Talk:Antireligion

Made up.

The topic is a term made up probably for political reasons. There is no such. Erase article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF04:6500:61BF:8AD6:638F:70F4 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there does seem to be a bias against socialism and socialist nations for some reason. Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Philosophers"

No offense intended, but is "philosopher" a bit too much honour for Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens? Neither had any philosophical training, the former being a biologist, the latter being a journalist. It has repeatedly been argued that this shows in their rather simplistic reasoning. Of course, anything people say about cosmology and/or ethics can be branded "philosophy", and anyone who does so for a living a "philosopher". But accepting these two gentlemen as philosophers would open the gate to accepting COVID hacks and cranks as "microbiologists" (they had no training but write on the subject all the same, right), or to accepting creationists as "biologists", for that matter.
Please bear in mind that I don't want to make a case for religion, either morally or intellectually. I just want to limit the label "philosopher" to sound thinkers - those that had formal training and/or are accepted as legitimate in their field. This leaves plenty of philosophers who said very nasty things about religion indeed... Steinbach (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Steinbach: I think you both mis-appraise the term "philosopher" and the modern valuation of that activity both as a discipline and appelation. The current understanding is that any scientist who has done major work is by virtue of that a "natural philosopher" of the first rank. That is why the doctorate is called PhD. Also philosophy and religion are co travelers and it should not surprise you to learn that people who are antireligionist also tend to adopt the position of the major school of philosophy, the Analytic, that traditional philosophy is largely meaningless pedantry revolving around the use of language and not to be compared as being of the same value as scientific activity which creates real knowledge. In fine, it's highly apropos the subject that there be a Philosophers sub-§. So describing Dawkins as a philosopher is covered by the intrinsic meaning as used. Hitchens is covered by virtue of the argument that there isn't that much difference in seriousness or worth as a discipline between philosophy and journalism. Journalist too, as with virtually any profession which is of the mind and reality oriented are credible as philosophers, for better or worse. Pretty much anybody is who is pushing views on the elements of the life of the mind, explicitly or otherwise. You may be confusing "philosopher" with "professional philosopher". If Jordan Peterson is a philosopher ... .

Also you make a false analogy in raising the specter of COVID crackpots being credited as microbiologists since it's "philosopher" that is permissive and ill defined, not "scientist". Sloppy use of the one is consonant with established social use and not the other. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Biases

There are some biases present within this article such as sections where it talks about socialist nations and their policy of State Atheism, where terms such as regime of negative connotation and potential bias are used when terms of a more neutral connotation could be substituted within their place such as government, country, nation, administration, leadership, etc. Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Implication

Reading the article it seems to imply that if one were to espouse antireligion it would go the way of the communist regime and involve murder or at least political persecution. The entire page reads like a, "Good idea but been there, tried that - it doesn't work - enjoy religious freedom."

The article leaves the taste that there must be violent or active prejudice imposed legally on the religious buildings and people - rather than simply encouraging people not to hold religious views. It is possible to be antireligious without being a communist. Antireligion could be as simple as being a belief that there are no religions worth believing. Nobody has to die or be arrested. To be antireligious would be the dominant belief. 2001:569:52A9:2200:8CDD:89A3:8024:69FE (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Any reading such as you give, anon v6 user, would be a misattribution. I've watched this article for some time, and it basically follows the most common pattern of haphazard reflection of an extremely unsettled and tenuous item in culture awaiting work out which will then be reflected in a more substantial article. So in fact there's really no reading to make other than that evident and examinable in the edit trail and discussion in which I've participated either as ip like you (I'm 98.4.112.204 above) or signed like here. It's true that there's a conflation with 'communism' but then again that's just a reflection of the low level of thinking of the masses generally. that word is seldom used in a knowledgeable way even by ppl selling their opinions such as I saw Bill Maher and James Carville do on the formers yt cast.

So while it's true that the article is moving slowly from an expression of this 'taste' wrt the term 'communist', its false that that is a reading to be made of its imputed position.

Further, various site policies virtually preclude that that is likely to change any more rapidly than it has done over the past several years, as there isn't even in culture an articulated srs exposition of the subject (as distinct from atheism), cranks like myself notwithstanding, other than commercial oeuvre like Mahers'. Lycurgus (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, this unsettled state only applies to the subject of this article, not Communism, which ofc is not reflective of the idiots understanding of the term (which you are complaining about), the lede basically dispelling same. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)