim to that being considered here . “Their Blood Cries Out”, which I’ve searched using Amazon, doesn’t use the WCE’s 18/20 million figures. If anyone has the book itself, and can cite Marshall using that data, then let them do so and I’ll accept the correction. However, it won’t affect my point. Then I checked the 6 Feb 1993 Ottawa Citizen article. The D. Barrett cited is of course the editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia, so it’s not an independent source. And more fundamentally there is nothing in the article that is relevant to the present discussion.

LoveMonkeys response
Not just this but you are also defaming the historical and scientific evidence of a horrible and evil tragic human set of atrocities (martyr memorial sites). Your sad over some sort of perceived wiki policy violations, but even if the numbers 10 million it seems completely lost on you. You edit and revert warred when all you had to do was post the total as 15 to 20 million depending on source.

I take exception to this abuse. Please desist. What we want here are mainstream historical references. The martyr memorial sites you posted, apart from not being the kind of mainstream historical references we need here, also did not mention anything of relevance to the particular issue under discussion. I reject the accusation of “revert warring”. I removed the disputed data, explained why, and invited discussion. Instead of that, and being able to arrive at a consensus, I’ve been forced to defend myself from accusations of “misrepresentation” and all kinds of other dreadful things. I volunteered the Black Book of Communism’s figures. I’ve had no feedback on that, and in any case we have a more central debate now about whether or not this article is even encyclopaedic. I remain willing to post mainstream figures once we have a consensus about where we are going (and I have time).

LoveMonkeys response
Post the figures from the books you claim to own. What are the figures from those works Dannyno. Post them..

“Claim”? Was that necessary? I’ve cited Robert Conquest’s data on total victims from the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Black Book of Communism I’ve also already cited. However, it discusses religious persecution especially on p.172-174 without attempting to provide total numbers of victims on specifically religious grounds. Peris’ Storming the Heavens, which you cited, doesn’t provide any statistics on total victims, as I said – I’ve just now skimmed through it again. Pospielovsky, “A History of Marxist-leninist atheism and soviet anti-religious policies”, vol 1, gives some estimated data for priests, but only says “incalculable millions” for lay believers (p.ix). There are no overall stats in the three volumes.

LoveMonkeys response
I posted them as quoted by the Ottawa Citizen via White. Thats 2 sources using and posting numbers you say are not there. 

It’s not that the numbers are not there, but that they are the same numbers.  All you have here is White referring to two Ottawa Citizen articles, both of which are citing the figures were are disputing here.

--Dannyno (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on sources[edit]

Dannyno, World Christian Trends is so far the only purely statistical source. Journalistic articles and books on broad Soviet history aren't focused on statistics. That does mean that the WCT source carries a significant amount of weight (which is why it's used by major encyclopedias), although other sources may merit a mention alongside the WCT figure to present a range so long as they are statistically reliable.
On the topic of the use of the word 'anti-theism', i think that there are several issues with requiring its use for every single source in this article. Firstly, it's a rare word and people often prefer to use the word anti-religious than the very slightly broader term anti-theistic (check google scholar counts). The soviet events are defined as anti-theistic by some sources. An example of where this policy is not used, and there are many, is the pro-choice page - various references are made to sources that don't use the term 'pro-choice'. I think that one source defining the events as anti-theistic is all that is needed. Trying to enforce an opinion that all sources need it is not supported by wikipedia policy, inconsistent with most wikipedia articles and generally dogmatic POV sophistry. Utopial (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utopial: at least your responses are on the right side of reasonable. LoveMonkey's approach is increasingly unhelpful, in my opinion - even now the extent of pretty much accusing me of lying about owning some of those books! Certainly there's a noticeable lack of assumption of good faith.

On WCT: the problem, as I've said, is that the numbers given there are quite clearly at the far extreme end of estimates. Citing them and them alone is thus to give the far extreme estimate undue weight. That's the problem wikipedia faces in using those numbers.

You mention that WCT is "used by major encyclopedias". That's misleading. What is used by Britannica are estimates from the editors of the World Christian Encyclopedia/WCT (using its methodology) for its "Book of the Year" world religious affiliation statistics. Which doesn't at all address my point about undue weight being given to the WCT's estimates on deaths as a consequence of anti-religious policy. The EB article on the USSR gives the number of deaths from the 1921 famine as 5.1 million. Dekulakisation is said to have led to 2 million deaths; 2 million Kazaks probably died in the collectivisation effort; during the 1932-33 famine another 8 million died; the 1937 census counted 162 million people, set against an expected 177 million - thus 15 million short. EB says "The population deficit, including a decline in births, was thus some 15 million, of which premature death due to deportation and famine are believed to account for at least 10 million." During the 1937/38 purges, half of the 2.3 million party members were executed or died in labour camps. This terror also led to 5 million arrests among the public, and EB says that about 10 % survived. The article is written by Robert Conquest. The total number of victims of Lenin and Stalin is thus somewhere around the 20+ million mark, by his reckoning. Calling of them "martyrs" absolutely undue weight.

I agree with you on the issue of sources needing to specifically mention "antitheism". Were "antitheism" a clear position it would be possible to look back and see who fitted the definition. But it isn't a clear position - that's where I'm coming from: this whole article is unencyclopedic as it stands. All we have here is a bunch of unrelated uses of a particular term. It's not useful. --Dannyno (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if the sources are statistically reliable, it's worth putting them in to have a range. I don't have an 'opinion' on how many were killed (for their theism/religion).
Yeh I think that these discussions have proven that anti-theism and militant atheism are both rare, ambiguous and possibly unencyclopedic terms. I guess wikipedia should address them, but I'm not sure how. It almost seems as though both terms have been figmented in the last 10 yrs and that's why wiki documentation on both looks like a haphazard mesh of crap from all over the place.Utopial (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of references that fal to use "antitheism" or "antitheist"[edit]

This article should only be for the use of antitheism. We should not use any section or reference unless it uses the words, antitheism or antitheist. This article is drifting into a WP:COATRACK for post-child anti-clericalism which is a completely different beast from anti-theism. I propose that we drop all the sections that are presenting anti-clericalism as anti-theism and use a See also to anti-clericalism. This means dropping the sections on the Soviet Union and Albania. These are anti-clerical and in most cases anti-catholic, for obvious reasons if you are running a country. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that historical events that are solely anti-clerical shouldn't be included. The soviet/albanian events were more than anti-clerical, however, as the sources and evidence show. If a resource talked about the number of jews killed by nazis because they were jewish, should it be ignored for not using the word anti-semitism? No. Synonyms, equivalent descriptions and general intuition exist. Numerous other sources state the soviet/albanian events were antitheistic. Utopial (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the Nazi example we wouldn't spuriously use Nazi in reference to anti-zionist simply because they were anti-semitic. The moved sections on militant atheism should be in their own article. I think there was an article a long time ago but without enough refs so I think it got AFD'd. The bits below seem enough to move to their own article and not be too much of a neologism. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED: examples of militant atheism[edit]

this section is unencylopedic (the article tag has noted this about the article). It reads like a tabloid or diary of the latest happenings. I am transferring this information here for the meantime. If necessary, a new category article can be created for 'militant atheists', the category link can be put on this article's footer and descriptions of their militant atheism can go in each individuals biography article.

Further examples of the term militant atheism include:

  • The 19th-century political activist Charles Bradlaugh has been described as "the first militant atheist in the history of Western civilization",[1] and the term has also been applied to other 19th-century thinkers such as Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach[2] and Annie Besant.[3]
  • Figures in the 20th century in the USA and the UK who have been described as militant atheists include Joseph McCabe[4] and Michael Newdow.[5][6] In his book Schopenhauer, Religion and Morality: the Humble Path to Ethics Gerard Mannion disputes "the textbook assessment of Schopenhauer as militant atheist and absolute pessimist."[7]
  • In 1965 Francis Crick explained that some lectures of his "will not be militantly anti-Christian, but nevertheless will be directed against the sort of ideas at present held by many religious people." [8] More recent examples of the use of the term include an opinion piece by Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph entitled "Militant atheists: too clever for their own good", [9] and an article in the same newspaper by Raj Persaud, who applies the term to Richard Dawkins.[10] The editor of Quadrant Magazine also refers to Dawkins in these terms, and suggests that Dawkins' views are an extreme example of intolerance.[11] Kevin Drum in the Washington Monthly applies the term to Polly Toynbee.[12] RJ Eskow in The Huffington Post refers to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, saying "I believe most atheists are progressive, enlightened people who are simply 'nonbelievers.' My quarrel is only with those who advocate the elimination of religion based on grandiose and unsubstantiated claims."[13]
  • The Argentinian Supreme Court Judge Carmen Argibay apparently describes herself as a "militant atheist",[14] and the journalist and campaigner Paul Foot has been praised as a "militant atheist".[15] Comedian Kathy Griffin identifies herself as a militant atheist.[16]
  • french revolution: The same applies to some of their international sympathisers, such as Thomas Holcroft.[17]
No I think these belong in the main article - and there are now many others. NBeale (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can create a category article for this, and put these 'stories' in each person's own article. To begin with you need to define the term. It's also unencyclopedic and more suitable to a tabloid or teenager's magazine. Utopial (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Militant Atheism redirects here. We really need therefore to have something that explains the term. However AFAIK a formal definition of Militant Atheism isn't widely available, so it would be WP:OR. We can however collect instances from Reliable Sources and see what happens. (PS what is this nonsense about teen mags?) NBeale (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including information about 'militant atheism' here would currently be original research; I checked the book which was being used to justify equating anti-theism and militant atheism, and while it discusses militant atheism plenty, it never once mentions anti-theism. So that's out. I wish we could just have one big article discussing all the different 'aggressive atheist' stances (or caricatures), but it would be an original synthesis of information. And I'm not sure there's enough on 'evangelical atheism' or 'militant atheism' to justify full articles. So my current recommendation is: Spend a sentence or two on atheism and state atheism (where the connection is more unambiguous and direct) explaining at least 'militant atheism', and then make militant atheism into a disambiguation page linking to (1) antireligion, (2) antitheism, and (3) state atheism. I don't really like having to resort to dab pages, but it seems like the most useful thing we could do for our readers without breaching NPOR or NOR. -Silence (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be sense in that approach. I'm not really sure there's enough to "antitheism" to warrant its own page anyway, since usually it's used as a synonym for atheism, or for strong atheism, or for campaiging atheism, or for USSR-style "militant atheism"/State Atheism, or, for contrast, the notion in philosophy of religion of an evil deity. --Dannyno (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is plenty of material to make a Militant Atheism page - it is a term that goes back at least to 1922 and there are over 32k ghits, compared to only 9k for "evangelical atheism". I don't think it should be a dab page but on in its own right. However let's incubate this a bit, and see if we can improve the section here further. NBeale (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it goes back further than 1922. It was widely used in the late nineteenth century, but mainly as an insult against campaigning anti-religious freethinkers (some of whom adopted it for themselves anyway). --Dannyno (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For NOR reasons we can't improve it here while there are no cites directly linking it to antitheism. However, we can move the section to Talk:Antitheism/Militant atheism while it's under development, and continue collaborating until there's agreement to move it to a brand-new article, Militant atheism. I recommend bringing up this option to WP:A as well, since it relates to the overall plans for the atheism series (e.g., if there is any possibility of making a 'new atheism' article in the future, it would be a lot less useful to have a separate article, since there is plenty of usage, both by detractors and members like Hitchens, linking new atheism with militant atheism, fallacious and biased as that link may perhaps be.) If there's consensus to make it an article. However, I don't think the material coheres well enough yet. It's mostly just a laundry list of word uses at this point. What would most benefit this section is if there are any academic (e.g., sociological) articles discussing 'militant atheism' as a social or historical phenomenon. -Silence (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the examples given, it's mainly pejorative usage. We are merely demonstrating the ambiguity of the term. I don't know who this is helping, really, since the term doesn't represent a fixed position of any kind. It's starting to look like a POV fork. --Dannyno (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baggini's definition seems pretty good. It is a widely used term in the academic and non-academic literature. Since there is a redirect from Militant Atheism to this article we must either have a section on M.A. or take off the redirect and have a separate article. And actually many of the references given are people using this term with approval. NBeale (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a widely used term, but there is no consistency in the way it is used, and there is no accepted scholarly meaning. Baggini's definition is tendentious and polemical: "hostility" is alright, but then he's into pejorative characterisation.

Counting through the references: Baggini is negative, #9 (Dawkins) is just a google search' #10 (Dawkins) is neutral as written; #11 (Harris) is just a google search; #12 (Harris) doesn't actually call Harris a militant atheist directly - Hari refers to himself in such terms in distinguishing himself from Harris; #13 (Bradlaugh) links to an inaccurate article (Bradlaugh did not "refuse" to swear allegiance); #14 (Feuerbach) is neutral but unexplained; #15 (Besant) doesn't seem to mention militant atheism, as far as I can tell - it's a confusing site; #16 (McCabe) appears to be neutral but is undefined; #17 (Newdow) comes from the magazine of the John Birch society. It's not online but I'm guessing its negative; #18 (Newdow) is used in a negative commentary; #19 (Schopenhauer) is a rejection of the label, but there is no indication of what is meant by it; #20 (Crick) similarly doesn't explain the meaning of the term, while apparently regarding it as negative; #21 (Moore) is pejorative; #22 (Persaud) is neutral going on negative but doesn't explain the meaning of the term; #24 (Drum) is neutral as part of negative commentary, but doesn't explain the meaning of the term; #25 (Eskow) is pejorative; #26 (Hobson) is pejorative; #27 (Argibay) is self-applied without explanation; #28 (Cohen on Foot) doesn't explain what is meant by the term; #29 (Griffin) is self-applied but her actual position appears to be merely that she doesn't care what anyone believes, which isn't especially militant!; #30 (Holcroft) is mildly negative but also unexplained; #31 (Engels) leaves the phrase unexplained; #32 (Lenin) at least explains what is meant; #33 (League of Militant Godless) again is self-explanatory; #34 (Phillips) is pejorative; #35 (Blackburn) is pejorative; #35 (Fiala) is hostile but also doesn't properly define the term.

So I don't see that "many" of the references are approving at all. And after all that, what has the reader learned? Not much. The League of Militant Godless clearly aren't on the same ideological page as, say, Charles Bradlaugh or Polly Toynbee. And while there is an apologetic that would lump them all together, actually "militant atheism" has little real meaning outside of certain organisations of pre-WW2 USSR. It's looking to me that this is wasting everyone's time. --Dannyno (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, I did some google searches on "militant Christian" and "militant feminist", both of which are widely used but do not have wikipedia entries. On the other hand, feminazi does exist, and handles the issue as well as can be expected. "Militant trade unionist" is widely used but has no entry, likewise "militant anarchist", "militant palestinian", "militant liberal" and so forth and so on. My view is therefore hardening: the only straightforward use of the term was by the Leninist/Stalinist anti-religious movement; other than that it's not encyclopedic, in my view. --Dannyno (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there's enough usage for a mention in various articles (state atheism, atheism, history of atheism, and perhaps antitheism too, but not for a full-fledged article or a section in one. As such, I still recommend a dab page with the aforementioned links. Not all widely used terms are good encyclopedic terms, unfortunately; sometimes they're either so vague, or so direct, that little could be said about them beyond a laundry list of uses, as Dannyno's excellent survey suggests. -Silence (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic point is that "Militant Atheism" redirects here. Given the redirect we need to say something about it. (Also the fact that there isn't an article on Y is a very bad reason for removing a section of an article on X. And FWIW there are 2x as many GHits for Militant Atheism and Militant Feminism) NBeale (talk)
My point is less "we can't have this because we don't have that", but an attempt to compare usage. "Militant" usually isn't usually an actual position; it's just a pejorative or euphemistic adjective. We could stop Militant Atheism directing here and direct it to the League of Godless instead, of course. --Dannyno (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED: Evangelical atheism[edit]

this isnt antitheism, it's pro-atheism. if anywhere it should go in the atheism article. it's also 2 long and poorly written. Ill place it here in case someone wants to use it.

Harvard botanist and Christian Asa Gray, one of the first supporters of Darwin's theory of evolution, first noted the phenomenon in 1868 when he referred to "the English-materialistic-positivistic line of thought".[18] Such thought was usually associated with Thomas Huxley at the time.

The religious nature of Huxley's beliefs were referenced in Janet Browne's biography of Charles Darwin:

Huxley was rampaging on miracles and the existence of the soul. A few months later, he was to coin the word "agnostic" to describe his own position as neither a believer nor a disbeliever, but one who considered himself free to inquire rationally into the basis of knowledge. . .

The term fitted him well . . . and it caught the attention of the other free thinking, rational doubters in Huxley's ambit, and came to signify a particularly active form of scientific rationalism during the final decades of the 19th century...

In his hands, agnosticism became as doctrinaire as anything else—a religion of skepticism. Huxley used it as a creed that would place him on a higher moral plane than even bishops and archbishops. All the evidence would nevertheless suggest that Huxley was sincere in his rejection of the charge of outright atheism against himself.

To inquire rigorously into the spiritual domain, he asserted, was a more elevated undertaking than slavishly to believe or disbelieve. "A deep sense of religion is compatible with the entire absence of theology," he had told [Anglican clergyman] Charles Kingsley back in 1860. "Pope Huxley", the [magazine] Spectator dubbed him. The label stuck."[19]

Dan Barker is an American atheist writer, former Christian minister, and co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In 1993, Barker wrote an article on "Evangelical atheism" in which he provided advice to atheists interested in promoting atheism:

I am not suggesting that every atheist should be an evangelist. Some are better off temporarily keeping their views to themselves for job security or family harmony. Some freethinkers wisely wait until they retire, when they have little to lose, before they become vocal. In certain communities, open unbelief can be costly. [...]

If you decide to be evangelistic, then ask yourself what you hope to accomplish. Are you trying to win an argument? To simply end an argument? To demolish the enemy? To chase bigoted theocrats from your door?

We want to enhance self image, not squash it. You can't yank someone out of the fold. If your objective is to end up with a friend, then woo them, don't boo them. You may not respect their current views, but you can respect their potential to learn.[20]

Paul Kurtz, editor in chief of Free Inquiry, has written an opinion piece criticizing the criticism of Dawkins, Harris and Daniel Dennett in which he discusses the usage of the term "evangelical" in this context.[21]

References

  1. ^ Charles Bradlaugh was the first militant Atheist in the history of Western civilization
  2. ^ The Debate Between Feuerbach and Stirner: An Introduction, in The Philosophical Forum 8, number 2-3-4, (1976)- available on the web here
  3. ^ Encyclopedia.com entry
  4. ^ A Rebel to His Last Breath: Joseph McCabe and Rationalism
  5. ^ The New American Vol. 18, No. 15 July 29, 2002
  6. ^ Commentary by Les Kinsolving [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37871 here]
  7. ^ Ashgate book description
  8. ^ Letter 14 December 1965 PP/CRI/E/1/14/5 cited in Wellcome Trust biography of Crick
  9. ^ "Militant atheists: too clever for their own good"
  10. ^ "Holy visions elude scientists"
  11. ^ Science versus Religion. Quadrant Magazine February 2007
  12. ^ Huffing over Narnia
  13. ^ 15 Questions Militant Atheists Should Ask Before Trying to "Destroy Religion"
  14. ^ see refs in her Wikipedia article
  15. ^ Nick Cohen pays homage to his friend Paul Foot in The Guardian
  16. ^ Blase DiStefano (June 2007). "Foul-Mouthed and Funny". OutSmart. Retrieved 2007-07-01.
  17. ^ Review of The French Revolution and the London Stage 1789-1805. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  18. ^ Browne, Janet The Power of Place, Volume 2 of the Biography of Charles Darwin (Alfred Knopf, 2002), page 310
  19. ^ Browne, Janet The Power of Place, Volume 2 of the Biography of Charles Darwin (Alfred Knopf, 2002), pages 309-310
  20. ^ Barker, Dan Evangelistic Atheism: Leading Believers Astray in Freethought Today, 1993
  21. ^ Kurtz, Paul. "Religion in Conflict: Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?". Retrieved 2007-03-28.

Is New World Enclyclopedia a WP:RS and WP:N ?[edit]

The New World Encyclopedia control and funding is in part from the Universal Peace Federation who has a motto of "One Family Under God." It is part of the Unification Church as an affiliated Educational organizations. Given the church founder sees a "dark spirit of atheism" (ref: [24]) it is unreasonable to expect that the New World Encyclopedia would be neutral in defining anything related to Atheism or secular philosophies without an editorial spin that would make it not very neutral. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I had no idea - let's get rid of the ref. NBeale (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I wouldn't care too much but the trouble with the NWE is that the ..."New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. "...which means that we effectively could be failing WP:CIRCULAR. But more interesting to address the editorial angle first. Ttiotsw (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results of state-enforced antitheism/miltant atheism[edit]

There was a section in this article that went: "According to historian Michael Burleigh, antitheism found its first mass expression in revolutionary France in response to organised resistance to "organised ... irreligion...an 'anti-clerical' and self-styled 'non-religious' state.[1]

The Soviet Union imposed state atheism and antireligious campaigns were directed at all faiths[2], including Christian, Buddhist and Shamanist religions. The government nationalised all church property, executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted members of religious groups[3][4]. The result of this was the death of 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians by the Soviet government, not including torture or other religious ethnicities killed.[5]

Communist Albania imposed state atheism and had an objective for the eventual destruction of all religion in Albania, including a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda[6]. The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946.[7] [8]"

There has been a heated discussion about whether such information should be included and I suspect it is not in the right form. But there should be some recognition that antitheism has not, historically, been purely a matter of pamphleteering. Since atheists often seek to contrast their militancy, which is allegedly purely verbal, with religious militants who (sometimes) kill people NBeale (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that only sources that use the term 'antitheism' are allowed to be in the article (a point i have attempted to refute a few edits back as being inconsistent with wikipedia policy, most wikipedia articles (e.g. pro-choice uses sources that dont feature this term) and POV sophistry). The sections you quote above use the term antireligion and for this reason I have transferred it to the antireligion article instead. Google scholar shows that antitheism is a relatively rare term, with most sources electing to use the slightly narrower term 'antireligion' instead. Even if some sources use the term to define, for example, soviet acts, most sources containing detailed info do not.Utopial (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem here is that "antitheism" is a vague and ambiguous term. It doesn't represent a clear ideology or point of view. So when NBeale says "antitheism has not, historically, been purely a matter of pamphleteering", it is hard to know what this means, because "antitheism" is not a movement or identifiable trend. It's been used for all manner of positions, and it makes no sense to treat them as though they were the same position, with moderate and extreme wings. There is plenty of recognition on wikipedia of extremist ideologies which have sought to impose atheism - we have the State Atheism article for example. I've suggested Militant atheism could serve to describe aspects of Soviet anti-religious policy. If we need to talk about the role of atheism or atheists in the French Revolution, then why not create an article about that? "Antitheism" has all the signs of a POV fork, and is unencyclopedic. I think antitheism and anti-religion are misconceived; what useful content there is belongs elsewhere. Although, thinking about it, perhaps "antitheism" should concentrate on the "evil deity" idea in philosophy of religion, merely noting that the word has other uses. --Dannyno (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Michael Burleigh Earthly Powers p 96-97 ISBN 0-00-719572-9
  2. ^ http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm
  3. ^ http://www.jstor.org/pss/125428
  4. ^ http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm
  5. ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-5 & 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing NOTE: They define 'martyr' on p235 as only including christians killed for faith and excluding other christians killed
  6. ^ http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm
  7. ^ http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm
  8. ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing

Conflation of "militant" definitions[edit]

There's a big problem here - we present just one definition of militant atheism, meaning "actively hostile to religion". But later, we present a couple of sources of different people referring to Dawkins and Harris as "militant". The fallacy is that there is no evidence that they are using the same definition as Julian Baggini. (Other definitions might include anyone who is activist - similar to "militant feminists"; in some cases it might even be used by atheists to describe themselves or other people, without it intended to imply hostility or hatred.) Similarly for the other atheists listed there.

So I would suggest we really need more sources to describe different meanings of "militant" (and note that most of them are not related to antitheism). It's also probably best to attribute the labels used for Dawkins and Harris (and perhaps the others listed there), since we only have one source for each (Google searches are not reliable sources).

Also see Militant#Adjective_usage which gives definitions such as "aggressive, especially in the service of a cause", and does not seem to necessarily go as far as to say hostility or hatred. Also note Militant#Span_of_militancy which states "The phrase militant atheist is usually used confrontationally when discussing those people who are more outspoken than the general population on subjects which explicitly or implicitly promote atheism[27], but is also used in a non-contentious manner to describe those who persecute religion in general." - I agree with this, and I think this should be mentioned here too. Mdwh (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there are dozens of problems with this section, too many to justify its inclusion. I'm going to remove it and turn Militant atheism into a disambiguation page (loathe as I am to do so whenever a redirect is remotely feasible); this can always be reversed later, if the passages in question are improved sufficiently to justify re-insertion here or in another (or new) article. But I don't think we should leave such poorly-sourced, contradictory material lying around on a completely unrelated (at least, by NOR standards if not by our own intellectual ones) article in the meantime. -Silence (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me :) If the material should exist at all, I think it should be elsewhere, e.g., in Militant atheism as its own article, as I think it's misleading to suggest that all these usages of the term are examples of antitheism (similarly, I think it's POV to redirect Militant atheism to this article, so I agree with turning it into a disambiguation page - Militant would be another obvious target for it). Mdwh (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already linked Militant on the Militant atheist dab, along (of course) with atheism. This term is probably far too narrow in use to warrant a mention on Militant, though it might fit someplace on Atheism. The best candidate for a few sentences here and there is probably History of atheism, where it seems to have some significant usage in the Soviet Union and perhaps among (or with regard to, at least) the 'New Atheists'. Aside from that, its usage seems to justify mentioning it on Antireligion as much as on Antitheist, despite the shared 'theos' root — it seems there are no 'militant atheists' who just adore religion while despising theism, for some strange reason. :) -Silence (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that Baggini's definition is in the least controversial. If there are other definitions from reliable sources then by all means quote them. But we can't just sweep a carefully researched item (with dozens of refs) away and put up a DAB page which is pure OR. I've reinstated the material in the Militant atheism article to avoid your concerns about the "questionable" link with Antitheism. We should not be trying to hide this material. NBeale (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this has to be mentioned somewhere, but my concern is giving the term an article is putting undue weight on it. I know there are numerous references for this term now and related terms like islamofascism have articles. If no reliable alternative definitions can be found to baggini's, then it can be confidently put into the anti-theism article. If other definitions can be provided that bring this relationship into question, then I think that the only option is to give the term it's own article since it has so many related references now. The undue weight is unfortunate (for both atheism & islam among others), but it's symptomatic of our media culture that routinely spreads suspicion. I don't think it's appropriate to put it on the atheism article or relevant to the 'history' of atheism.Utopial (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Baggini is writing in his Atheism: a Very Short Introducition published by OUP and gives Militant Atheism a section of its own which is 3% of the entire book. This certainly justifies an article on its own.NBeale (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I'm aware. It's a shame that more civilised thought like baggini & others on theological/philosophical positions is suppressed nowadays for polarising dogmatic extremists like the new atheists and the christian right. Perhaps Chris Hedges provides a definition in his book 'why i dont believe in atheists' where he discusses this phenomenon (along with his book 'American Fascists: The Christian Right')Utopial (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I'm not saying the definition is controversial, just that it's the fallacy of conflating definitions, where one person labels someone X under one definition, and someone else defines X to be something slightly different. E.g., are all these people really claiming that Dawkins has "something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief."? That's what we implied (before my edits), and I think we need stronger evidence due to BLP issues. All that we can really say is that several people have referred to Dawkins as "militant", for some definition or definitions of that term. Mdwh (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. I have a lot of time for Baggini, and his "definition" (actually a characterisation) of "militant atheism" is in line with what a lot of people would understand by it, more or less. However, in actual use it's mainly used pejoratively, as is clear from the language used. He identifies two things which "militant" atheists are supposed to say: religion is demonstrably false/nonsense, and religion is harmful. Are those two positions necessary or sufficient to "militant" atheism? The position that religion is false and harmful need not be accompanied by "something verging on hatred", yet Baggini seems to think that this emotional component is also required. So is "militant atheism" the attitude that hates religion because it is false and harmful? But then, if you hate it for those reasons but say or do nothing about it, are you "militant"? He also notes he has some sympathy for the "militant" position, but wants to avoid dogmatism. So is dogmatism another aspect of "militant atheism",and if so, is it necessary or sufficient?

Now, OK, I'm headed into original research here. The point is that Baggini sets up a position he characterises as "militant", and argues against it. What he doesn't do in Atheism:avsi is identify anybody who he considers "militant" (I know he has more recently attacked the so called "new atheists"), beyond an inconclusive mention in passing of Bertrand Russell.

So all you've got is Baggini's characterisation of a position against which he wishes to position his form of atheism. Fine and dandy. Question is, fascinating though this may be to people studying Baggini's atheism (in which case it needs discussion on his wiki article), but is it significant more widely - or do we give it undue weight? --Dannyno (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous[edit]

the basis for this article is ridiculous. atheism is NOTHING more than the rejection of a belief in deities. god believers want so badly to portray atheism as some sort of evil they will stoop to any level to accomplish their little propaganda attempts. This article is one such example. Soviet "militant atheism" is obnoxious attempt by religionists (or simply really ignorant people) to portray atheism as evil or something that leads to evil. atheism is not a collection of beliefs nor is it a manifesto. There is nothing violent about rejecting god belief. and if one chooses to be violent it is not their rejection fo god belief that makes them do it. it's no wonder that wikipedia is despised by so many. I've read the commentary on this page and it's pretty obvious what is right has little to do with what is written here. so cling to your fantasies and mislead people all you want. You're good at it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain the deaths under atheist governments please. If religion were bad and atheism good, please explain the gas chambers, the Ukrainian famine, the GLF and the GPCR -- events which killed millions. Unfortunately, you appear to be living in a fantasy and this article needs a far more balanced approach to atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.110 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your statement is blatantly false and adds nothing to this discussion. Gas Chambers, if in reference to Nazi Germany, had nothing to do with atheism in anyway. The National Socialists did not advocate atheism. (I would refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views#Statements_against_atheism) Second, other acts of "atheism" that led to the deaths of millions are also hotly disputed. This article is not the place for them. Lastly, this poster above in no way claimed that "religion is a force for evil" or that "atheism is a force for good." They were complaining that religious people were pushing an agenda to make atheists look evil. Which, I might add, is a common tactic used for fighting atheism: claim they have no morals and will kill anyone on a whim because of it. Celynn (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Militant simply means overly agressive in support of a cause. It is as possible for someone to be a militant atheist as much a they could be peaceful atheist and all the emotional responces in the world won't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.149.80 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the reason for extensive discussion here is that one contributor tries to push a NPOV. For example the main article on Catholicism does not mention any atrocities by the catholic church at all, no mention of Inquisition or clear cases such as the execution of Bruno. That is fine. These can be discussed in more direct entries as they are. The same is the case here. Stalin's atheism and genocidal behavior is well described in relevant pages (namely under Stalin/Stalinism). This is where they belong. I think there is a very shallow conflation with antisemitism. Just because a label has "anti" in it the word doesn't automatically mean hostile and genocidal. The Antisemitism has a section on the evolution of the meaning of the word and a good historic outline of the concept through history. That's a good way of doing it! Just trying to categorically link anti-theism to atrocities by Stalin and nothing else is at best misleading and lazy at worst just pushing a NPOV. For example contemporary anti-theists do by no means advocate violance or demeaning attitudes against theists, see Hitchens. Modern anti-theism states that religious believes are to the detriment of people and it is opposed to theistic believes. Stalinism does not match this definition hence it is well places in its current category (Stalinism). 141.212.109.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, can we fix this already?[edit]

I found this page trying to figure out the (sometimes subtle) difference(s) between atheism, antitheism, nontheism, etc. Until recently I was aware only of the existence of something I thought to be atheism, but apparently even the nonbelievers are fragmented in different (but not necessarily disjoint) denominations.

Anyway, I noticed that this page has been POV-tagged for almost a year now and not much seems to be happening. Has the issue been resolved and if not, can I help trying to get the article fixed? Skysmurf (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - why is this article tagged with "disptued neutrality?"
Who is disputing the neutrality of this article? Can they be so kind as to list disputed passages. Please make a bullet point list. I don't want a rambling diatribe. You don't even have to explain why you think the passages represent a departure from neutrality. Just list them.Johnfravolda (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the lack of neutrality lies in the undue weight given to the uses of this word by particular individuals. The word is used in various ways; there is simply no encyclopedic concept here. To construct one is POV. But I suspect the original dispute was around the use of disputed martyrdom statistics, see above. --Dannyno (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will not claim to be the best judge of the nuances of Wikipedia policy, having read this article, I was surprised to see it's disputation. As it seemed frivolous, I came to the talk page to see what it was. Seems like the only debate here is about the militant atheism section (which doesn't even exist any more). As such, I move to delete the disputed neutrality tag. Even though I'm inclined to think that the connection between militant atheism and violent anti-theism is a bit self-apparent, and thus belongs on this page, I don't think the fact that no one has written a well cited section on that topic affects the article's neutrality. If anything it needs something akin to a "This article is a stub" template to indicate it's incompleteness. So +1 on removing the disputed neutrality.Ecnassianer (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I agree that this article needs expanding in some areas, but the neutrality dispute seems to be long gone. I suggest that we draw up some sort of to-do list here on the talk page. In the meantime, I'll remove the disputed neutrality tag as it seems to be obsolete. Skysmurf (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list[edit]

As mentioned above, there are some areas in which this article could be expanded. Anyone feel free to expand either the article (and then crossing out the relevant entry on this list) or this list itself.

  • Explaining that there are different ideas about what antitheism is or isn't and there's not really one single authoritive definition.
  • Something about violent forms of antitheism. Note: this section will have to be well sourced and carefully worded.
  • Overall check for grammar, citations needed, etc. etc.

Skysmurf (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another definition of antitheism[edit]

In all fairness I should have looked up the word before I used for my belief. I am an antitheist because I know god exists but I hate god. This may not be etymologically correct.

It is a unique belief system but it is based upon the knowledge of god's existence. I spent most of my life as an atheist and a strong one. I believed strongly in the dogma of science as the ultimate truth. Then I went through a period which some would call psychosis, others would call ego death, others would call a spiritual awakening and others would use other terms. During this process I became aware of another conscious or consciousnesses within my stream of consciousness. This entity was non-corporeal but could affect me, my thoughts and my actions. It could also control things in my external reality.

I'm not talking about philosophy here. I'm talking about a frightening experience but one which was very real to me. "Delusion" and "hallucination" are modern 'scientific' ways to doubt what I went through which is fair enough. It is far easier not to believe in god than to know god and hate god.

The truth is that the saints and the prophets who were the seed of organised religion went through a similar experience to what I went through. Take Abraham/Ibrahim in the Bible. He experienced psychosis which almost made him kill his son. There are always these people who experience the influence of this non-corporeal entity or entities through civilisation and across cultures. Other people take their life stories and their teachings and whatever else to use for their own ends. This is what religion is and this is the problem with religion. The organised religions are like politicians and monarchs in that they forget the message of those who fought and suffered to found whatever system.

Antitheism, in my definition, is the loneliest faith in the world. It involves seeing the sh@t which god has caused and bearing the responsibility to change it. It is a miserable faith that I would want no one to be part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morethanhuman (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept you describe receives more thorough treatment in the Misotheism article. Downstrike (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communism[edit]

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - said a famous Communist. Or something like that.

Should there be some discussion here of how Communism has viewed religion? Just wondering.
--Atikokan (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiagnosticism (we don't have the page) has two major subcategories (and many smaller academic)[edit]

  1. criticism by metaphysical naturalists/atheists
  2. criticism by theists
  3. (that's problematic as a separate "extras" because it's used by 1. and 2.)
    Problems in definition, selection of focus, selection of range of topics to analyze, selection of significance (or specifically statistical significance of picking as a "measure" one bias over infinite others) of topics to analyze, etc.
We have antitheism, but we don't have antiagnosticism in Wikipedia.

Hostility towards deities/religion="secular" context[edit]

An editor claims Special:Diff/1040748337 that secularism and "secular context" are different

And that "secular context" essentially means or requires opposition to (bias or phobia against) deities.

Yet secular in his or her Special:Diff/1040748337 revision after undoing redirects to "secularism" page on wiki

The mainstream definition of secularism has been seperation of religion and politics not exactly opposition unless in the context of Dechristianisation of France communist Soviet genocide Uigyur genocide and Reign of Terror etc perpetrated by radical left ideologues Nolicmahr (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur_genocide Nolicmahr (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- are there reliable sources that differentiate secularism and secular content? - sources needed to support your position per WP:ATT & WP:VERIFY - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greek antitheist posters (actually analytical impersonal cosmogonology [cosmogonology (= comparing a list of cosmogonic theories): based on atheistic cosmogonic theories: Max Tegmark's, David Deutsch's, Andrei Linde's, Alexander Vilenkin's etc.]) (not all posters are analytical on what they propose to replace god)[edit]

Personhood and selfhood issues[edit]

From the main article:

Flint's Baird Lecture for 1877 was entitled Anti-Theistic Theories.[6] He used it as a very general umbrella term for all opposition to his own form of theism, which he defined as the "belief that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created."[7] He wrote: ...

_____

According to some definitions of selfhood, the environment is part of the self (being–environment selfhood). For example I have a memory that belongs to me; and it doesn't matter if I keep it flesh like as neural connectome, on a paper or digitally. Especially in the case one everyday reads something; that is part of her/his selfhood (according to the environmental[ist] selfhood hypothesis; I don't claim that this is the sole view, but it has to be mentioned. It's also an antitheist[ic] view, because the typical superstrong Abrahamic God (the first bearer of personhood), is a separate being (rare newage-like heretical views do exist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:889E:3000:BCA9:FE23:B968:CFFD (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Radical atheism" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Radical atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Radical atheism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antitheism&oldid=1217916274"