Talk:Essay: Atheofascism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this article needs to be fact checked in terms of who it claims to be atheists.

I changed the Hitler material to indicate he is theorized to be an atheist. There is not an airtight case that Hitler was an atheist. Careful historians don't make definitive claims when there is merely a possibility, although they may give the probability of such a claim being true.Conservative (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

I agree -- at one point, Francisco Franco (well-known to be a traditionalist Catholic) was listed here as somehow being an "atheofascist."[1] We shouldn't just name-drop everyone we don't like in such a page without being sure. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

These need to be verified in terms of being atheists

  • Fumimaro Konoe, Japanese prime minister.[3][4]
  • Jason Kessler, organizer of the Unite the Right March.[7]

I removed the section on atheofascism prevention because..

I removed the section on atheofascism prevention because it was too simplistic. For example, there are many causes of why a society may turn to fascism. For example, some religions are more authoritarian than others so a society that turns to irreligion may start off more authoritarian. In addition, there are many causes of atheism.

However, I did add related info in the "see also" section related to prevention.Conservative (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Another problem with this article is its insistence on saying something is a cause of something when there actually may be several causes

Another problem with this article is its insistence on saying something is a cause of something when there actually may be several causes (see: talk section above).Conservative (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Recommendations related to historical claims made by this article and information related to historiography

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[2]

Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography

Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from Josh McDowell's book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."

Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)

Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations

Atheofascism appears to largely be a made up word. Recommend deleting article or turning into an essay

Atheofascism appears to largely be a made up word. I don't believe the word is found in dictionaries nor is used commonly.Conservative (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

I converted this article into an essay.Conservative (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
I don't think that's appropriate -- it's obviously not a common term, but it's a real one, as evidenced by the fact that the creator cited some sources. Plus, I don't think dictionary managers are necessarily pro-theist people. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
Besides, it's silly to only have articles if they're listed in major dictionaries. Some terms and phrases are used by Christians and conservatives but not really by others, and we're a conservative/Christian encyclopedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
I didn't find any major figures in Christendom/creationism using the term. It seems the term is most heavily used by the creationist blogger "Cowboy" Bob Sorenson who is a fan of Creation Ministries International and who works a full-time job outside of creationism.Conservative (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2019 (EDT)