Jump to content

Talk:State atheism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Aren't Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism atheist religions anyhow?

State atheism gets into conflict with religious traditions only if the country upon which state atheism is imposed has a predominantly christian, muslim or maybe Jewish tradition. So for a buddhist f.i. there should be no such conflict, since for a buddhist "believing in God" does not play any role, does it?

A bit of googling turned this up. One suspects that the Kalmyks deported to Siberia would disagree. Also, there's this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, the Qin state was atheistic before the time of Christ. This whole subject doesn't really apply to Chinese culture, Confucianism, Taoism, or the (at least Theravada) Buddhist states. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Legacy of State Atheism

Much of this section, in addtion to being underdeveloped suggests a bias in favor of religious practice with phrases such as "nearly illiterate regarding religion" and "almost completely lacking the intellectual or philosophical aspects of their faith (who's?) and having almost no knowledge of other faiths."--125.0.116.138 (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OPINION has some guidance on this. I've edited the article to assert this as assertions of one particular author. Personally, I think that such a strong assertion should pe placed into a better-developed context. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Although a quote, "nearly illiterate regarding religion" is certainly POV and appears to reflect a mindset oblivious to the fact that these populations may be intentionally so: in a success for the period of attempted socialism, they have no intention of returning to the religions of their pre-socialist grandparents and great grandparents. Nonetheless, aside from this slant the text in the § as it stands now appears well sourced and otherwise factual so will remove the tag after a wait. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it should also be noted that references from sources such as McGraths would probably indicate that they are die-hard anti-Dawkinists or anti-atheists (or theists? hahaha). Anti-atheist or antiatheist, I wonder when that word will catch on. Children of the dragon (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I think its really important that whatever stylistic changes you feel inclined, or not inclined to take. That you not remove the statistics about the current religious followings of Russia, Ukraine, etc. (the statistics). Obviously the only legacy of state atheism that anyone cares about is, how many people in that country are atheist today? I thought that Russia was between 60-70% atheist. I had no idea that actually the reverse is true, the former major religion of Russia: Russian Orthodox has made a resurgence to about two thirds of the population? This information should absolutely be unchanged.

(UTC) 10:51, 24 July 2010(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.148.133 (talk)

Keep in mind this article is anti-atheistic propaganda intended to mislead readers into believing atheism has some sort of relationship to political violence. The more you try and make sense of this article the less sense it is going to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The very concept

is to some extent a hoax. Some states seek to suppress religion period for largely the same reasons that they seek to educate and otherwise advance their populations. Doubtless there's a faction, I don't even need to read the threads above to verify it, who see the rejection of religion and less organized superstition as itself religion. This is true if you see every belief system as a religion. So that's the perspective that is likely informing the text in this subject, by virtue of its name. That's where "state atheism", by which is meant the suppression of religion, a quite different thing, comes from. In this splitting, "state atheism" is the conjugate of "theocracy". The opposite of the theocratic state, or a state which establishes a religion, is the modern secular state. Revolutionary socialist societies simply go further in a process which for that matter was begun in the West in the 18th century with the separation of church and state in the US state framework. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there could be a founding of religion on purely rational principles, something I've given a lot of thought to, but that of course is pure OR. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Note in support of my contention opening this thread Secularism in Turkey, Secularism in India, Secularism in Iran, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
See also The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come#Suppression_of_religions. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Undid revision 346939246 by Bolegash (talk)

Reverted removal of content (see subject line). This was good, substantiated, and sourced material. Its removal contradicts the rest of the article and should stay in place. avs5221 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx's own words are not good?Bolegash (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Bolegash, you may have made an error in editing. The edit summary content indicates that you added a quote from Marx, but the diff from the prior edit just shows a bunch of text removed and nothing added. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See also

I have repeatedly removed several unrelated see also articles, such as communist genocide, communist terrorism, and more recently On the Personality Cult and its Consequences. Could someone please explain to me (preferably citing sources)how any of these articles are relevant to the state atheism? (Igny (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

you don;t get it, do you? this wikipedia "article' is a propaganda piece. those links make perfect sense in light of this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate a request for an explanation why communist genocide, terrorirm, various terrors are relevant here, please provide RS. (Igny (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

Aikman

Regarding the sentence "Journalist David Aikman writes that the majority of Chinese have lost faith in Communism because the Marxist philosophy is chained to “the iron ball of state atheism, [which] has left it in a moral wasteland”.[43]". Is there a policy based reason for including this opinion ? It seems odd sitting there by itself given that it's a rather extraordinary statement. Does anyone know how Aikman arrived at this conclusion i.e. what were his information sources ? I haven't got the book myself. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Journalist David Aikman writes that the majority of Chinese have lost faith in Communism because the Marxist philosophy is chained to “the iron ball of state atheism, [which] has left it in a moral wasteland”.[1]

  1. ^ Aikman, David The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness p. 167, 2008 Tyndale House Publishers
Yes above is bullshit. Religion is the delusion, This is somebody pushing religion and especially inappropriately in this case because this stuff doesn't even make sense in chinese society. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

<-There have been repeated attempts to include the following material in the article e.g. here and here

  • Journalist David Aikman writes that the majority of Chinese have lost faith in Communism because the Marxist philosophy is chained to “the iron ball of state atheism, [which] has left it in a moral wasteland”

The material comes from Aikman's book, 'The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness'.

This is statement of fact about the beliefs of 'the majority of Chinese', hundreds of millions of individual human beings. It goes on to say why this majority (half a billion+) of individuals take this view making the extraordinary claim that half a billion+ people think that China under the CCP is a 'moral wasteland' because of state atheism.

Inclusion of this material is, in my view, non-policy compliant for two reasons.

  • WP:UNDUE - No evidence whatsoever has been provided either by the source or by editors wishing to include this material that this is a majority or significant-minority viewpoint. In order to qualify for inclusion this view must be shown to have some kind of significant prevalence in reliable sources. That is a mandatory requirement of the WP:NPOV policy. One man's opinion, by itself, in a book about how atheism is bad for you doesn't matter in the slightest.
  • WP:REDFLAG - The extraordinarily sweeping statement of fact by Aikman is a classic redflag issue, a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources. As the mandatory WP:V policy states, 'Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources'. If it is indeed the case that the majority of Chinese have 'lost faith' in Communism because they are all concerned that state atheism has produced a moral wasteland then it will be very easy to establish this by finding these statements of fact, validated by published scientific research, in many other reliable sources. Where are these sources ?

Consider what would happen if an editor tried to add the following sweeping statements of fact to articles on the basis that the statements appeared in a book.

  • the majority of Americans have lost faith in American democracy because it is chained to “the iron ball of capitalism, [which] has left it in a moral wasteland”
  • the majority of Americans have lost faith in Christianity because the Christian philosophy is chained to “the iron ball of self delusion, [which] has left it in an intellectual wasteland”

They would be reverted without hesitation and rightly so. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on the People's Republic of China#US Dept. of State annual report on Intl. Relig. Freedom

According to other sources as high as 91% of Chinese are Buddhists? Utter dog crap! I have no freakin' clue where such ridiculous stats. could even come from. If such stats. were even remotely correct, it would mean that literally 9 out of 10 Chinese would be a Buddhist, which is utterly absurd. Are there any restrictions for Wikipedians not to use absurd citations or references? Children of the dragon (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Those figures are apparently coming from the various sources listed here. The 91% comes from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Buddhism, page 35 I think. I make no comment on their reliability. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

this article is shameful

you base an entire article on one man's definition of a phrase. it's obvious you want to portray atheism as something bad. I added France because France is indeed an atheist and secular state. Articles like this one remind me of why I despise Wikipedia so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

France is an atheist state

why did you remove France which is clearly an atheists and secular state? Perhaps because this article is not about atheist states, it's about trying to confuse totalitarianism with atheism and France blows your cover. Or this is simply a silly article based on one guy's definition that you use to confuse the reader about atheism. How many articles are based on one man's opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk about original research

Kowalewski's article is about the USSR. YOU rubes took that and spun an entire article out of it as if he was speaking about other countries. Talk about original research, this "article" is nothing but a propaganda piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I interest you in WP:SOFIXIT ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term rationalism

An user is removing mention of the term rationalism, as used by the source, in the section linking state-sponsored atheism to the communist regimes that employed it. At first, I used the term "rationalism" to paraphrase the source, but this was deemed WP:Weasel. Fair enough; however, I think we ought not to attribute modern technology all the attention, as Hertzke specifically mentions modern technology and rational forms of social organization:

Indeed, it was an article of faith among some of the West's great thinkers that[,] as societies embraced modern technology and rational forms of social organization, religious "superstition" would increasingly recede into the narrow recesses of the private sphere, losing its power over how people organized their collective lives. Communist ideology, of course, sought to accelerate the secularization process by force.

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=EkIvbxefBNsC&pg=PA12

I added "rational forms of social organization" to avoid WP:Weasel, but this too was removed. Hertzke is talking about the Age of Enlightenment, in which Rationalism ("any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification") was the modern philosophical thought. The West's intellectuals (mainly the English, German and French philosophers) decried the consolidation of power by the elite, which more or less implied the monarchies and clergy. This, of course, is the main reason for the secularization of America and France at the end of the Age of Enlightenment, as well as the religious persecution during the Reign of Terror. The source of this quote is a professor of religious studies and quite easily distinguished as a man of faith, yet he understands that rationalism and forms of social organization based on this precept were responsible for the belief that religion would fade from the public sphere.

Here I ask the community to review the quote in question and decide how we can resolve this issue. I don't see how using the term "Rationalism" as a link to the Wikipedia article on the philosophy it entails is incorrect, nor do I think we can leave it out and state modern technology alone is responsible for the "article of faith" Hertzke details in this passage. MisterDub (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Check

This article is sounding a bit too much like the words coming from the post-Soviet religious resurgency crowd and their apologists. This neutrality seriously need to be checked. Children of the dragon (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This article in pure anti-atheist propaganda and it has been pointed out numerous times. Look at the only source for the definition of the term. The editors here are corrupting that meaning to justify this article which casts atheism and not totalitarianism in a bad light. If anything the article should be about the USSR and it's policies towards religionists, or it should be renamed to Totalitarian Regimes. The "atheist states" they mention were secular, totalitarian regimes who had much more in common with 14th century Catholicism than any atheist organization. This article is pure propaganda and would make more sense if it were on the pages on conservapedia. in fact I can't help but wonder how many editors of this article also contribute to conservapedia. And we have numerous atheists states in Europe that get no mention here. Numerous countries in Europe are atheist states.

And they cannot call this article Religious Repression by Government because then they would have to show all the nasty things religionists have done to each other since the beginning of time. That would undermine the motives of this article which is clearly to pain atheism in a bad light and perpetuate the idiotic notion that atheism, or an atheistic state is somehow violent.

Atheism is not even a philosophy or belief system so to confuse atheism with totalitarianism is scandalous, even for Wikipedia. Atheism is only the rejection of belief in deities. So how can you have an "atheist state"? Did all the editors here check their logic at the door when they started editing? The only good thing about this article is practically no one reads it, maybe 100 a day. The atheism article gets about 5000 readers a day. Anyhow, Wiki editors of this article, tell Andy Schlafly I said hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I wholeheartedly agree with your points. Personally I don't know what the definition of an "atheist state" is, but countries such as the USA and Canada (and many others in the world) would be called Secular States, since the state does not subscribe to any particular religion (officially). Children of the dragon (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is one can find Christians like Dinesh D'Souza who are delighted to portray authoritarian regimes as "atheist states" all day long, so the religionists who are using this article to confuse atheism with totalitarianism have a well they can go to in order to satisfy the requirement for "reliable sources". They have a vested interest in making atheists look evil and dangerous. Most all of the "reliable sources" in this article are Christian or sympathetic religious people. And the religionists here who try to keep Dawkins and Harris silent is especially underhanded. Those and guys like Christopher Hitchens are the most vocal and prominent defenders of atheism, meaning they are the only ones who are calling the religionists on the bullshit and flat out lies they spout about atheism. No state has ever murdered someone because the state had a reasonable philosophy, and that is what atheism is based on - reason, not Marxism, not Totalism, but reason meaning show me the evidence, until then you can shop your deity elsewhere. Reasonable people do not murder and persecute religionists, authoritarians do. Atheism is not authoritarian, it is nothing but the rejection of a belief in deities, but religionists cannot or will not accept that. They need to believe atheists are dangerous and evil, or some of the central tenets of their own religious faith become brittle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Difference Between Pol Pot and MOST Popes

Is the Popes wear more colorful clothing and Pol Pot had more efficient weapons. That is the biggest difference in Pol Pot and most of our Catholic Popes. Most Popes engaged in murderous campaigns and destroyed and murdered anything that was not Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This Article Is Disgusting

We have devout Catholic Wiki editors like Mamalujo (talk) using "reliable" sources like another devout Catholic, Dinesh D'Souza, telling confusing atheism with totalism. What the fuck ever happened to COI? Dinesh D'Souza is clearly not a reliable source on this topic, he hates atheists. Read him and see for yourself. he hates them because they do not believe in god. He hates Dawkins and others who correctly state confusing atheism with totalism is not only wrong, it is historically and intellectually dishonest. When is the Catholic assault on atheism here going to stop and we begin to be intellectually honest about the subject matter?

Imagine Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson writing a Wiki article about atheism and that's what you get with this article. Only it's Christian Wiki editors using sources like Dinesh D'Souza, a man noted for his contempt of atheists. Perfect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

From the Wiki article on Dinesh D'Souza - "D'Souza often speaks against atheism, nonbelief, and secularism." YOU call this guy a reliable source for an article about atheism? WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

What about Mexico under Plutarco Calles during the Cristero War. Calles was a great man, probably the greatest leader of Mexico in the twentieth century and very much worthy of being mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.102.154 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't look above.

Albania

This edit removed Albania from a list of former USSR and anti-religious nations said by the article to have high religious populations according to the CIA World Factbook and the U.S. Department of State. the edit summary said, "albania's not a highly religious country. the cia stats which say 70% mus 20% ortho 10% cath refer to the religions people associate themselves with, the % of pop. that are non-religious ranges 40-70". However, the CIA Factbook info for Albania[1] does say "Religions: Muslim 70%, Albanian Orthodox 20%, Roman Catholic 10%" (with a clarifying note). Also, info about the Reigions info in the Factbook says, "Religions: This entry is an ordered listing of religions by adherents starting with the largest group and sometimes includes the percent of total population[2]" I have reinserted Albania into the list, and added clarifying information to the associated Factbook citation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy of State Atheism

This section only has religious outcomes. Either religiosity or knowledge of religion. So, I changed to Religious legacy (should be outcomes) of state atheism. I can't see a reason not to add a real Legacy of state atheism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly article

Atheism is merely a disbelief in gods. Nothing more. It has no rules, no laws, no disciplines or anything else. It is just a disbelief in gods. Full stop. To accuse it of being responsible for bad things is nonsense. (Cyberia3 (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

And this article is about official promotion of atheism by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice. Do you have some suggested improvements to the article? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a bit strange. It focuses heavily (though not entirely) on cases of Catholic persecution. I don't see persecution of Catholics as proof of state atheism. In the case of Cuba, for instance, many indigenous 'religions' or spiritual practices have emerged. Is there any data on how many people freely follow santeria in Cuba?

This line is also not proof of State atheism: "Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden". Its proof of religious persecution, but not atheism. Likewise, there is a weak case for the Mongolian persecution of Buddhists due to state atheism.

I see some use of Hertzke. I looked up this book and it seems biased towards Catholics. This article, I think, was influenced largely by Catholic/Christian writers responding to anti-church movements around the world. Freedom of religion or separation of church and state is NOT the same as state atheism. In the case of the french revolution: "...transformation of churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason", culminating in a celebration of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral" I would say the worship of the Goddess of Reason in a temple smacks of religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitethepeople (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And forgot to add... during the french revolution, many french people turned to more 'pagan', animist, or earth-based perceptions of spirituality. So its not that spirituality didn't exist, it did, just not in the form of the Christian church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitethepeople (talk • contribs) 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins, Harris, D'souza

Why are they being cited in this article? They're dreadfully biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.102.101 (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have been saying that for a long time. All three of them are polemicists and add little to the article. None of them are experts on the subject. Harris and Dawkins are both scientists and are dilettantes in this area. D'Souza a little less so. Can we get a consensus to remove the paragraph. It is unencyclopedic. Mamalujo (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Dawkins and Harris are cited because, as prominent atheists, their expertise helps distinguish the ideology of atheism from the state atheism defined by David Kowalewski. D'Souza, then, responds to this by stating that the radical communism Dawkins and Harris decry can only be a consequence of atheist ideology in the first place. It's absolutely pertinent information about the communist regimes which suppressed their religious constituents. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Expertise? What expertise? One is a biologist and the other has a PhD in neuroscience. Mamalujo (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and both are prominent atheists and authors of books on religious faith, which specifically address the communist regimes in question. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 00:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster. I don't quite see why that particular paragraph is included in the "Religion in Communist countries" section, as it does seem to be awfully biased and unencyclopedic. Dawkins may well be a "prominent atheist", but that doesn't necessarily make his viewpoint any more WP:VALID, and neither does the fact that he has published books on the subject. You can find books about the moon landing being faked, but that doesn't mean that we should cite them in the Apollo 11 article. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, hence why he is cited in articles like Evolution and Meme. He is not an historian, and, since this is a history article, there seems to be no real reason for him to be referenced. If, in his books, he cites a particular historian who backs up his claim, then lets cite that person, rather than Dawkins himself. 92.21.196.179 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This section (as the rest of the article) needs some work, particularly with the type and format of references. However, it is pertinent to the article, as the cited people are notable, and their views have received significant media attention on this issue. That they're not explicitly historians is irrelevant, but that they've received substantial coverage of relevant views is, and that must be represented.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is evidence of consensus for removal. No consensus is a more accurate description. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why communism is in quotation marks? Why "regime" instead of "state"? Is [14] reliable?

Hi! Embracing the word "communism" in quotation marks is very popular among anarchists to deprecate communism. It has no place here. Countries are "communist states" or better "socialist states", not communist "regimes". The word "regime" is usually used with the connotation of illegal, repressive, unpopular government. Ah, about Christians being forced to psychiatric hospitals sounds very bold. I doubt if it is factual. Apart from the 2006 book, is there any verifiable, reliable on-line source? As a proof of the contrary, there are documentaries depicting clerics blessing soviet soldiers in WWII. Galanom (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your doubt about Christians being forced to psychiatric hospitals, I don't know whether it's factual, but it appears to be verifiable. Some quick googleing turned up Paul Froese (2008), The plot to kill God: findings from the Soviet experiment in secularization, University of California Press, pp. 51, ISBN 9780520255289, Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd (1987), ThirdWay, Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, pp. 12, and others. This google books search turned up numerous hits not previewable but with apparently confirming snippets quoted in the search results. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

this article makes me laugh

it is hilarious. This article is pure propaganda and it made me laugh out loud. Keep up the good shell game! I won't bother pointing out the obvious ridiculous assertions and distortions, that has been done before and nothing happened. I kind of like seeing a propaganda piece like this on wiki, it tells me the conservapedia editors are alive and well here which I think is funnier than all get out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The funniest part is that we get so many complaints about the “bias” in this article from both atheists and theists that I didn’t even know which slant you were complaining about about until you mentioned conservapedia. PeRshGo (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is absolutely biased with a clear religious slant and should be changed accordingly. Weasel words such as "believer" rather than "religious" and phrases using the word "faith" rather than "religion" need to be changed to reflect a unbiased view. A section on the history of atheism in the United States would also be appropriate. Also, the term "religious freedom" is broad and misleading in this context because it refers to freedom of personal religious expression, not freedom of religious organization as a political force. Frankly, this article currently reads like propaganda.--76.173.238.17 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you should perhaps try and lay of the soapboxing a bit there, Jesspiper. It really does not exactly improve your credibility as an unbiased editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It was textbook soapboxing but no matter what you prefer to call it, you are not allowed to do it here, so please don't. The comments you replied to were about the article content whereas you were lecturing people about the "rivers of blood on atheism's hands" and making other absurdly biased statements based on your personal world view. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is mandatory policy and it applies to talk pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all... I just reorganized some information in an attempt to reduce the POV issues in this article. If anyone still feels that the article is strongly biased, please present specific examples here and we can all work to resolve them. Otherwise, I will remove the POV and WEASEL tags sometime in the near future. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reassess importance

Hi, all. I just noticed that this article is labeled "High" on the importance scale, but I don't see why this is the case. For an article to be in this importance level, it is supposed to cover "a topic that is vital to understanding atheism." There is nothing about state atheism that is vital to understanding atheism, and a mid-level ("[T]he article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of atheism.") or low-level ("The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of atheism.") importance seems more appropriate. Any objections to requesting a reassessment? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mexico under communist states section?

Although Mexico in the early 20th century was sometimes called "Soviet Mexico" by those in Washington and its 1917 Constitution has been described as socialist, it can't really be described as a communist state. I do think it belongs in the article, as Calles and his henchmen under the Maximato sought to eradicate religion in Mexico. But the Mexico section needs to be moved out of the communist states section, or that section needs a different title. Mamalujo (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheism/Theism a binary pair?

User JimWae has added a WP:NPOV tag for the claim that atheism and theism form a binary pair with the reason being that WP:RSs state one can be neither an atheist nor theist. I've added this section so we can get these RSs and make any necessary changes to the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, relocated the supporting cite slightly, and added a deep link to the source cited supporting the assertion. The NPOV tagging which I removed boils down to an assertion that alternative viewpoints unexpressed in the article exist and are supported by uncited reliable supporting sources. I'm guessing that might be so. However, if it is so, those alternative viewpoints differing significantly ought to be expressed in the article and the supporting sources cited. See WP:DUE and WP:BURDEN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is with the assertion that atheism has a documented primary definition that includes agnosticism. It would appear this is not the case at all. "atheism." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 09 Apr. 2012. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism>. Atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing, and stating so is inaccurate, whatever secondary source might state otherwise. The very sources for the statement are pockmarked with the opposing viewpoint, and I do not believe it is the custom to use a citation as a place to argue for a position. I am not making corrections as yet because I would like further insight as to exactly the point of the statements regarding atheism's definition and this "binary pair" interpretation of the philosophy surrounding it. ShaneCRoach (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
ShaneCRoach, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Where does the article say that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing? What does this have to do with the binary pair of atheism-theism? A binary pair, by the way, is a two-member set of mutually exclusive concepts. For example, the states of being activated or not forms a binary pair because there is no third option: something is either "on" or "off," but cannot be something else or both at the same time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"Binary pair" is an ambiguous term. The source is using it as it was used by Derrida (and derived from Nietzsche), not as used by logicians. All three use their terminology to attack using such terms as being mutually exclusive and exhaustive. The phrase is at least one of the following: stipulative jargon, pedantic, unnecessary, distracting, completely irrelevant to this article--JimWae (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is not the place to define atheism in a way that is different from the way it is defined in the atheism article. Btw, "lack" presumes/suggests/implies/connotes a deficiency. I guess I will never be done needing to point this out somewhere or other. --JimWae (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sentence 3 needs a major rewrite. Sentences 4 & 5 do not belong in the 1st paragraph & probably are not needed in the article at all.--JimWae (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
JimWae, this claim does not define atheism in a way that contradicts that in the atheism article: "Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." And yes, as an atheist myself, I'm aware of the meaning of lack. I also don't see what is ambiguous about the term binary pair. Not only does it seem well-defined on its article page, but the usage there appears to be the same as in the source. As for relevance, I'd say that atheism and theism are both important concepts to the article, since most of the article is about anticlericalism rather than a belief (or lack thereof) in a god. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
First, there is no Binary pair article. Second, it is not a term that is generally understood. Third, it is a term that is also understood to mean mutually exclusive, as in binary tree sorting - at every branch one is either X or notX. 4th> Usage of the term is completely extraneous to the topic of this article. --JimWae (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
In a general use encyclopedia, it would be simpler and sufficient to say atheism is contrasted with theism.... Sentences 4 & 5 are still out of place.--JimWae (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The binary opposition article itself is inconsistent as to whether the terms are mutually exclusive. Black and white are not mutually exclusive in the same way that White and not-White are - there can be grey. They are also not exhaustive - there can be green. Atheism & theism are exhaustive only according to SOME, using a persuasive definition. One should not need an indoctrination in Derrida in order to understand either atheism nor, for the reader's immediate purposes here, state atheism. --JimWae (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Derrida & Jantzen mostly only use "binary [whatever]" to set up a whipping post.--JimWae (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
JimWae, it seems you are quite emotionally invested in changing this, but I see no strong justification for doing so. If the claim is wrong or if the source is questionable, please present WP:RSs to support your case. Until then, I don't see why your opinion ought to receive prominence over a reliable source. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Major revision

Hi, all! I decided to fix this article a bit and wanted to provide a summary of my changes here. These changes include:

  • A removal of citations from the lead (per WP:LEADCITE).
  • A removal of Czechoslovakia, Cambodia, Mongolia, Poland and Vietnam as WP:OR (they were either unreferenced or the citations made no mention of state promotion of atheism). If citations illustrating this connection are found, we can add them back later.
  • Added information to the "Communist States" section.
  • Alphabetized subsections under the "Communist States" heading.
  • A removal of the "Legacy" heading and a transferal of the material therein into the "Soviet Union" section. This section mostly dealt with former USSR states and statistics about content that was removed as OR.
  • The addition of a couple images for that "pretty" factor.
  • Minor grammar changes and reorganization of information to improve readability.
  • A removal of the year-old weasel tag at the top of the article. This can be re-added if deemed appropriate.

Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in State atheism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of State atheism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cia":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the incorrect REF tag with the last option presented here by AnomieBOT. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

40 priests killed

Between 1926 and 1934 at least 40 priests were killed.

I don't want to sound inhuman but you know, considering the violence of the period and the fact that the previous sentence says about the profound effects of the revolution upon the Church, 40 priests do not make a very big number. Now I do realize the source given says the same but I presume it is some sort of a mistake. Somebody check this out, won't you? --Jaro7788 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

well 40 people may not sound like much but its the same for the 6 in the boston massacre or the hundreds to a couple thousand in tiannamen square (out of the 1.3 billion chinese) it is not so much the number of dead but the role of the state in such actions, of course violence in Mexico has always been a problem that time period included it was mentioned to include all violence from religion and against religion in this time period (feel free to add more at any time btw), so to summarize its the significance of state policy and its role (or alleged role) in the deaths not the body count itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 05:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The part about the French Revolution is false

There are so many mistakes in the first paragraph, I don't even know where to begin and, unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Everything before the part about communist states is either biased or false. We should simply delete most of the article. Eleventh1 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate which paragraphs in particular are inaccurate or fabricated? I think deleting most of the article is extreme as it does offers a perspective on an understudied dogma of persecution. It's interesting how we have a wealth of information on various articles that argues the association of religion and violence yet any evidence associating atheism with any sort of violence is usually dismissed. MikamiLovesDeleting (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

well to be clear violence can be committed in the name of virtually anything, I could go out and kill 10 priests to 'free people' form them or I could just as easily kill 10 atheists to 'save people' therefore if anything is relevant to the page and has a source I would portray it as the author portrays it, if there are concerns of personal bias leading an author to downplay certain violence in the name of something particular than it should be challenged and not used as an academic source, regardless I agree in not understanding which parts you are referring to, the whole paragraph or certain lines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What is state atheism?

I see a lot of selective facts gathered under a title that I can only find in religious publications. If this is an anti-atheist/theist invention, this must be labelled very clearly as such in the Lede - as it stands this article reads as though it is a real 'thing' that supports a wide consensus. One can't make an affirmation and provide a link to details of that affirmation and say that that affirmation is 'referenced proof'... all cases cited here are authoritarian regimes simply 'kicking out the competition', and only by a stretch of the imagination (and a good dose of gullibility and bias) can this be called 'state atheism'... or even atheism, for that matter. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 23:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism/Archive_2&oldid=1079496165"