Talk:Atheism

Anti-atheist content and polemics

This article has a lot of "anti-atheist" content and polemics, which appears to have been in the article ever since it was created (see original version here) by User:Abcqwe. This content includes a list of atheists (see below), claims that Richard Dawkins is objectively a "miserable author", claims that most atheists are men who "lack machismo", and much more nonsense. In general, the article tries to paint atheism and atheists in as negative a light as possible. And the content wasn't even removed for a whole two years until I came along (see last version from before mine, here).

The list of atheists is particularly bad. It only lists "evil atheists" (so-to-speak) who are rightfully blamed for the evil things they did, but the article fallaciously presumes that they did these evil things because they were atheist, and that this makes atheism inherently wrong or bad or evil. The list seeks to make all atheists in the world guilty by association of all the crimes of Stalin, Robespierre, and other evil atheists. Guilt by association is also used in the part about the French Revolution in the "History" section, where the facts that the French Revolution 1) was the bloodiest revolution in history and 2) led to the separation the the Catholic Church and the state (which atheists would presumably consider a good thing) are placed next to each other, to suggest that atheists seeking to separate church and state were responsible for the deaths caused by the French Revolution.

The article also contains outright lies. Joseph Stalin didn't "shot his own son" (possibly a reference to Yakov Dzhugashvili, whose death Stalin was responsible for because he refused to take Yakov home in a prisoner exchange, but this can't at all be said to mean that Stalin was the one who "shot him"). Cecil Rhodes didn't establish "the slave nation of Rhodesia" (Rhodes was a colonialist and an unambiguously evil man, but the country was named in his honor and not 'established by him, and it wasn't even founded until 63 years after he died). The part about H. G. Wells in the "History" section also suggests that evolution is wrong and intelligent design is right.

Additionally, the site Conservapedia is listed in the sources, and I suspect that CP is the source of most of the nonsense and outright lies in the article. Conservapedia is not a reliable source, people!

I rewrote the article (see my version here), trying to remove this anti-atheist content and make the article work as a neutral (not pro-atheism and not anti-atheism) description of atheism. My changes were reverted by User:Jilly, who described my version as being "not an improvement", and suggested I take it to the talk page. Well, here we are! This article is riddled with flaws, and I suggest that is changed now. - 188.176.129.120 15:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Having read the original version and yours, IP, it is clear to me that a lot of the original article was incorrect and did not accurately represent Atheism. The inclusion of only bad atheists is not acceptable, as it creates a bias towards a negative opinion of the subject. I will be honest with you, I would favour your own version, even as a stub needing expansion, over the original. Jilly: - can you please explain why you thought the changes were not acceptable? The removal of vandalism and incorrect information is the key to a usable article. Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! Thank you for your quick reply, DaneGeld:, and sorry for my slow one. I wanted to see what Jilly had to say, but seeing their editing inactivity I guess I should stop waiting and answer you. It's good to hear that my version of the article isn't too shoddy, and that you would prefer it over the current version. Unless Jilly can provide some good reason why the current version should be retained, I think re-reverting to my version and putting a "Stub" tag on it would be the best course of action. Would you object to that? I'm gonna wait a few days longer, maybe until the end of the week, for Jilly to give their arguments for keeping the current version. - 188.176.129.120 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! I think given the current state of that article, I wouldn't be inclined to wait until the end of the week. I will revert Jilly's change back to your version and make sure that the reason is clearly given. Seeing the space of time between Jilly's edits here, doesn't give me hope that there'll be a prompt reply. Once they do get back to me, then I can look at it again. But for now, I think your version should be the active one, and I will make that change now. If you have any questions, drop me a note here and I will get back to you as soon as time allows! DaneGeld (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

All right, I guess that settles the issue for now. I'm glad I could help fix the article. And thank you for your help. - 188.176.129.120 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)