Talk:Irreligion

The Phrase "Christians are irreligious."

I believe this phrase conflicts with the definition "absence of, indifference towards, and/or hostility towards religion." and should therefore be removed, because it exhibits a biase towards/for christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.135.30 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been reverted as vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Marxism is irreligion, whether Catholic liberation theology is a factor or not. One does not negate the other. Tracing the origins of irreligion in society, in modern times for credibility of the article, would fall on Marxism.

"We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed." Karl Marx

If you are a Marxist why not admit this? Your revert is without warrant. 75.120.187.48 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx is not 'Marxism' or 'Marxists'. Find some reliable sources and we can discuss them. This is not a page for debating the issue. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You can claim the apple is an orange, it is still an apple. Marx is expressing the views he put in the manifesto when he says "we must war..against religion". This is also found in the manifesto, feel free to add it to your little article.

Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1848 (excerpt), The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property. The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution.

75.120.187.48 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

'Citation Needed'

There's an aweful lot of 'citation needed's in this article: someone has clearly made it their mission to be very critical of everything they read on Wiki. Now, of course, all articles should revoke some reliable sources when they make otherwise unsupported claims; however, I am of the view that not everything written on Wiki - as are most that are things written elsewhere on the web - needs to have citations, particularly when the sentence(s) in question does not make any bold claims about anything particularly of importance, and/or are so well-known and/or self-evident, that demanding citations seems down-right pedantic. Of course, we should include citations from reliable sources wherever we can; however, I really don't think they're always necessary, particularly when you're talking about an article published on one of the top websites on the internet that gets heavily scrutinised almost every day: if something is blatantly a lie, then people should and will remove it; however, if, conversely, something is blatantly true or, more generally, seems correct and everyone else agrees, then we should surely give the author the benefit of the doubt and just leave it and not demand citations which, in my experience, aren't always towards reliable sources.

Anyway, maybe I'm just being too diplomatic by writing this long argument over this small matter in this small article; if no one gives me good reason to do otherwise in the next few days or so, I will remove most of these 'citation needed's and probably replace with the 'This article needs more references' banner.

Lemony123 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2010 (GMT)

I don't think there are too many citation needed-tags. The very subject matter is delicate and can be thought of as controversial to a lot of people, therefore it is important that any claims made regarding it should be well sourced. Although we do have a policy of assuming good faith here on Wikipedia, it is necessarily overruled about our policies on reliable sources. If we compromise the latter we will also compromise the reliability of Wikipedia itself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, as the subject matter is rather delicate and, moreover, the article makes uncited claims as to people's beliefs.

Lemony123 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2010 (GMT)

This article needs to be written

I don't understand why this hasn't been written as a proper article. There are numerous reliable sources on irreligion, irreligious movements, etc. Yet so far as I can tell, looking through the history, this has never been a real article, just a few definitions and tables of numbers. I'll try to do some when I can. Loads of sources, eg [1] [2] [3] [4]. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Some would conclude modern atheist and irreligion thought developed as a result of the Age of Enlightenment, which later contribluted to the French Revolution of 1789 where "The Cult of Reason was an atheistic belief system, intended as a replacement for Christianity during the French Revolution."[1] This same revolution developed further when later joined by Marx and Engels. 69.29.215.214 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong Atheist bias on this No Religion/and or Irreligious article

Non-Religious Theists (and, at times, aka Spiritual But Not Religious) are groups who identify themselves as No Religion. In fact, it is primarily because of these people that the "No Religion" numbers are so high in many nation's polls. Yet these groups are not even mentioned here, eventhough they account for over 50% of the worldwide "No Religion" demographic. Atheists often only account for 0.5-1% in many nations with high No Religion numbers. The article needs to relfect this or else it is clearly dishonest.Please see following link for details/sources: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious --Jesspiper (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Adherents.com is a personal website, and we normally don't use those as sources. See WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Marxism

Marxism is a political socio-political worldview, not a religiou world-view. I am thus removing it 84.13.51.143 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The marxist political view includes the abolition of religion as sourced quoted. 207.119.111.247 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)