This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
this should probably be spelled "anti-religious", as an English coinage. A more learned coinage would be (avoiding mixture of Greek and Latin), "contra-religious". Please substantiate that this is even a word. not just a domain name, or else explicitly make it an article about these websites. dab (ᛏ) 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is ludicrous, it paints anti-religonists with some kind of generalizing brush that Atheists have been getting away with for decades now. That is, that *we* can refer to ourselves in the 3rd person and apply any positive adjective we wish. I.e. O'Hare and other Atheists claiming "Atheists would rather do X than Y." But when the same generalized tone is applied in a perjorative sense, they scream bloody murder at whoever dares to 'stereotype' them.
I think this article may not be quite neutral, or at least, takes the stand point that antireligion is a strange, minority concept. compare the wording of this article to that of an article on a religion. (30/10/2006, 5:54 UTC))
I agreed with the above comment that this article may not be quite neutral. It most definatly does differ from the tone and such of an article on religion such as Christianity. It is not wikipedia's policy to present an article that places a certain emphasis or tone upon the information it contains. I strongly reccomend that the neutrality, noteably the undertone, of this article be discussed and reviewed. Jarryd Moore 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This seem to have been corrected, coz i can`t find any violation as of now Dec 9th 06, as far as neutrality goes, nor any inference to atheism. I`ll therefore remove the Neutrality dispute disclaimer. Slicky 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Two editors just added, in rapid succession, Anton LaVey and LaVeyan Satanism. The first four words of the satanism article state "Satanism is a religion...." I realize that he defines his religion differently than most do, but I don't see how this can be "antireligion". -- lquilter 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Douglas Adams really antireligious? There's plenty to say he's an atheist, and he certainly used religion in his humour, but I'm not sure that it extends to antireligion. A lot of statements could be seen as ambivalence ("2000 years after some guy got nailed to a tree"); or even opposition to atheism ("[Man provides] proof of the non-existence of god. ... As an encore he goes on to show that black equals white, and get killed at the next zebra crossing"). Likewise, he also made humour at the expense of democracy ("the wrong lizard might get in"), so is he antidemocratic? I would hesitate to attach too much weight to his comic texts. -- h2g2bob 13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that daniel dennett wrote a book about a religion as a natural phenomena, but he does think religion should be discarded. He stated himself that it would be arrogant to discard faith and he is simply trying to understand human nature. The book states that religion should not be offlimits to science. If you don't believe me here is a link. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not use definition as: "Antireligion is opposition to religion." instead of "Antireligion is opposition to some religion.". It makes no sense there. If it makes sense there, why it's not in the next sentence, eg: "People who are antireligious may see SOME religions as dangerous, ..." XNathanielX ( talk) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Penn is mentioned - shouldn't Teller count? 91.84.182.207 ( talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be antireligion = atheism. I'm a man of faith, but I would identify as an antireligionist, and I would see Jesus as antireligionist. Isn't there any prominent theistic antireligionists? 91.107.53.111 ( talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is old, but there absolutely is a basis for Jesus being antireligious. It's something that's often debated in my family (with biblical verse). Making an outright statement that there is no basis is just obnoxious and untrue. In fact, I challenge someone to collect textual biblical evidence and make the case here. I'd do it if I had time, but I have a thesis to work on.
I'm not going to take any formal measures at this point, but I'd like to ask whether this article should be merged into Atheism. The distinction between antireligion and atheism is not clear; almost any expression of antireligion falls under one or more definitions of atheism, particularly strong atheism. Furthermore, a two-sentence definition of antireligion followed by a long list of people said to be antireligious simply does not seem to merit a separate article. -- 7Kim ( talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Some people who don't think Scientology is a religion keep making Christianity and Islam the only example religions in the intro to this article. Personally, I think all three are objectionable belief systems serving ulterior motivations, although no doubt important and even life saving for some of their believers. I don't see that the antireligion page is a very good place for having this dispute. But I strongly object to the removal of content which results in the implication that only mainstream religions can cause people to be antireligious. The introduction as it is written now has a very broad definition of antireligion which is quite different from simple atheism.-- Jaibe 09:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Antireligion is opposition to some or all religions in some or all contexts. People who are antireligious may see religions as dangerous, destructive, divisive, foolish, or absurd. This opposition may be confined to just organized mainstream religions such as Christianity or Islam and include minor religions such as cults; extend to organized belief systems not supported by empirical evidence (such as Scientology), or may more generally include all forms of belief in the supernatural.
I included Karl Marx because he was a materialist who apparently made some noises against religion in general, including his famous Opium of the People/ Opiate of the Masses scribblings. Thus, he was probably an antireligionist. 204.52.215.107 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because he was "probably" an antigrligionist doesnt mean he actually was. If you wish to include someone in the list that you are unsure of, please first go and find a source that comfirms that they are antireligious (yes even if you put "allegedly" in). Remember we are presenting a collection of information, not our own deductions from information. Just a reminder :-) Jarryd Moore
Removed Marx. He was an atheist, but I can't find any proof he was antireligious. His "opiate of the people" remark is usually taken out of context; in-context, it suggests that religion is a natural and possibly positive or negative result of living in an unpleasant world. In his time, opiates were considered legitimate and useful painkillers, not strictly harmful recreational drugs as they often are considered now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.186.9 ( talk) 05:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Brandon Boyd does NOT SAY that he's an atheist. He simply says that he opposes Christianity, and implies that he feels that way about organized religion in general. So while he's anti-religious, he's not necessarily an atheist.--Josh
Wouldn't Lemmy Kilmister from the band Motorhead be on this list too? I thought he hated god and all religions
What about William Blake? Didn't he feel organised religion repressed true spirituality or something? The flying pasty ( talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed Adolf Hitler, because anyone who has read the speeches of Adolf Hitler can see clearly that he frequently made statements in support of Christianity and Christian themes. The only references used to proclaim him antireligious (or that he was an atheist) are "Hitler's Table Talk"
[3], which is not speeches he made, but rather dinner conversations that people around him later recalled him saying. Plus, there is already an article in Wkipedia all about Hitler's Religious beliefs, and it does not support the claim that he was anti-religious.
[1]
Dwirish (
talk)
20:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Could we have some sort of reference or authority for the claim that "antireligion" is distinct from atheism. I am quite interested in atheism, yet I have never once heard of "antireligion" being an alternative. The list of people here seems to be so similar to a list of atheists that it conflicts the opening about how the two terms are different. Epa101 ( talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OF COURSE they're different. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god(s), but they may not see any problem in other people believing. In contrast, this article is saying that antireligious people are, ANTI RELIGION. As in they DO have a problem with other people putting their faith in invisible spacemen who never answer them. The point is... I can not BELIEVE in squirrels, but that is different to if I didn't believe and thought squirellism was an evil that needs to be expunged from society. That would be anti-squirrel.
Healyhatman.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.149.114.32 (
talk •
contribs) 19:43, 24 December 2007
So anti-religion against all religions? even atheism? Is atheism a religion? Isn't a religion a BELIEF... so isn't atheism a religion of disbelief? How can one be "antireligious" when all people possess an opinion. It's a logical paradox. 72.221.114.113 ( talk) 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The figure of 21 million victims of antireligious politics of the Soviet state is clearly bogus. Here is an article in Russian, where its author calculates up to half a million repressed on religious grounds in any way(mostly sent to GULAG) The same article quotes the total number of criminal verdicts 1918-1953 as 4 308 487, 835 194 of them -- death penalty. The total number of repression victims (executed, jailed and resettled) is about 10 million people. Causalities in the Russian Civil War amounts to about 2 million (both sides). And I may remind you, the site I quote is an Orthodox site, where people are clearly not interested in lowering the figures. They come to the above mentioned 500 000 as an upper bound, there are other scholars giving figures like 5 times less. The only way to get 21 million is to add here all the famine victims maybe, (because officially overwhelming majority of the population was recorded as Orthodox Christian before the Revolution) and count them as "Christian dead by actions of godless government = martyr". So I edit the numbers. As well as sentence about Church property: by law, church buildings and so on were not property of Orthodox Church, but were state property, rented by the Church, since the 18th century. RlyechDweller ( talk) 04:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody please explain the difference. It doesn't say anywhere in the article why there is a difference, it just says that there is, and I don't get why. Aren't theism and religion the same thing? Jprulestheworld ( talk) 11:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In describing the persecutions of the Khmer Rouge religion should come first because this is an article about antireligious activity. That it was a part of a more general persecution should be second. I will restore that order. - Fartherred ( talk) 10:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The article claims but does not prove that there is any difference between atheism, antitheism and antireligion. The term "Antireligion" is in use indeed, but in a couple of books I perused this was nothing but a synonym to atheism. Please provide solid references which define "antireligion" as a separate concept. Otherwise this artisle is to be replaced with a disambiguation page. Yceren Loq ( talk) 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This thread seems closest to the year old OR tag I just removed as stale. Atheism, anti-theism, and anti-religion are all distinct. The second is largely made up and would implicitly a kind of theism, if not a another word for atheist. Anti-religion however is epitomized by the so-called Church or the Cult of Reason which actively evangelizes against forms of belief not solely based on reason and experience. 72.228.189.184 ( talk) 20:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I intend to restore the paragraph on the Khmer Rouge atrocities and add another reference. - Fartherred ( talk) 08:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I have known many people who describe themselves as "areligionists", some of them for many years. I also describe myself in this way. I have never known anyone to describe themselves as an "antireligionist". "Anti" implies a strongly active opposition, rather than a state of belief. An "antitheist" would be someone strongly and actively opposed to all forms of theism. While some atheists fit into that extreme category, most don't. The same is true of areligionism: some areligionists are that strongly and actively opposed to religion; the vast majority are not.
This whole article exudes a pejorative viewpoint, as by someone who sees areligionism as an extremely negative thing, and has chosen to grind their axe about it in a Wiki article. Better no article at all, than one so clearly and inaccurately biased.
I suggest deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
As above, I would not oppose moving the content about persecution of religion to [[Anti-religious persecution]], but persecution of religion has occurred. To not mention it would give a false idea of history. - Fartherred ( talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It hardly seems that you have even read what I wrote. Lycurgus wrote: that I was "conflating political persecutions such as the Khmer Rouge genocide as being primarily about religion". While I actually wrote: "While a religious persecution was not the main activity, it was not neglected." exactly the opposite of writing that it was mainly about religion. Do you maintain that a religious persecution cannot occur while a larger political persecution is occurring, and if so why?
To say that the U.S. bombing was responsible for the (about) 1.7 million deaths in Cambodia would be nonsense, but I did not write that at all. The Khmer Rouge were using terroristic killings if not absolutely from its beginnings in 1968 then very soon after. U.S. bombing was done from about 1965 to about 1973. There was considerable overlap. I consider that the 1.7 million deaths should include the entire career of the Khmer Rouge. I will agree that their motivations were seemingly mostly political, but whatever the underlying motivation, a disproportionate number of monks died.
I am not nearly as well informed on this topic as I wish I were, even though these facts can be terrible to know. I hope to learn because knowledge can do some good. - Fartherred ( talk) 02:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It's clear that some action must be taken to address the many complaints above. I was going to put a subst move template but opening this thread for a discussion of that. One thing that caught my attention just now was School prayer. So if the article is to survive it must somehow find an appropriate place in main namespace that already has secularization, irreligion, etc. There is still a gap but if this article is to survive, say as Opposition to Religion with Farthereds contributions in persecution sections then there will need to be a balance of presentation of secularization in a positive or at least objective light as well as a redact of the distortions due to the POV for which there are many complaints above. FTR I don't think up until now I've had a single edit on the actual text of this article. Lycurgus ( talk) 22:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Lycurgus ( talk) 23:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The History section is awfully biased towards presenting antireligion as something almost synonymous with being a genocidal totalitarian state. It's completely casual in doing so, for example "The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate religions and all else relating to the old culture of Cambodia. In the process they killed nearly 1.7 million people". The entirety of it will need careful rephrasing and much more extensive set of examples, so that it shows a picture of actual history of antireligion, not history of political religions wiping out theistic religions. mathrick ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This article would make one think antireligionists are all genocidal monsters. There has to be a way to balance this article. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.18.127 ( talk) 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antireligion. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Came to see how this was doing per my involvement above and found butchered carcass of a normal article, so just reverted to a presentable state using named identity. Will come back to see if there was subsequent content that should be incorporated. 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 20:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a common misperception of ignorant Westerners, many of whom presume that everyone everywhere has some sort of beliefs like their own. Confucianism is a traditional system of thought and behavior and has many precepts and things that look like a religion but it does not posit a world other than the material one, fictional beings in it or other common counterfactuals of religion. A similar situation applies for pure Theravada Buddhism, that of the Buddha himself but in that case it is less than the worldly totality that presents itself in Confucianism and many degenerate forms of Buddhism are little different in profile from Islam or Christianity.
About the only thing in Confucianism that qualifies is filial piety which is often translated in the West as "ancestor worship", in a distortion. 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 05:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed a couple recent problematic additions which appear to be unattributed cut&paste additions from other articles. The reason I removed them, rather than attribute them, however, is because of the numerous incongruities between what the cited sources say and what was added to the article. For example, what the source described as a propaganda crusade of literature and debates, was instead entered as "persecution" in our article. Another source described secularism, but was entered here only as "atheism" in an improperly conveyed quotation. Twice, the phrase "Under the doctrine of..." is used, without being explicitly conveyed in the cited sources. The whole book, "Inside Central Asia" is cited, without page numbers. The two sentences cited to Blaney (pg. 494) convey something different. There are weird duplications, e.g.; in one sentence, it says "the government founded the League of Militant Atheists...", then in the immediately following sentence, it also says "The League of Militant Atheists was also a 'nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party...'" (with the League wikilinked both times as well). The article already stated that the Khmer Rouge eliminated all the religions, including Buddhism -- to which was added more text saying that the Khmer Rouge banned all religions, including Buddhism. These are just a few of the problems with the newly introduced text. It would be helpful if the editor could indicate here what information they hoped to convey to the reader so that it can be meaningfully incorporated into the existing prose. Xenophrenic ( talk) 05:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the most recent edits of April 23, there are numerous editorial problems:
|accessdate=
parameters saying they were last accessed or retrieved years ago. I assume they were copied from somewhere else on Wikipedia, but it is your responsibility to verify the sources say what you claim they say when you introduce them into another article. (I see that several do not.)What concerns me the most, however, are these two sentence changes. I've moved these sentence changes here for discussion. The following sentences were changed from this:
to this:
No such "policy" is described in that fashion by the cited sources, which actually describe the motivation for the antireligious campaigns. Even Kowalewski, the only source to use close to that wording, clarifies that state atheism was the goal of the ideology. He goes on to clarify on pages 427-8 that Marxism-Leninism is the impetus behind the anti-religious policy.
And from this:
to this:
The added source citations did not support this additional text about such a policy. It is also grammatically incorrect ("policy of militant state atheism policy"?) And what happened to the mention of Cambodia's culture? This cited source states: "the Khmer Rouge set out to erase an entire culture, a major foundation stone of which was Cambodia’s religion, Theravada Buddhism."
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could explain what it is you are trying to convey to the readers with these additions. Xenophrenic ( talk) 09:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so no input then? Xenophrenic ( talk) 12:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I see you have resumed editing elsewhere, so I am going to address some of the problems outlined above. I would, however, still like your input on what it is you intend your recent additions to convey to our readers, so that we can work to present it in an intelligible form. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
As user Renzoy16 cited above; the additions were actually well sourced to references (including those from academic publishers). Here is my edit:
and about this edit:
The official ideology of Soviet Union, on which its policy towards relgions was based, was Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism an official doctrine of the state, and advocated the elimination of religions by control and suppression, as well as through the promotion of atheism in the public sphere.
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. ....
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools..-- Jobas ( talk) 19:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The official ideology of Soviet Union, on which its policy towards relgions was based, was Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism an official doctrine of the state, the Soviet Union viewed religion as closely tied with foreign nationality, and thus had directed antireligious efforts of varying degrees and intensities, and at varying faiths, depending on what threat they posed to the Soviet state, and their willingness to subordinate itself to political authority.I removed (again) the partial and selective quote you embedded in the citation to this source. I am interested in hearing your thoughts as to why those specific sentences are of value. I've also undid the inconsistent piping you did, which was inserted without explanation. Xenophrenic ( talk) 12:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise."then
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies'. ...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society.
Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy, it's say propagation of atheism was another consistent policy druing the antireligious campaigns, so it's related to this section and relevant.-- Jobas ( talk) 22:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It is obviously of vital interest that the State enforced Atheism as a doctrine. This is not deniable, just as it is not deniable that this led to other policies by the State towards the religious. There is no justification for hiding that information that I can see. desmay ( talk) 18:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
moving towards an atheist society", when the source cited
" One of the main aims of the regime was to transform Romania into a communist atheist society in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise"and you removed the sentence
"The Soviet Union adopted the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, and made atheism as the offcial doctrine of the state"when the source cited
"Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union.and you removed the the sentence
".. and advocated the elimination of religions by control and suppression, as well as through the promotion of atheism in the public sphere"when the source cited
"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools"and
"Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs" .. " In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy"; That's why i mention the Wikipedia:YOUDONTLIKEIT, the source is very clear, and the sentence or my edit is conformed to that source.
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to move towards an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the régime also held the goal of educating the laboring masses in science, politics and culture--they believed this would help them eliminate "superstition and mysticism", thereby reducing the influence of religion.
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise."then
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies'. ...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society..-- Jobas ( talk) 19:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"superstition and mysticism", which does not exist in the cited source. There are other examples of editing improvements cited above.
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to educate the laboring masses in science, politics and culture to help them fight superstition and mysticism, thereby reducing the influence of religion and resulting in an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie.I feel this sentence better conforms to what the sources we are using convey. As I'm sure you know, our sources say slightly different things, and we need to use editorial discretion to resolve conflicts. For example, the sources say that the Romanian Orthodox church collaborated with the communists, and the communists accommodated it in return, while using the church for political ends. The sources tell us that creating an atheist society wasn't so much a "main aim" in Romania after all, as matters of state took precedence. The sources also tell us that an atheistic society was never even close to being realized in Romania, as throughout the reign of the communist regime the citizenry were 50-70% "believers". I'd like to work with you to make sure our article properly conveys the correct tone as expressed in the totality of the sources we are using, instead of butting heads over content. Can you see that happening? Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy. The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests., and as user desmay cited above it is obviously of vital interest that the State enforced Atheism as a doctrine and as part of it's antireligious campaigns, Now a question for you why you keep removing information that you don't like.-- Jobas ( talk) 21:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to move towards an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the régime also held the goal to educate the laboring masses in science, politics and culture to help them fight superstition and mysticism, thereby reducing the influence of religion.I feel this sentence better conforms to what the sources we are using convey. see again what the source cited
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise."then
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies'. ...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society..-- Jobas ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise.", my edit said:
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to move towards an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the régime also held the goal to educate the laboring masses in science, politics and culture to help them fight superstition and mysticism, thereby reducing the influence of religion..-- Jobas ( talk) 16:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
A cursory glance at your edits reveals that you wish to remove the term "state atheism" or related terms from articles where it properly provides context for antireligious persecution of the faithful. The source I graciously provided to you explicitly affirms that state atheism was part of an ideology responsible for antireligious violence against people of faith. There are no objections to including this in the text, other than " WP:IDONTLIKEIT," a position you seem to hold in light of examining all of your recent edits of excising information about state atheism, as I mentioned to you above. The reason I put quotes around "superstition and mysticism" is because that was the atheistic communist opinion--that education would result in the waning of religion because they viewed it as "superstition and mysticism". You seemed to present this as a fact (possibly reflecting a POV although I'll assume good faith and see this as an oversight on your part even though it's becoming increasing hard to do so). As the source is published by an academic press, it will remain in the article.-- Jobas ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
which made atheism an official doctrine of the statewas based on this source
The official ideology of Soviet Union, on which its policy towards relgions was based, was Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism an official doctrine of the state, While this edit
and the USSR actively propagated atheism in the public spherewas based this source
Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy, the source cited in clearly that propagated atheism was consistent policy. and in both of these edit's i don't see any personal opinion or original research or claims that "atheism" is "responsible" for that violence.
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy. The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests..-- Jobas ( talk) 22:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"One of the main aims of the regime was to transform Romania into a communist atheist society in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise.; then my edit say the régime also set to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to help them fight superstition and mysticism and the soruce cited
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies', the the last part of my version cited and initiated an anti-religious campaign in 1945 that lasted until 1965 and another one with the duration of 1965–1990 aimed to reducing the influence of religion in society. and the the first source cited
...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society. could you explain where is the problematic part? and how my version conflict with the cited source?.
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy. The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests, This not my personal opinion or problematic wording, and the section that you provieded it's state that the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others, no mention here about " official doctrines", and it dosen't conflict with my wording.-- Jobas ( talk) 16:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antireligion. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
this should probably be spelled "anti-religious", as an English coinage. A more learned coinage would be (avoiding mixture of Greek and Latin), "contra-religious". Please substantiate that this is even a word. not just a domain name, or else explicitly make it an article about these websites. dab (ᛏ) 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is ludicrous, it paints anti-religonists with some kind of generalizing brush that Atheists have been getting away with for decades now. That is, that *we* can refer to ourselves in the 3rd person and apply any positive adjective we wish. I.e. O'Hare and other Atheists claiming "Atheists would rather do X than Y." But when the same generalized tone is applied in a perjorative sense, they scream bloody murder at whoever dares to 'stereotype' them.
I think this article may not be quite neutral, or at least, takes the stand point that antireligion is a strange, minority concept. compare the wording of this article to that of an article on a religion. (30/10/2006, 5:54 UTC))
I agreed with the above comment that this article may not be quite neutral. It most definatly does differ from the tone and such of an article on religion such as Christianity. It is not wikipedia's policy to present an article that places a certain emphasis or tone upon the information it contains. I strongly reccomend that the neutrality, noteably the undertone, of this article be discussed and reviewed. Jarryd Moore 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This seem to have been corrected, coz i can`t find any violation as of now Dec 9th 06, as far as neutrality goes, nor any inference to atheism. I`ll therefore remove the Neutrality dispute disclaimer. Slicky 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Two editors just added, in rapid succession, Anton LaVey and LaVeyan Satanism. The first four words of the satanism article state "Satanism is a religion...." I realize that he defines his religion differently than most do, but I don't see how this can be "antireligion". -- lquilter 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Douglas Adams really antireligious? There's plenty to say he's an atheist, and he certainly used religion in his humour, but I'm not sure that it extends to antireligion. A lot of statements could be seen as ambivalence ("2000 years after some guy got nailed to a tree"); or even opposition to atheism ("[Man provides] proof of the non-existence of god. ... As an encore he goes on to show that black equals white, and get killed at the next zebra crossing"). Likewise, he also made humour at the expense of democracy ("the wrong lizard might get in"), so is he antidemocratic? I would hesitate to attach too much weight to his comic texts. -- h2g2bob 13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that daniel dennett wrote a book about a religion as a natural phenomena, but he does think religion should be discarded. He stated himself that it would be arrogant to discard faith and he is simply trying to understand human nature. The book states that religion should not be offlimits to science. If you don't believe me here is a link. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not use definition as: "Antireligion is opposition to religion." instead of "Antireligion is opposition to some religion.". It makes no sense there. If it makes sense there, why it's not in the next sentence, eg: "People who are antireligious may see SOME religions as dangerous, ..." XNathanielX ( talk) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Penn is mentioned - shouldn't Teller count? 91.84.182.207 ( talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be antireligion = atheism. I'm a man of faith, but I would identify as an antireligionist, and I would see Jesus as antireligionist. Isn't there any prominent theistic antireligionists? 91.107.53.111 ( talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is old, but there absolutely is a basis for Jesus being antireligious. It's something that's often debated in my family (with biblical verse). Making an outright statement that there is no basis is just obnoxious and untrue. In fact, I challenge someone to collect textual biblical evidence and make the case here. I'd do it if I had time, but I have a thesis to work on.
I'm not going to take any formal measures at this point, but I'd like to ask whether this article should be merged into Atheism. The distinction between antireligion and atheism is not clear; almost any expression of antireligion falls under one or more definitions of atheism, particularly strong atheism. Furthermore, a two-sentence definition of antireligion followed by a long list of people said to be antireligious simply does not seem to merit a separate article. -- 7Kim ( talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Some people who don't think Scientology is a religion keep making Christianity and Islam the only example religions in the intro to this article. Personally, I think all three are objectionable belief systems serving ulterior motivations, although no doubt important and even life saving for some of their believers. I don't see that the antireligion page is a very good place for having this dispute. But I strongly object to the removal of content which results in the implication that only mainstream religions can cause people to be antireligious. The introduction as it is written now has a very broad definition of antireligion which is quite different from simple atheism.-- Jaibe 09:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Antireligion is opposition to some or all religions in some or all contexts. People who are antireligious may see religions as dangerous, destructive, divisive, foolish, or absurd. This opposition may be confined to just organized mainstream religions such as Christianity or Islam and include minor religions such as cults; extend to organized belief systems not supported by empirical evidence (such as Scientology), or may more generally include all forms of belief in the supernatural.
I included Karl Marx because he was a materialist who apparently made some noises against religion in general, including his famous Opium of the People/ Opiate of the Masses scribblings. Thus, he was probably an antireligionist. 204.52.215.107 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because he was "probably" an antigrligionist doesnt mean he actually was. If you wish to include someone in the list that you are unsure of, please first go and find a source that comfirms that they are antireligious (yes even if you put "allegedly" in). Remember we are presenting a collection of information, not our own deductions from information. Just a reminder :-) Jarryd Moore
Removed Marx. He was an atheist, but I can't find any proof he was antireligious. His "opiate of the people" remark is usually taken out of context; in-context, it suggests that religion is a natural and possibly positive or negative result of living in an unpleasant world. In his time, opiates were considered legitimate and useful painkillers, not strictly harmful recreational drugs as they often are considered now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.186.9 ( talk) 05:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Brandon Boyd does NOT SAY that he's an atheist. He simply says that he opposes Christianity, and implies that he feels that way about organized religion in general. So while he's anti-religious, he's not necessarily an atheist.--Josh
Wouldn't Lemmy Kilmister from the band Motorhead be on this list too? I thought he hated god and all religions
What about William Blake? Didn't he feel organised religion repressed true spirituality or something? The flying pasty ( talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed Adolf Hitler, because anyone who has read the speeches of Adolf Hitler can see clearly that he frequently made statements in support of Christianity and Christian themes. The only references used to proclaim him antireligious (or that he was an atheist) are "Hitler's Table Talk"
[3], which is not speeches he made, but rather dinner conversations that people around him later recalled him saying. Plus, there is already an article in Wkipedia all about Hitler's Religious beliefs, and it does not support the claim that he was anti-religious.
[1]
Dwirish (
talk)
20:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Could we have some sort of reference or authority for the claim that "antireligion" is distinct from atheism. I am quite interested in atheism, yet I have never once heard of "antireligion" being an alternative. The list of people here seems to be so similar to a list of atheists that it conflicts the opening about how the two terms are different. Epa101 ( talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OF COURSE they're different. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god(s), but they may not see any problem in other people believing. In contrast, this article is saying that antireligious people are, ANTI RELIGION. As in they DO have a problem with other people putting their faith in invisible spacemen who never answer them. The point is... I can not BELIEVE in squirrels, but that is different to if I didn't believe and thought squirellism was an evil that needs to be expunged from society. That would be anti-squirrel.
Healyhatman.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.149.114.32 (
talk •
contribs) 19:43, 24 December 2007
So anti-religion against all religions? even atheism? Is atheism a religion? Isn't a religion a BELIEF... so isn't atheism a religion of disbelief? How can one be "antireligious" when all people possess an opinion. It's a logical paradox. 72.221.114.113 ( talk) 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The figure of 21 million victims of antireligious politics of the Soviet state is clearly bogus. Here is an article in Russian, where its author calculates up to half a million repressed on religious grounds in any way(mostly sent to GULAG) The same article quotes the total number of criminal verdicts 1918-1953 as 4 308 487, 835 194 of them -- death penalty. The total number of repression victims (executed, jailed and resettled) is about 10 million people. Causalities in the Russian Civil War amounts to about 2 million (both sides). And I may remind you, the site I quote is an Orthodox site, where people are clearly not interested in lowering the figures. They come to the above mentioned 500 000 as an upper bound, there are other scholars giving figures like 5 times less. The only way to get 21 million is to add here all the famine victims maybe, (because officially overwhelming majority of the population was recorded as Orthodox Christian before the Revolution) and count them as "Christian dead by actions of godless government = martyr". So I edit the numbers. As well as sentence about Church property: by law, church buildings and so on were not property of Orthodox Church, but were state property, rented by the Church, since the 18th century. RlyechDweller ( talk) 04:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody please explain the difference. It doesn't say anywhere in the article why there is a difference, it just says that there is, and I don't get why. Aren't theism and religion the same thing? Jprulestheworld ( talk) 11:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In describing the persecutions of the Khmer Rouge religion should come first because this is an article about antireligious activity. That it was a part of a more general persecution should be second. I will restore that order. - Fartherred ( talk) 10:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The article claims but does not prove that there is any difference between atheism, antitheism and antireligion. The term "Antireligion" is in use indeed, but in a couple of books I perused this was nothing but a synonym to atheism. Please provide solid references which define "antireligion" as a separate concept. Otherwise this artisle is to be replaced with a disambiguation page. Yceren Loq ( talk) 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This thread seems closest to the year old OR tag I just removed as stale. Atheism, anti-theism, and anti-religion are all distinct. The second is largely made up and would implicitly a kind of theism, if not a another word for atheist. Anti-religion however is epitomized by the so-called Church or the Cult of Reason which actively evangelizes against forms of belief not solely based on reason and experience. 72.228.189.184 ( talk) 20:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I intend to restore the paragraph on the Khmer Rouge atrocities and add another reference. - Fartherred ( talk) 08:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I have known many people who describe themselves as "areligionists", some of them for many years. I also describe myself in this way. I have never known anyone to describe themselves as an "antireligionist". "Anti" implies a strongly active opposition, rather than a state of belief. An "antitheist" would be someone strongly and actively opposed to all forms of theism. While some atheists fit into that extreme category, most don't. The same is true of areligionism: some areligionists are that strongly and actively opposed to religion; the vast majority are not.
This whole article exudes a pejorative viewpoint, as by someone who sees areligionism as an extremely negative thing, and has chosen to grind their axe about it in a Wiki article. Better no article at all, than one so clearly and inaccurately biased.
I suggest deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
As above, I would not oppose moving the content about persecution of religion to [[Anti-religious persecution]], but persecution of religion has occurred. To not mention it would give a false idea of history. - Fartherred ( talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It hardly seems that you have even read what I wrote. Lycurgus wrote: that I was "conflating political persecutions such as the Khmer Rouge genocide as being primarily about religion". While I actually wrote: "While a religious persecution was not the main activity, it was not neglected." exactly the opposite of writing that it was mainly about religion. Do you maintain that a religious persecution cannot occur while a larger political persecution is occurring, and if so why?
To say that the U.S. bombing was responsible for the (about) 1.7 million deaths in Cambodia would be nonsense, but I did not write that at all. The Khmer Rouge were using terroristic killings if not absolutely from its beginnings in 1968 then very soon after. U.S. bombing was done from about 1965 to about 1973. There was considerable overlap. I consider that the 1.7 million deaths should include the entire career of the Khmer Rouge. I will agree that their motivations were seemingly mostly political, but whatever the underlying motivation, a disproportionate number of monks died.
I am not nearly as well informed on this topic as I wish I were, even though these facts can be terrible to know. I hope to learn because knowledge can do some good. - Fartherred ( talk) 02:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It's clear that some action must be taken to address the many complaints above. I was going to put a subst move template but opening this thread for a discussion of that. One thing that caught my attention just now was School prayer. So if the article is to survive it must somehow find an appropriate place in main namespace that already has secularization, irreligion, etc. There is still a gap but if this article is to survive, say as Opposition to Religion with Farthereds contributions in persecution sections then there will need to be a balance of presentation of secularization in a positive or at least objective light as well as a redact of the distortions due to the POV for which there are many complaints above. FTR I don't think up until now I've had a single edit on the actual text of this article. Lycurgus ( talk) 22:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Lycurgus ( talk) 23:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The History section is awfully biased towards presenting antireligion as something almost synonymous with being a genocidal totalitarian state. It's completely casual in doing so, for example "The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate religions and all else relating to the old culture of Cambodia. In the process they killed nearly 1.7 million people". The entirety of it will need careful rephrasing and much more extensive set of examples, so that it shows a picture of actual history of antireligion, not history of political religions wiping out theistic religions. mathrick ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This article would make one think antireligionists are all genocidal monsters. There has to be a way to balance this article. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.18.127 ( talk) 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antireligion. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Came to see how this was doing per my involvement above and found butchered carcass of a normal article, so just reverted to a presentable state using named identity. Will come back to see if there was subsequent content that should be incorporated. 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 20:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a common misperception of ignorant Westerners, many of whom presume that everyone everywhere has some sort of beliefs like their own. Confucianism is a traditional system of thought and behavior and has many precepts and things that look like a religion but it does not posit a world other than the material one, fictional beings in it or other common counterfactuals of religion. A similar situation applies for pure Theravada Buddhism, that of the Buddha himself but in that case it is less than the worldly totality that presents itself in Confucianism and many degenerate forms of Buddhism are little different in profile from Islam or Christianity.
About the only thing in Confucianism that qualifies is filial piety which is often translated in the West as "ancestor worship", in a distortion. 98.4.124.117 ( talk) 05:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed a couple recent problematic additions which appear to be unattributed cut&paste additions from other articles. The reason I removed them, rather than attribute them, however, is because of the numerous incongruities between what the cited sources say and what was added to the article. For example, what the source described as a propaganda crusade of literature and debates, was instead entered as "persecution" in our article. Another source described secularism, but was entered here only as "atheism" in an improperly conveyed quotation. Twice, the phrase "Under the doctrine of..." is used, without being explicitly conveyed in the cited sources. The whole book, "Inside Central Asia" is cited, without page numbers. The two sentences cited to Blaney (pg. 494) convey something different. There are weird duplications, e.g.; in one sentence, it says "the government founded the League of Militant Atheists...", then in the immediately following sentence, it also says "The League of Militant Atheists was also a 'nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party...'" (with the League wikilinked both times as well). The article already stated that the Khmer Rouge eliminated all the religions, including Buddhism -- to which was added more text saying that the Khmer Rouge banned all religions, including Buddhism. These are just a few of the problems with the newly introduced text. It would be helpful if the editor could indicate here what information they hoped to convey to the reader so that it can be meaningfully incorporated into the existing prose. Xenophrenic ( talk) 05:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the most recent edits of April 23, there are numerous editorial problems:
|accessdate=
parameters saying they were last accessed or retrieved years ago. I assume they were copied from somewhere else on Wikipedia, but it is your responsibility to verify the sources say what you claim they say when you introduce them into another article. (I see that several do not.)What concerns me the most, however, are these two sentence changes. I've moved these sentence changes here for discussion. The following sentences were changed from this:
to this:
No such "policy" is described in that fashion by the cited sources, which actually describe the motivation for the antireligious campaigns. Even Kowalewski, the only source to use close to that wording, clarifies that state atheism was the goal of the ideology. He goes on to clarify on pages 427-8 that Marxism-Leninism is the impetus behind the anti-religious policy.
And from this:
to this:
The added source citations did not support this additional text about such a policy. It is also grammatically incorrect ("policy of militant state atheism policy"?) And what happened to the mention of Cambodia's culture? This cited source states: "the Khmer Rouge set out to erase an entire culture, a major foundation stone of which was Cambodia’s religion, Theravada Buddhism."
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could explain what it is you are trying to convey to the readers with these additions. Xenophrenic ( talk) 09:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so no input then? Xenophrenic ( talk) 12:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I see you have resumed editing elsewhere, so I am going to address some of the problems outlined above. I would, however, still like your input on what it is you intend your recent additions to convey to our readers, so that we can work to present it in an intelligible form. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
As user Renzoy16 cited above; the additions were actually well sourced to references (including those from academic publishers). Here is my edit:
and about this edit:
The official ideology of Soviet Union, on which its policy towards relgions was based, was Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism an official doctrine of the state, and advocated the elimination of religions by control and suppression, as well as through the promotion of atheism in the public sphere.
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. ....
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools..-- Jobas ( talk) 19:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The official ideology of Soviet Union, on which its policy towards relgions was based, was Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism an official doctrine of the state, the Soviet Union viewed religion as closely tied with foreign nationality, and thus had directed antireligious efforts of varying degrees and intensities, and at varying faiths, depending on what threat they posed to the Soviet state, and their willingness to subordinate itself to political authority.I removed (again) the partial and selective quote you embedded in the citation to this source. I am interested in hearing your thoughts as to why those specific sentences are of value. I've also undid the inconsistent piping you did, which was inserted without explanation. Xenophrenic ( talk) 12:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise."then
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies'. ...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society.
Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy, it's say propagation of atheism was another consistent policy druing the antireligious campaigns, so it's related to this section and relevant.-- Jobas ( talk) 22:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It is obviously of vital interest that the State enforced Atheism as a doctrine. This is not deniable, just as it is not deniable that this led to other policies by the State towards the religious. There is no justification for hiding that information that I can see. desmay ( talk) 18:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
moving towards an atheist society", when the source cited
" One of the main aims of the regime was to transform Romania into a communist atheist society in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise"and you removed the sentence
"The Soviet Union adopted the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, and made atheism as the offcial doctrine of the state"when the source cited
"Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union.and you removed the the sentence
".. and advocated the elimination of religions by control and suppression, as well as through the promotion of atheism in the public sphere"when the source cited
"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools"and
"Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs" .. " In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy"; That's why i mention the Wikipedia:YOUDONTLIKEIT, the source is very clear, and the sentence or my edit is conformed to that source.
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to move towards an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the régime also held the goal of educating the laboring masses in science, politics and culture--they believed this would help them eliminate "superstition and mysticism", thereby reducing the influence of religion.
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise."then
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies'. ...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society..-- Jobas ( talk) 19:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"superstition and mysticism", which does not exist in the cited source. There are other examples of editing improvements cited above.
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to educate the laboring masses in science, politics and culture to help them fight superstition and mysticism, thereby reducing the influence of religion and resulting in an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie.I feel this sentence better conforms to what the sources we are using convey. As I'm sure you know, our sources say slightly different things, and we need to use editorial discretion to resolve conflicts. For example, the sources say that the Romanian Orthodox church collaborated with the communists, and the communists accommodated it in return, while using the church for political ends. The sources tell us that creating an atheist society wasn't so much a "main aim" in Romania after all, as matters of state took precedence. The sources also tell us that an atheistic society was never even close to being realized in Romania, as throughout the reign of the communist regime the citizenry were 50-70% "believers". I'd like to work with you to make sure our article properly conveys the correct tone as expressed in the totality of the sources we are using, instead of butting heads over content. Can you see that happening? Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy. The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests., and as user desmay cited above it is obviously of vital interest that the State enforced Atheism as a doctrine and as part of it's antireligious campaigns, Now a question for you why you keep removing information that you don't like.-- Jobas ( talk) 21:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to move towards an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the régime also held the goal to educate the laboring masses in science, politics and culture to help them fight superstition and mysticism, thereby reducing the influence of religion.I feel this sentence better conforms to what the sources we are using convey. see again what the source cited
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise."then
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies'. ...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society..-- Jobas ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"One of the main aims of the regime was to 'transform Romania into a communist atheist society' in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise.", my edit said:
Authorities in the People's Republic of Romania aimed to move towards an atheistic society, in which religion would be considered as the ideology of the bourgeoisie; the régime also held the goal to educate the laboring masses in science, politics and culture to help them fight superstition and mysticism, thereby reducing the influence of religion..-- Jobas ( talk) 16:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
A cursory glance at your edits reveals that you wish to remove the term "state atheism" or related terms from articles where it properly provides context for antireligious persecution of the faithful. The source I graciously provided to you explicitly affirms that state atheism was part of an ideology responsible for antireligious violence against people of faith. There are no objections to including this in the text, other than " WP:IDONTLIKEIT," a position you seem to hold in light of examining all of your recent edits of excising information about state atheism, as I mentioned to you above. The reason I put quotes around "superstition and mysticism" is because that was the atheistic communist opinion--that education would result in the waning of religion because they viewed it as "superstition and mysticism". You seemed to present this as a fact (possibly reflecting a POV although I'll assume good faith and see this as an oversight on your part even though it's becoming increasing hard to do so). As the source is published by an academic press, it will remain in the article.-- Jobas ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
which made atheism an official doctrine of the statewas based on this source
The official ideology of Soviet Union, on which its policy towards relgions was based, was Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism an official doctrine of the state, While this edit
and the USSR actively propagated atheism in the public spherewas based this source
Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy, the source cited in clearly that propagated atheism was consistent policy. and in both of these edit's i don't see any personal opinion or original research or claims that "atheism" is "responsible" for that violence.
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy. The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests..-- Jobas ( talk) 22:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"One of the main aims of the regime was to transform Romania into a communist atheist society in which religion was considered the ideology of the bourgeoise.; then my edit say the régime also set to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to help them fight superstition and mysticism and the soruce cited
The main objective of this anti-religious society was 'to propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies', the the last part of my version cited and initiated an anti-religious campaign in 1945 that lasted until 1965 and another one with the duration of 1965–1990 aimed to reducing the influence of religion in society. and the the first source cited
...the regime's anti-religious campaign aimed to discredit the church and to reduce the influence of religion in society. could you explain where is the problematic part? and how my version conflict with the cited source?.
Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy. The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests, This not my personal opinion or problematic wording, and the section that you provieded it's state that the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others, no mention here about " official doctrines", and it dosen't conflict with my wording.-- Jobas ( talk) 16:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antireligion. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)