Talk:League of Militant Atheists

Untitled
This is a well-written article (though it might not be so any longer by the time you get to read it). However, it really should have some references.--OinkOink 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
[the S.o.G.] "conducted individual work with religious people". What kind of "individual work"? Could this by any chance be a euphemism? 85.72.181.137 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not neutral since it does not mention the repressive activity of the Society of the Godless. According to the Russian version:

Члены Союза участвовали в кампаниях по борьбе с религией, выступали инициаторами закрытия и разрушения церквей

Members of the Society participated in campaigns against religion, they initiated shutting down and demolishing of churches Astat bg (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says so, both about campaigns and about church closure. - Altenmann >t 07:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice article! --ComIntern (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Союз воинствующих безбожников
There is no way a Stalinist organization would characterize itself as "belligerent". That term was the label applied by People's World, Pravda and Grandma to Western "imperialist" actions and Leninists historically call themselves "militant". Belligerence or bellicosity is also associated with fascism according to the dialectical materialist worldview. Note also that the article title is a Proper Noun, which clinches the matter even if some anti-athiest writers had historically used that translation. However the term crops up in wikipedia and wikipedia-like pages only, for as deep into the googling as I cared to go and unless someone comes up with a reputable citation the word "Belligerent" does not belong in this article, which has been the scene of an ongoing POV effort for months if not years so please don't waste our time with unsupportable uncited POV reverts thanks.

The prima facie translation is as follows:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bpcl=39314241&biw=1920&bih=942&q=%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%85+%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&sa=X&ei=U-a7UKKlLcvMigL3n4D4AQ&ved=0CC0QrgYwAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Militant atheism
Redirects here and I don't think it should. Militant atheism is expressed today in New Atheism and thus is probably more appropiate to redirect there.  Volcano guy  19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The redirect is not appropriate.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The term militant atheism has been tossed about, notably by religionist critics of Richard Dawkins and probably other contexts. It is not so narrow as to be delimited by discussion of the LMA. Eventually there needs to be a more general overview. Also, the League name was in Russian and not directly translated I believe. Just sayin....Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)\

Ongoing discussion
The page Militant atheism redirects to the League of Militant Atheists and not to New Atheism. For your information, it is currently in discussion on Talk:Militant atheism. Sleet A. Bbeam (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

Number of offices
"It had about 96,000 offices across the country" is this number even possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.42.127 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Category addition
I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past. According to the sources already cited in this article, both the antireligious persecution and the embrace of state atheism were propagated as part of the communist policies. Persecution isn't a component of atheism. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it that this group with this name in this article is not this group with this name? As a League of militant atheists they actively engaged in removing religion from society. Their activism is documented their motivation is atheism, their goal atheism. The repression they engaged in was motivated toward the end of establishing atheism. This group activity worked to remove religion from private life its end was to establish atheism throughout society. I remember editors on here arguing that there was no such thing as militant atheists or atheists groups that work to remove peoples religious rights and liberties and that even if they exist that was not repressing people. Removing peoples right to express political and or religious or non-religious opinions is repressing their freedom of speech. It seems odd considering human nature that anyone would post something as irrational and outright naive as to say, there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals even though this article is about a atheist group killing and repressing people because their targets were indeed religious. This is aside from things like the Cristero War which targeted religious people and was directed by and from an atheist activist named Plutarco Elías Calles. Atheists activists according to comments here don't exist and if they do they are not for removing or repressing people's religious rights and freedoms. Calles Laws were atheist in agenda as they worked to remove all religions from government power they did not allow for believers to continue as they were and add to that realm protections for religious and non-religious people. No they targeted religious institutions and people. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence of this article says this group was an atheistic and antireligious organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Soviet Communist Party. So the group was both "atheistic" (without a belief in gods) and it was also "antireligious" (has an opposition to religion).  You mention that they "engaged in removing religion" ... "worked to remove religion" ... "work to remove peoples religious rights and liberties" ... etc.  That's all "antireligious", and I have no problem with categorizing this article on this group as antireligious (or even "Persecution by the antireligious"), but it isn't "Persecution by atheists".  There is nothing in the definition of Atheism which says it is the "killing and repressing of people because they were indeed religious".  Atheists or atheism is not the source of blame for that kind of activity, and we don't add categories which would mislead our readers into thinking it is.  We likewise wouldn't add a category which says "Persecution by Russian-speaking people" either, for the same reason.  This article already has the accurate category: Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This category "Persecution by atheists", not category "Persecution because of atheism", The category is about act of persecution committed by atheists noting more nothing less, dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists, the category dosen't argue the reason of the persecution. But still the soruces show that the Atheist states as Soviet and ect try to establish atheism throughout society by force and persecution, and creating atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists to help the goverment to  promoted atheism. So how an atheist state and  atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists who played role in  persecution people of religion, and tried to force and promoted atheism dont fit under category "Persecution by atheists".
 * You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists, I gave the source of Geoffrey Blainey, it was very clear, "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity" and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong″.
 * Well Richard Dawkins is not historian, Under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." (source: Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival, by Christopher Marsh, page 47. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.) and (source: Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History, by Dilip Hiro. Penguin, 2009.) which is an act of Persecution, This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school. (source: Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, translation from Russian, Stephen Schmidt, S.J., transcribed P. Legrand, page 3). --Jobas (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.
 * dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists --Jobas
 * This is false. Please provide the exact citation for this.  All I see are mentions of people who commited persecution, and who also happen to be atheists.
 * You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists --Jobas
 * No, I did not. I asked you to show me reliable sources which convey "Persecution done by atheists", not persecution by people who also happen to be atheists, which would be an uninformative and misleading category.
 * there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." --Jobas
 * That is a nonsensical statement; and I checked your source - it doesn't say that. Please read and understand the sources you cite.
 * Well Richard Dawkins is not historian... --Jobas
 * I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Please explain in more detail?
 * I would still like to see a reliable source which says "Persecution by atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the members of the league were spiritualist, none of the members were theists against established religion, they were all atheists. The organization did not accept anyone but atheists. For people whom say that religious folks can't accept what is right there in front of them your argument appears to be based on a faith that no atheist would for the purpose of establishing atheism as the belief imposed by the state, engage in killing and repression of theists. That goes against human nature and also history. Atheists have killed theists, atheists have killed theists because the theist refused to renounce their theism (Felix Dzerzhinsky). Atheist have been terrorists (Luigi Galleani). Atheists have caused World Wars (Gavrilo Princip). Atheists through science have promoted racism (Man, The Unknown) Carrel was an atheists (according to Time Magazine) when he wrote it. There are other organizations that have committed violence while insisting they only accept atheists (Velupillai Prabhakaran's Tamil Tigers). This organization (League of Militant Atheists) set as its purpose to impose atheism, not irreligious-ism their goal says atheism not irreligious-ism. If it was though, then atheism would not be the end goal, since you can promote irreligion against one religion or against all and still not impose atheism. Again the end goal of this group was to establish atheism as the accepted belief of the state and to remove all other forms of belief. Their goal was not to establish irreligion as the belief of the state. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * establishing atheism as the belief...
 * That statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject we are discussing. Atheism isn't a belief. You are correct that a state can engage in the killing of theists, but that activity is for reasons other than atheism.  With billions of atheists in the world, it stands to reason that many killers might also be atheist.  Many dictators might also happen to be atheists.  Many racists might also be atheists.  All of the above might also be short, or have brown hair, or like chocolate icecream.  What we are discussing, however, is adding categories which imply that an absence of belief in gods is somehow the cause of "persecution", when no sources convey that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if it was in the name of a Communist ideology, but that ideology was explicitly atheistic? and who can deny that that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were influnced in their. Religious persecution by the Marxist–Leninist atheism which advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism?, So how "Persecution by atheists" don't fit here when they Persecuted people of regions and try to force on them atheism.--Jobas (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will quote said: ″ If it was though, then atheism would not be the end goal, since you can promote irreligion against one religion or against all and still not impose atheism. Again the end goal of this group was to establish atheism as the accepted belief of the state and to remove all other forms of belief. Their goal was not to establish irreligion as the belief of the state.″
 * and source do show that ther been act of religious persecution that Their goal was not to establish atheisim as the belief of the state by force.--Jobas (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you just said. Have you found a source which says "Persecution by atheists"? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As you are demanding an impossibly high standard of evidence. I already gave you dozen of source cited that there been act of Persecution that done by offically Atheist states and group that their goal was to promote irreligion against one religion or against all and impose atheism to in the country, I already gave you sources. The League of Militant Atheists was an atheist organization, it goal was to impose atheism, The Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union was to promote atheisim and irreligion against one religion.--Jobas (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable source, please. Just one.  Xenophrenic (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In order for the League's arguments to carry weight they had to establish the end goal of the atheism as the belief of the state. The essential characteristic of the goal of a materialist communist state (philosophical materialism). As the League professed that atheism was "no religion" and means "no god or gods". LoveMonkey (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The essential characteristic of the goal of a materialist communist state ...
 * Exactly. I have no problem with categorizing it correctly as persecution by a materialistic communist state. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats the goal of the communist party, the goal of the league of militant atheists was to make all of the people of the Soviet state atheists. It was to do so with the use of cohesion and force. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You can't "force" someone to not believe in gods. You can certainly discuss, debate and lecture about beliefs versus rationalism, but non-belief in something can't be forced. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At Jobas the claims here appear to be that people can not be religious or irreligious and secular. As there are secular theists. These secular theists have promoted irreligious goals while being theists. The goal of the League was again to impose atheism and get the people of the Soviet union to become atheists, either by cohesion or force. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no way to physically "force" a person to "become atheist", so that assertion is nonsensical. The League was created by the Communist Party to broadcast Marxism-Leninism, so when the article is tagged with a Category saying "Persecution by ...", we need to be accurate as to the source of any "persecution" going on.   Xenophrenic (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There were no theists in the League of Militant Atheists. So anything this group of atheists did they did as atheists and to promote atheism as atheists. The communist party had other branches that they used to promote communism this group promoted atheism and promoted what it saw that communism and atheism shared in common. The League of Militant Atheism promoted atheism by violence and cohesion. I do not have to affirm or deny your opinion only reflect what the sources have said. AS for your statements "You can't "force" someone to not believe in gods" and "There is no way to physically "force" a person to "become atheist", so that assertion is nonsensical." Forcing people to renounce their belief or to embrace non-belief are indeed things that atheists have attempted. To say that failure to succeed in something, means that it was not attempted is quite disingenuous as is, labeling any of others assertions here "nonsensical". That appears to be against assuming good faith. This needs to addressed either by arbitration or arbcom . I would like to see secondary peer reviewed sources that say that the League of Militant Atheists did not promote atheism. I would like to see secondary peer reviewed sources that say that the League of Militant Atheists did not promote scientific atheism.  I would like to see secondary peer reviewed sources that say that the League of Militant Atheists did not attempt in converting people to scientific atheism or simply atheism. As for attempts of atheists to use force against religious people to use force and torture and possible death to get them to renounce their faith this was something George Calciu wrote about that he experienced while being at Pitești prison.  LoveMonkey (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * anything this group of atheists did they did as atheists and to promote atheism as atheists. The communist party had other branches that they used to promote communism this group promoted atheism and promoted what it saw that communism and atheism shared in common.
 * Not according to cited sources. In fact, according to a source you recently referenced (The Age of Atheists, pg. 204), "the Communist Party created the League of Militant Atheists, designed to broadcast the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism".  And you can't "promote atheism by violence", which is a nonsensical statement, unless you mean they are surgically operating on people's brains.
 * I would like to see secondary peer reviewed sources that say that the League of Militant Atheists did not promote atheism.
 * Why? I think it is fairly obvious they promoted atheist views, so good luck finding such sources. They did quite a bit of debating, arguing and lecturing to that end.  But that isn't what we're discussing.  We're discussing violence, which was a component of the dogmatic (and quite twisted) Marxist-Leninist ideology - the communist regime, and isn't a component of atheism. And by the way: Cohesion.
 * Victims were transformed into executioners; prisoners were tortured by their own friends, by their fellows in suffering. The purpose: "re-education" through physical and psychical destruction, the transformation of young people into atheists, into informers on their friends. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that communist regime could indeed be brutal, but this discussion is about labeling The League of Militant Atheists as "persecution by atheists", which is nonsensical. c (and I notice your source doesn't mention the League at all) on atheism; your source, if you read it carefully, says it was communists that were trying to impose atheism. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No one but an atheist would seek to transform people into atheism. Thats atheists which can be of whatever political strip or no political strip at all. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. There is nothing in atheism that has to do with "transforming people", or with "persecuting people". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You are using logical fallacies like the argument from silence which is irrational and not a generally accepted form of validation to engage in removing information or blocking contributions here. "Cardinal Josef Slipyj who was persecuted by atheist Russian Bolsheviks" here's one source saying "persecuted by atheist". As atheists can be communist, capitalist, Russian, Chinese. But theists don't attempt to transform people into atheism. Oh and atheist teachers too. ,,  ,  LoveMonkey (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The examples you gave do not say "persecuted by atheists", which is a nonsensical phrase. The examples actually say persecuted by atheist communists or bolsheviks . There are already appropriate and accurate categories for this content: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union and Category:Persecution by communists.  Categorizing as "Persecution by atheists" makes as much sense as "Persecution by people with mustaches", and is equally uninformative. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it does "Cardinal Josef Slipyj who was persecuted by atheist Russian Bolsheviks" and mustaches are not unbelief. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, read it again, it says persecuted by atheist communists or bolsheviks . I double-checked just to be sure. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic -- Unfortunately, your objections do not appear to have much practical relevance to the article. Religious believers in the Soviet Union were not persecuted by the abstract Platonic ideal of atheism in general, but they were persecuted by certain specific atheists in accordance with one particular specific manifestation of atheist ideology (Lenino-Bolshevism, or whatever you want to call it). AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, 'Moos. I don't think you realize that you just argued in support of my position.  Editors aren't putting this article in "Category:Persecution by one particular specific manifestation of atheist ideology (Lenino-Bolshevism, or whatever you want to call it).  They are putting it in the plain old uninformative, nonsensical, misleading, vanilla Category:Persecution by atheists.  You and I agree that religious believers were persecuted, and I hope we also both agree that those so persecuted could be Categorized on Wikipedia for easier navigation and location.  But the category you are looking for is Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union.  Hopefully that helps you better understand my objection (and its absolute practical relevance to this article).  And by the way, according to reliable sources, believers were indeed persecuted by specific people who also happened to be atheists, but they also happened to have blue eyes ... or mustaches ... or were right-handed — but the persecution did not spawn from a "specific manifestation of atheist ideology", but rather a bastardized Marxist-Leninist communism.  Atheism isn't an "ideology", but you are in good company with many who make that same mistake. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If the category name were "Persecution by atheism", you might have a point, but since it is "Persecution by atheists", unfortunately you don't. You don't like the Bezbozhniks, and don't want their crimes to be attributed to your group, but they claimed to be atheists just as much as you do, and how is Wikipedia to make principled decisions about who is a true pure atheist or not? See No true Scotsman.  Your invocation of physical characteristics is a lame and feeble dodge, since the Bezbozhniks didn't persecute people on the basis of a dexterimanual ideology or a cyanophthalmist ideology, but they did persecute people on the basis of an ideology which included atheism as one of its components. AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your statements aren't making any sense. I don't like Bezbozhniks? Huh?  Are you saying I don't like satirical magazines or are you saying I don't like people from a particular rural area in Russia? "Their crimes"?  What crimes are you talking about?  "Attributed to my group"?  What group would that be?  Wikipedia editors? "They claimed to be atheists just as much as you do?"  Now you've really lost me - I've never claimed to be atheist.  And again, what "group" are you talking about?  You ask, "who is a true pure atheist or not", which is again nonsensical to me — atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods, a binary state of "either you do or you do not", with no "true", "pure", "kinda-sorta" about it.     I've already seen the No true Scotsman article, and I've no intention to click the link again unless it has changed recently - I'll just wait for you to explain how it is relevant to our discussion.  And how is Wikipedia to determine if someone lacks belief in gods or not, you ask?  See WP:CAT/R and WP:BLPCAT for your answer.  (Short answer: when the subject self-identifies as such in direct speech.)  But why does that even matter for the purposes of this discussion?  "Persecution" is not a component of atheist in any way, so a category defined as "Persecution by atheists" is as nonsensical and uninformative to our readers as "Persecution by bald people".  You've said nothing that indicates that you disagree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * AnonMoos editor Xenophrenic has make it very clear that they will not abide by the rules of Wikipedia in that they will not stop WP:IDHT and assuming bad faith (accusing people of not reading and not understanding) and using logical fallacies (nonsequitor). I have provided a source that say literally "persecuted by atheist"  and the editor ignores the title and name and instead does the same poor analogy that they are accusing people of. In that people whom are atheist and want other the people to be atheists and use force and violence and repression tactics to do that can somehow not exist. And editor Xenophrenic then says that their goal to turn people atheist is somehow analogous with them having facial hair. That somehow them being atheist is only as editor Xenophrenic see the term atheist and defines it and no one other than editor Xenophrenic could possibly understand the meaning of the word atheist. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Better Described as Antitheist than Antireligious
The article on antireligion states that antireligion is opposition to religion. The article on antitheism states that antitheism is active opposition to theism (the belief in the existence of a deity or deities.) Antireligion is only one aspect of antitheism. While this organization certainly was antireligious, it was more than antireligious--it was antitheistic. Most instances of the word "antireligious" should be replaced with the word "antitheistic" in this article. Squideshi (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That may be more philosophically correct, but few people would understand it without an explanation. It would be better to provide an central explanation at one point in the article, but not to change most words throughout the article.  Anyway, the actual main practical purpose of this organization, from the Soviet government point of view, was to disrupt and diminish to the extent feasible anything which might possibly conflict with obsequious groveling servility to Stalin... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos raises a valid concern that few people may understand the difference between antireligion and antitheism. Fortunately, there are excellent articles for both concepts here on Wikipedia; and they can be easily hyperlinked to from this article. For this reason, I am still of the opinion that we should use the word that AnonMoos describes as "more philosophically correct." In other words, I believe that we should error on the side of accuracy, rather than a less accurate description that may be easier to understand for some people. Nonetheless, I would love to hear additional opinions on the matter. Squideshi (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Believers in the Soviet Union whose churches etc. were torn down and were threatened with harsh punishments for teaching their children what their own parents taught them might not have much patience with your abstract philosophy. AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't share your opinion that I have an abstract philosophy; but nonetheless, I request that we please focus on merits of the proposal itself, rather than me individually. I don't know what believers in the Soviet Union might, or might not, have patience with; but ultimately, I don't think that has any bearing on the factual content of this article. There is a great amount of content in Wikipedia which which any number of people might not like; but so long as it is accurate, I am not of the opinion that Wikipedia should be censored to satisfy them. It is obvious that we do not agree on this issue; and I feel it is unlikely that we are going to reach a consensus, so perhaps we should both wait to hear some opinions for others, rather than continuing the debate only among ourselves. Squideshi (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't intending to attack you personally; however, I do find it slightly amazing that some people's reaction to this classic manifestation of Stalinist thuggish brutality, which caused much human suffering, seems to be to split philosophical hairs and debate how many angels atheists' shadows can dance on the head of a pin... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the proprosal to change the term "antireligous" to "antitheistic". The League of Militant Atheists, in addition to the Soviet government, persecuted religions that are not regarded as theistic, such as Buddhism. Hans Bräker in Buddhism in the Soviet Union: Annihilation or survival? from the journal titled "Religion in Communist Lands" states that: The term "antireligious" has a wider scope than the term "antitheistic" and it is thus more appropriate to use the former term in keeping with the fact that the USSR persecuted religions that were not necessarily theistic. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent point. Thank you, Anupam. On this note, it is also possible to be a theist without being religious. Was this group ALSO opposed to nonreligious theism? In other words, perhaps they were simultaneously both antireligous AND antitheistic. Squideshi (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Anupam -- that's very interesting (though it's questionable whether various manifestations of the Mahayana form of Buddhism have actually been non-theistic much less atheistic in practice)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on League of Militant Atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816211643/http://www.regels.org/humanright.htm to http://www.regels.org/humanright.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)