Talk:Antitheism

message: ----
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  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
::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)
thread_title: Lovemonkey response to Dannyno

message: 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: ) 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)
replies: text: Oops I had no idea - let's get rid of the ref. NBeale (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is New World Enclyclopedia a [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:N]] ? 

message: 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. Michael Burleigh Earthly Powers p 96-97 
The Soviet Union imposed state atheism and antireligious campaigns were directed at all faithshttp://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm, 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 groupshttp://www.jstor.org/pss/125428http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm. 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.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
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 propagandahttp://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm. 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.http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm 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"
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Results of state-enforced antitheism/miltant atheism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conflation of "militant" definitions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ridiculous

message: 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)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: 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)
replies: text: The concept you describe receives more thorough treatment in the Misotheism article. Downstrike (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another definition of antitheism 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Communism 

message: 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)
replies: text: - 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)
thread_title:  Hostility towards deities/religion="secular" context 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personhood and selfhood issues 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Radical atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  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)
thread_title:  "Radical atheism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This article currently references the Oxford English Dictionary, but the online version (www.oed.com) differs significantly from the information given here. The online version defines anti-theism as "The theory or belief that the doctrines of theism are wrong; opposition to or rejection of theism or theists" (earliest reference 1788), but anti-theist as "A person who is opposed to or critical of theism or theistic belief; a proponent or advocate of anti-theism" (earliest reference 1627).TonyP (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary Reference