Talk:State atheism

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 • 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 • 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)

Well then help improve it. Whether this article makes you laugh or not, or reads as propaganda or not, these events did happen and these atheistic regimes carried out many atrocities against their religious populations. The terrors of State Atheism and rivers of blood on atheism's hands are points of discomfort and embarrassment for the more sanctimonious Atheists out there, especially those who are proud of their shinney, scientific, United Federation of Planets worldview. So I understand why they often try to sweep it under the rug. Dawkins is especially bad for this. But these events happened and atheism, like most any other worldview, has a dark underbelly. Laughing at or hiding this dark truth is the height of intellectual dishonesty. So change the propaganda words, but know your history and accept the mass slaughters of humanity in the name of "progress" which were clearly motiviated by the anti-religious sentiments that most often comes with atheism. --Jesspiper (talk) 22:24, 24 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 • 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)