Talk:Antitheism
 | Atheism Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
 | Religion Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Discussion about the topic, rather than the article
is there any discussion going on on this topic???
well all i wanted to say was y should anti theism have anything to do with god's existence???
i beleive that anti theism should be about taking cognizance if the poison that is religion
do tell me if u agree or disagree
- Wikipedia does not decide what a word's definition is, or what it "should" be; WP:NOR requires that we only list what other noteworthy sources (like dictionaries) have defined terms as, and not that we try to decide everything for ourselves. Wikipedia reports and organizes information, it does not generate entirely new conclusions. As for "taking cognizance if the poison that is religion" (incidentally, I'm delighted that you used the word cognizance while also spelling "you" as "u" and "why" as "y"; beautiful), that sounds closer to antireligion, which is opposition to religion, than to antitheism, which is opposition to theism. -Silence 09:53, 27 February 2006
Can Someone please clean this section up, and preferably remove the quotations to dictionaries. It is unnecesary, and confusing.
POV
"Some sources, particularly religious ones, have defined antitheism as opposition to God, holiness or the divine rather than simply as opposition to belief in God, theism." You can't be opposed to something you don't think exists. We should not be taking information about antitheism from theists.
- According to that definition, an antitheist couldn't be an atheist because, as you said, they would have to hold belief in one or more gods in order to oppose them. Satan, for example, would fit that definition because it is opposed to God in Abrahamic mythologies. And all views can be presented, but you must say who holds those views. We can't say "the world is flat" or "creationism/intelligent design is true," but we can and are supposed to say, "some Christians believe the world to be flat and creationism/intelligent design to be true." For more information read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Term differences
- Antitheism is the opposition of the belief in god.
- Atheism is the lack of the belief that God even exist.
- Antireligion is the opposition of religon.
- Irreligion are those who have no religion.
- ****** is the opposition of god.
The difference should be noted! Monkey Brain 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Read the article. Antitheism has more than one possible meaning: it can either refer to opposition to the "actual" God, or opposition to belief in god (i.e., "anti-theism", opposition to theism). -Silence 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- hah, you're correct. things should be clearer though. So do you or anyone know what the term for opposition of God is?
- There is no generally agreed term. --Dannyno 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Robert Flint
Does it make any sense to devote such a large part of the article to Robert Flint's views, given that they do not refer to either of the modern meanings of the term? Judging from the quoted section, he clearly uses the word "anti-theist" to mean "non-Christian". mglg(talk) 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Incorrect. He uses it as an umbrella term for all opposition to monotheism, not to Christianity. Originally I think the Flint section was in a different place in the structure of the page. The word "antitheism" has no generally agreed meaning, so it is useful to account for its historical usage by influential 19th C. contributors such as Flint, as well as "modern" usages such as that by Hitchens. But perhaps the quoted extract needn't be so long. --Dannyno 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- He does not refer to opposition to anything; he considers polytheists and pantheists to be anti-theists, not because they are actively opposed to anything, but merely because they hold different views. I did overstate it when I put the word Christianity into his mouth, but he certainly does not refer to monotheism in any broad sense, but to a restricted class of monotheisms that believe in a "supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created". In any case, this is not the anti-monotheism page. mglg(talk) 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- He refers to "antagonism" which certainly qualifies as opposition, I would have thought. Also the word "opposed" is clearly there in the quote. However, Flint's definition does not capture the sense of "opposition" or "antagonism" that you find in Hitchens. My point, though, is that Hitchens' definition of antitheism is as idiosyncratic as, and no more privileged than, anyone else's. --Dannyno 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
I was thinking. This article places too much emphasis on Atheism. Anti-theism merely implies by it's definition, an opposition to "theism". Atheism is not the only philosophy that does this.
Deism{and it's offshoots; PanDeism/PanenDeism}, as well as Agnosticism, and others; have many adherents that are adamantly opposed to Theism{and revealed religion,etc}. Some of us{I myself am deistic} consider ourselves very Anti-Theistic. But the impression given is that Anti-Theism is simply a synonym STRONG Atheism{or as I like to call it, "Adeism"}, which is not true.
Now, this article does'nt say OUTRIGHT that Anti-theism is a form of Atheism, but it still seems to imply it; and non Athiest ideologies{except perhaps Agnosticism} seem to be ignored. People reading this article will not easily get the impression or knowledge that one could be say a "Deist" and be also Anti-Theistic.
Therefore, I was wondering if someone{myself, or anyone here} could make that distiction in the article. Mention Deism and Agnosticism as beeing compatible with Anti-Theism, and poit out that Anti-Theism is NOT a synonym for "Strong Atheism". Also, perhaps the article could mention that Anti-Theism can act as an umbrella and uniter for all non-theists that are opposed to "Theism". I have allready done this in fact, and within a few hours it was deleted.
I was also thinking that the "Militant Atheism" section should be perhaps delated, or at least mentioned as one form of anti-theism. Because the article as awhole seems to point back to the "militant atheism", as if Strong or Militant Atheists have a monopoly on the term "Anti-theism", frankly- they don't and should not. The term belongs to ALL non-theists whom oppose theism{including agnostics and deists}. Atheists can be simply Adeists{opposed to all concepts of "god"-whether as first cause and impersonal,etc; or whether as a theistic,anthropomorphic sky-parent} and be simultaneously "Anti-Theists". I am a deist, but also proudly a Anti-Thiest, I would like to see the term "anti-theist" be shared in the public ___domain as something that any non-theist can be, not JUST Militant Atheists.
Thoughts?
--Irreverand-Bill 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just a note that theists can be antitheists, while theists can't be atheists. I can be against theism, while still being a theist, just as I can be against sexism, but still be sexist. I agree that the article talks about atheism too much, as antitheism isn't inherently atheistic, but the reason for this is most likely because people often equate atheism with antitheism. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Lift?
Is this article a lift of the experts.about.com article here: http://experts.about.com/e/a/an/antitheism.htm Or has this article been taken by About.com?
The about.com article seems to an exact copy and no credit is given in either direction...
Jspr 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- About.com copied the article, but that encyclopedia is entirely a copy of Wikipedia articles as far as I know. It does say that it's from Wikipedia at the bottom of the page, though. Don't forget that contributions to Wikipedia—including all contributions to the antitheism article—are licensed under the copyleft license, GFDL. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
French Revolution etc..
I've removed the para "It is important to note, however, that these quotes are from a period where Christianity was a state religion. Thus, they are a result of the political structures of the times, and not nessesarily directed at theism per se." from the discussion on the French Revolution. This is both unsourced and wrong: Although Roman Catholicism (not "Christianity") was a state religion in pre-revolutionary France it was not bby 1773. NBeale 08:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Cross-posted (paraphrased) from NBeale's talk page:
- NBeale added a section including, "in revolutionary France, where in 1773...", citing Michael Burleigh's Earthly Powers. But of course, the French Revolution didn't really get under way until 1789. Could this be a typo for 1793, maybe? I'd appreciate it if someone could double-check that (and maybe double-check Burleigh, for that matter, if he does indeed claim 1773). --John Owens | (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Antireligion -- Discussion
I vote against merging these two articles, although maybe we should merge both with atheism. The antitheism article may need independent merging with atheism (which is a better article) but since theistic religions are a subset of all religions, these clearly are not the same thing. It may be the antirelgion article should also be merged with the atheism article but then broken back out under a different name, since it is essentially a list of professed strong atheists, not really much of an explanation of antireligion (whatever that is!)--Jaibe 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I too suggest that they not be merged. To my understanding, in the simplest of terms, Atheism, Antitheism, and Antireligion mean the following:
Atheism: a personal disbelief in the existence of god or a divine entity.
Antitheism: a strong opposition to the belief in any god as well as to those who do believe.
Antireligion: a view that religion, especially organized religions, can be dangerous, separative, and/or destructive.
Assuming these simple definitions are correct, someone who is an Antitheist must also be, by definition, an Atheist. However, you would not have to be an Atheist or Antitheist to be an Antireligionist, although one could also assume that most Antireligionists probably are, at the very least, Atheists.
They seem quite different to me and therefore I think they should not be merged. (Some more Antireligion wikinfo would be nice.) --Formadmirer 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Merging the two different concepts would cause problems. Many believers of non-theistic religions are antitheistic but not antireligion. I will take down the tag now unless an argument is made for merging. Shawnc 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Dumped a lot of material
Well, there, I now dumped all the material on this topic form two titles covering this very same issue. I think the subheading "militant atheism" and "evangelical atheism" should be kept separated, but now the current atheism section should be integrated into the militant atheist one. --Merzul 15:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Relationship between Antitheism and Miliant Atheism
I think this article is a bit confusing about the relationship between Antitheism and Miliant Atheism. As far as I can see there are 4 sets, each of which is a subset of its predecessor(s):
- Atheists
- Antitheists
- Those described (rightly or wrongly, but not irrationally) as Militant Atheists by commentators in relaible sources - some of whom (eg Dawkins?) do not so self-describe
- Those who rationally self-describe as M.A.s (eg Lenin)
Can we find a way of clarifying this? NBeale 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds fairly close, but not quite, I'm afraid. I'd quibble with "but not irrationally", as I think Catherine Fahringer (referenced in the article) has dealt with that comprehensively and eloquently. I'm also not convinced by the idea of calling "militant atheists" a subset of "antitheists". I think MA is just one of many terms applied to those who, either by self-identification (Lenin) or by having the label thrust upon them (Dawkins), are more anti-theist than just plain vanilla-flavour a-theist. In other words, I think militant atheist (along with atheist evangelist etc) is roughly synonymous with antitheist (in denotation, though perhaps not in connotation). The real trouble, though, is the connotation stuff. I imagine you'd object to an article on Rabid Christianity (and no, I'm not advocating one), and you would probably feel insulted if I called you a "rabid Christian". Militant athiest isn't so far from that sort of language - that's the trouble. Snalwibma 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The term "Militant atheism" is a hoax
This article is full of weasel words, such as "militant atheism". If you have a problem with so-called "militant" atheists, why not account for "aggressive", "militant" Christians, all of which you will find spouting their apologetics in the US media, and on university campuses. Having the temerity to criticise religion/belief in theism does not mean "intolerance", especially when one considers that outspoken atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett etc. are peaceful in their approach. By calling outspoken atheism, "militant" you are calling the criticism of religion/theism a personality type, rather than a methodological approach. It also manufactures a false dichotomy between strong atheism, and violent religious extremists, who, in the media, are often, and rather dishonestly compared to those who subject religion to analysis. Blind designer 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Militant atheist" is not a weasel word as understood on Wikipedia. There are some other problems here, but WP:WEASEL is most certainly not the issue. Weasel words are statements such as "Many philosophers argue...", so I will remove this tag, you can add a more appropriate tag or point out specific problems where the text violates Wikipedia policy. --Merzul 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, found one "Christian apologists argue", but that's already been tagged. --Merzul 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)