Talk:Antireligion/Archive 2

many issues
1) I put "Citation needed" on "The term has been used to describe opposition to organized religion, religious practices and religious institutions." I think you need to cite the instances when the term had been used in the past because I think the term is novel.

I also find this a dangerous statement. It can lead to abuse of the term, when in fact it is confined to "opposition to religion of any kind". Lets take an extreme example (or, preposterous example, but possible). A person wants to secretly promote Buddhism by opposing (non-violently) the Abrahamic religions. He may be labelled, through this statement, an anti-religionist. The term will be used by fundamentalist Christians, Moslems and Jews to call the person "anti-religionist". People will be incited against the person as though he is someone "opposed to religion of any kind", although his real intention was to promote Buddhism. It is similar to the abuse of the term "atheist" by fundamentalist Christians, such as calling Einstein and Spinoza "atheist", when in fact they also believe in God but in another way. They were being called "atheists" just because they do not conform to convention. The term "anti-religion" to describe opposition to organized religion, religious practices, or religious institutions will likewise be abused.

The statement also insinuates that its usage in the past may be allowed in the present. It is indeed dangerous.

2) On "religious practices", Wycliffe and Luther were against the selling of indulgences, but were they ever called anti-religionist? Wycliffe was even saying that the true church is invisible, not the visible church. But this is a statement against organized religion. Shall we say he is anti-religionist? Or, better question is, was he ever called an anti-religionist?

3) If someone believes in God, although in another way, while opposing organized religion it must not constitute anti-religion. Because, as in my example above, the person may only want change in religion he sees at present. Paine is a deist. He believes in a God, and should not be labelled anti-religionist just because he is opposed to the Abrahamic religions. the fact that he believes in God means that he has the capacity to organize his own religion. His belief in God will stand as the foundation.

4) Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, but questionably an anti-religionist. He merely opposes the belief in God.

5) The figures of deaths in Russia during communist rule is too preposterous to say in the article, even if some "sources say" so. It overshadows the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. It appears like a propaganda of the Christian establishment, although it may not be.

6) It may also be profitable for the article to include the Cult of Reason, a form of religion that is sponsored by the French state during French Revolution. It is a religion (of reason) that aims to replace religion based on sacred text. But is it "anti-religionist", as per the definition in this article?

Sorry, I couldn't put everything in order; and my arguments fall short, I think. It's just that I see several issues that I feel the article must be re-written all the way through, or removed. I hope the issues will be addressed.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.218.119 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As you say, your arguments/thinking fall short, but isn't it great that you get to work it out for yourself! Fwiw, antireligion is a thing and the clear thing English, being an analytic lang implies, opposition to religion in any form. To really do this you need something like this: Definition: A religion is a culturally dependent belief system.Premise: Science/Reason is the one belief system that can produce objective truth about the real world. Corollary: Science is not culturally dependent, it is valid for all real beings everywhere and at all times.Conclusion: A religion until it becomes something other than a belief system is a false one that may be prevalent in primitive cultures that have not yet achieved a thetic Scientific basing.Since having a false fundamental belief system is bad in a way virtually nothing else can be, a moral/ethical individual will be anti-religious. So while in general culture, at the level at which inadequate thinking, a general failure of education and erudition, is no problem, anti-religion is not a thing or at least not much of one, at a higher level of culture, and at a state reflected in the state of this article, and this, its discourse, albeit not with the clarity I have just given the subject, it is. Lycurgus (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Noting similarity of above to The_Antichrist_(book) whose author has probably had a formative effect since first exposure. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely sure with what you're trying to convey with regards to the issues I raised. I think you did not address them issues but are telling me what a religion is, and what religion is. I also think you are being elusive to the issues I raised. You can start with #1, if you don't mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.218.119 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe we need some kind of "culture and society" section, if there is enough material for it. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE TO TURKISH
please... Modern primat (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Translation:.
 * For Turkish, that would be tr:Vikipedi:Çeviri grubu. Paradoctor (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * hello sir, 1 year has been passed but i see this new.. im looking that right now @User:ParadoctorModern primat (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * this article has been translated to turkish. farewell, thank you!User:Paradoctor https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din_kar%C5%9F%C4%B1tl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1 Modern primat (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)