Talk:Criticism of atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of atheism article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Criticism of atheism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Atheism and religious groups 2 Atheism is cowardly? 3 Should the 'Atheism as "Religious" Exclusivism' section be removed? 4 Atheism As Faith section 5 Wait... this is a Criticism article? 6 Atheism and Happiness Section: it needs attention 7 POV 8 Spong & Robinson 9 Problematic content in "Effects of Atheism on the individual" 10 Persistent deletions in the "Morality" section 10.1 This has nothing to do with Criticism of Atheism 10.2 More problematic content 11 Slash and burn 12 What the..? 13 Oh! 14 Removal of irrelevant and unhelpful illustration 15 Removal of irrelevant sentence 16 Atheism as a rejection of theism sub-section 17 Proposed tidying-up of initial sections (1-3) 18 Atheism and the Communist regimes. 19 Spe Salvi 20 wow 21 Anti Christian Bias on WP 22 cleanup/merge 23 Pol Pot yet again 24 Removed text from Atheism and the Individual

[edit] Atheism and religious groups

Per 142.179.135.251's suggestion, I'm going to comment this section out. As I've seen it's been discussed above (and per 142's comment), the article is supposed to discuss criticism of atheism rather than criticism of specific organizations who do not declare a religion (i.e. groups that are secular). --HassourZain 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As an atheist i don't care for the phrase, the "cause". for the most part we're not trying to 'covert' anyone.--71.97.151.23 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "the cause" needs to be seen in context – Jeff Nall is simply commenting on the attitude of "some atheists", who evidently don't include 71.97.151.23. -- Jmc 09:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very dubious about this section. It seems to give undue weight to a couple of non-notable commentators, makes assertions that are not supported by facts, and spends a lot of time on "criticism of criticism of atheism". NBeale (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An anon user has now removed it. I won't contest it. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The removed content may have cited a non-notable source; but I thought it made a good point. I guess I don't object to its removal, but the final paragraph of the section now makes very little sense ("Dawkins, however...). It seems to be a kind of rebuttal (a criticism of a criticism) to something which no longer exists, and it should probably be removed.--Pariah (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism is cowardly?

I just wanted to mention that I have seen an interesting criticism of atheism on the Internet which does not seem to be mentioned in this article. Unlike many criticisms of atheism, it openly conceded that scientific evidence favored atheism, and then actually used that in suggesting that belief in that which logic says is the less likely scenario demonstrates courage on the part of the believer. It goes on to say that as such theism is courageous and therefore good while atheism is cowardly and therefore bad. As an atheist, I find actual use of this argument sickeningly irrational, but I think it's still something to consider for this article or any articles on arguments for theism. However, as it's a rather obscure argument, I'll leave the call to more experienced editors than me. - green_meklar 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That line of reasoning is perfectly in sync with the good ol' "stronger faith" argument (faith that can withstand painfully credible evidence to the contrary is considered a supreme virtue, giving up the (irrational) faith because of rational reasoning is therefore considered a weakness). I haven't heard it as a brave/cowardly statement, but those words work just as well as any others.

The problem is that the argument is actually a defense of religion stating that faith is inherently unrelated and possibly even contrary to evidence. It only becomes a criticism of atheism the second you turn it around and say atheists lack that strength of irrational faith and are therefore inferior (which somehow doesn't sound much like the "Christian love and concern" they frequently advertise to me). Atheists could thus be considered to be atheists because they lack strength of faith -- which is pretty much what atheists would agree with, if only with a different wording.

It's less of a criticism and more of a belittlement via different language (not a different statement, merely a different way to present that statement). — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the 'Atheism as "Religious" Exclusivism' section be removed?

This section makes no sense to me. People are born atheists, an atheist is simply a person who does not believe in deities. There's no holy book or text(s) that dictate the way atheists must act, each atheist decides for themselves. I remember from my Introduction To Religion class that a system of belief must meet certain criteria in order to be classified as a religion. I don't think atheism meets any of the criterias. Shall this section be removed, or kept? Dionyseus 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the definition of religion, Lindbeck's definition of religion isn't dependent on "holy" texts, it defines religion as your basic worldview. The star by which you guide your ship. For many, this can take on a degree of significance not unlike religion. Particularly if we're talking about religion as something about which we are ultimately concerned. MerricMaker 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at someone like Richard Dawkins, who seems to think that anyone who believes in God is deluded and should logically become atheist. He seems to say that it's the only possible belief and is pretty hard-core about evangelizing it. For him, atheism is his primary worldview and his particular interpretation of it is that it's absolute. That sounds like religion to me. The problem is that alot of people see the word religion and assume that some divine something-or-other has to be involved. It doesn't, look at Therevada Buddhism, or at Taoism. Both of them are religions, but reject any sort of theism. 150.199.110.146 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this section should be removed. Quite apart from the question as to whether atheism does indeed qualify as a religion or not, it's hard to see how this section constitutes a criticism of atheism.

What is it saying? Is it saying that, if it's accepted that atheism is a religion, it's therefore invalid as a worldview? But if so, that's a critcism of religion, not of atheism per se!

Can someone put up a cogent argument as to precisely how this section constitutes a criticism of atheism and should therefore be retained? Otherwise, it must be a fit candidate for removal.

-- Jmc 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be touched up, just not removed. What's said there is that certain forms of atheism are intolerant of all views which disagree with strong atheism because it's problematic to expect everyone to adhere to a single principle cause. While reality may or may not be multifacted, human views of it are bound to be multifacted and therefore the critique is of absolutist interpretations of atheist assertions. I can't screw around with it right now because I defend a thesis on Wednesday, please leave the section be until I get a chance to fix it. MerricMaker 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of a "cogent argument as to precisely how this section constitutes a criticism of atheism and should therefore be retained", I've removed it. MerricMaker, feel free to "screw around with it" and submit it for reinstatement in a form that clearly and unequivovcally shows how it contributes to the criticism of atheism. As it stands, it has no explicit relationship to the point you make above - and even then, a "critique […] of absolutist interpretations of atheist assertions" is not a criticism of atheism per se.

-- Jmc 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the section. That atheism may or may not be a religion is not a criticism of atheism. Atheists themselves are not necessarily against religion, they are against the idea of deities. Buddhists, for example, are technically atheists. Dionyseus 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism As Faith section

There is a lack of scholarship in the Atheism As Faith section. The arguments presented should be attributed. If the arguments are original work they are not encyclopedic and should be removed. The assertion that "A related argument is to point out that adherents of any one particular faith are also atheists with regard to all other religions" might stand if attributable but otherwise should be removed as an affront to logic and knowledge (not to mention grammar); on the first count because it is impossible for anyone to be a theist and atheist simultaneously, and on the second count because it ignores the history of Abrahamic religion and ecumenism. Catwizzle 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no response to my request for attribution, I propose to remove the two sentences "A related argument is to point out that adherents of any one particular faith are also atheists with regard to all other religions[citation needed]. Thus, a reductio ad absurdum attaches—believers of one faith are also "atheist believers" of every other religion in existence." Both sentences lack intellectual integrity for the reasons stated above, and as they are irrelevant to the subject of the article, their inclusion can only be tendentious. Catwizzle 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it makes no sense, and I have decided to be bold and removed it. Dionyseus 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Dionyseus - "adherents of any one particular faith are also atheists to all other religions" was simply untrue (insofar as it made sense). A Muslim an atheist with regard to the Jewish faith (which I take to mean 'denying the existence of the God of Abraham')? - I don't think so. -- Jmc 04:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait... this is a Criticism article?

This article reads as if it were advocating atheism. Over half of it is rubuttle. Now, I understand the huge atheist/liberal bias on Wikipedia, but its actually bleeding into Criticism of Atheism! We need to do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by asderoff (talk • contribs)

Articles must be written in the NPOV. If you go to the Criticism of Christianity article you'll see that it is also written in the NPOV. Dionyseus 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. There's an unwritten rule that WP is pro-atheist; you'll notice that most Christianity-related pages are "anti." It becomes obvious if you look at enough :(

"Atheism and happiness." If this was a neutral article, they would quote someone else as comments like this are prevalent everywhere. They do not answer the point that Atheism makes life meaningless, and the final part is a complete joke. The article is not centred on whether atheism is true or not, but on the bad aspects of living that way. And it's an admission in itself - that God makes people happy, which you have tried to contradict a few sentences earlier.

"Atheism and morality" The rebuttal is done incredibly poorly here, although it is obviously attempted. They appear to promote the notion that morals come from natural upbringing, although if this was true it would inevitably produce a completely immoral state if given enough time.

And the sentence "According to this view, truly ethical behavior would come from altruistic motivation, not from fear of punishment or hope of reward after death" clearly demonstrates an incredibly limited understanding of theism.

If this section was neutral, it would actually bring up the crimes done in the name of atheism, such as Hitler. And it could quote some of Darwin's work (not directly related to atheism, but still relevant), which appear to support immorality. The section around "acts inspired by religion" also demonstrates giant gaps in understanding on the part of whoever put it there. Also, the direct correlation between violence, fornication and secularisation should be brought up as well since it's obviously happening here.

"Atheism and faith" - this should be obvious... I won't respond to this.

I'm not going to bother fixing any of the article itself ATM because it will be reverted almost immediately, without addressing anything I've said... and I'm too tired regardless.

Happy Easter!

-- Yoda921 14:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

I couldn't disagree more with your comment, all of it. One thing I'll definitely not let slide is your Hitler comment, Hitler wasn't an atheist, he mentions that he's a Christian many times in Mein Kampf. Furthermore, in a speech on April 26, 1933, Hitler said and I quote "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . .". On February 23, 1933, an Associated Press article is headlined 'Hitler Aims Blow at 'Godless' Move,' and talks about how Hitler was campaigning against atheists and was asking support from other Catholics. [1] In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Dionyseus 14:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hitler was a psuedo-Catholic. He was a staunch critic of Christianity nd religion in general. According to him, "Christianity is a cancer on society."^{[citation needed]} Also, I don't care if you're religious or not, but WP and this article in particular has an enormous atheist bias. I'm trying to calmly and civilly (sp.?) request a re-write.--Asderoff 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And one thing I'll definitely not let slide is Yoda921's Darwin comment ("And it could quote some of Darwin's work (not directly related to atheism, but still relevant), which appear to support immorality."). Darwin was not an atheist (nor immoral). See Charles Darwin: "When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally 'an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.'"

Criticism of the 'Criticism of atheism' article is welcome, as are suggestions for improvement, but these must be founded in fact.

-- Jmc 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is trying to promote facts and reality. So it's hard to criticize atheism, you know.--Svetovid 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least rename the article, "Defence of Atheism"? It makes more sense. This article is simply not criticism. There's no denying it.--Asderoff 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of that, why don't you, you know, contribute to the article? Instead of saying "we need to do something," just do something. You certainly shouldn't ask/expect atheists to flesh out arguments against atheism. It seems patently obvious to me that the onus is on those who find fault with an article to improve the article. Lamont A Cranston 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Because, I can't simply do a major rewrite by myself.

A) I don't have this kind of time or sources.

B) I'm simply not allowed to do something this drastic with no one behind me. I'm not being cross, in fact, I'm being very calm and reasonable.

C) The atheist majority would simply revert everything.

Also, I'd appreciate kinder words when we are all trying to do what is best for WP. Well, some of us.--Asderoff 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some kind words for Asderoff:

Wikipedia is about editing articles, rather than just discussing them. So have a go at editing. Be bold! Respect the Guidelines, back up what you write with reliable sources, and you'll find that your editing will be accepted and respected.

-- Jmc 05:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the original question "Wait... this is a Criticism article?", if you mean "Is this a 'criticism only' article?" the answer is no, this is an article that discusses the various criticisms of atheism. The point of this article is not to slag on atheism, it's to discuss each of the various common arguments against atheism, including the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Just as when any other commonly disputed subject is discussed on Wikipedia, both sides should be fairly presented so as to provide a neutral point of view. This point has been made repeatedly on this talk page. If you think any of the arguments against atheism are missing or are poorly represented, feel free to add or improve them, but understand that the argument will be fully discussed instead of only presenting one side of the argument. -- HiEv 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is one possibility (and a possibility just to be entertained): perhaps the arguments against atheism just are very weak. I know that theist friends of mine will gladly admit that rationally atheism has more plausibility, but they rely on such things as faith. Now if the arguments against atheism are weak, then it would be terribly POV to hide this fact by not putting in the obvious rebuttals. Do you really believe that there are strong (rational) arguments against atheism? Dast 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the authors I enjoy are atheists and I have thought about atheism. I admit my rejection is largely emotional, but not entirely so. If there is no God then truth has to be determined by humans. To me this has problems. First in a Godless universe humans are nothing more than creations of natural selection on a single planet that occuppies a very miniscule amount of the Universe. Whether their ape-derived brains even can understand the Universe is unclear. In addition to that relativistic barriers mean most of the Universe is unavailable to them/us for actual observation. Second science is a trial-and-error method. It can create increasingly accurate descriptions of natural phenomenon, but it doesn't lead to the "truth" nor does it claim it can. Atheism can not really be true or at least it can not prove itself to be so going by its own terms. However if you take theism by its own logic it can/does lead to Truth as it involves connection to a being that knows everything including truth. (Granted at this hour I might not be making sense) In addition to that a great many atheists are not atheists for rational reasons, but are instead atheists for emotional reasons. I don't think Wikipedia has much on "romantic atheism", but I think essentially the idea is that human life is sweeter if it is finite and has nothing "above it" to tell it what's what. That whether atheism is "true" or not is less important than it being liberating and allowing a life of searching for some kind of truth even if you never find it. Others are atheists for emotional reasons because they're libertarianish and don't like anything "watching us." One such person advanced the idea that if God exists it'd be the duty of good-hearted people to destroy it to avoid such a know-it-all being. Still others are just ticked off at theists for some reason. Most people's beliefs are not purely rational. Theists don't kid themselves on that as much as atheists so I've found myself more, not less, sympathetic to them/us as I've gone through higher education.

That said I think it's fine for this to have responses to criticism. Just like I think it's fine for the other criticism articles to have responses. Because otherwises you might end up with one-sided "attack articles" if you're not careful. If the Christian article on criticism doesn't deal with unfair or spurious criticisms it's likely the problem and not this article.--T. Anthony 11:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the first paragraph of that rant has to do with the "Criticism of atheism" article. The purpose of this Talk page is not to debate the merits or problems of atheism, it is to discuss the article itself. If you think something is missing from the article please add it, but please do not try to turn this into a "debate of atheism" page. Thank you.  :-) -- HiEv 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I was up late feeling odd. I'll cross out the irrelevancy/rant.--T. Anthony 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not going so far as to say this article advocates atheism, the "Atheism as faith" and "Atheism and Morality" sections do seem to lack an equal amount of argument and counter-argument. If someone could please perhaps elaborate further on each aspect of these two sections as seen fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.179.11 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism and Happiness Section: it needs attention

In the above debate Yoda921 says that the Atheism and Happiness section does "not answer the point that Atheism makes life meaningless, and the final part is a complete joke." Unfortunately I think he's right, but I'm not going to update until I hear some ideas and, even better, until someone finds some good sources on the issue. Here's the problems.

The first problem is it conflates two points,

1. That Atheism makes life meaningless.
2. That Atheism makes life miserable.

A meaningful life is not necessarily a happy one and a meaningless life is not necessarily an unhappy one. Imagine - from a Christian's perspective - the life of a self-sacrificing saint or indeed of Jesus: they are not happy lives but they are meaningful to a theist. Likewise, a philistine who spends his life indulging in material pleasures could conceivably be described as living a happy but meaningless life.

The response to the happiness point is straightforward: as the article says it confuses a matter of truth with a matter of value. The other point is less easily dealt with. The basic idea is that without religion we are left with a cold, physicalist universe where we are nothing more than matter that happens to be animated simply because of some chance aberration in amino acids millions of years ago. Or something to that effect. The argument is mistaken, I believe, but it is one of the most common reasons cited for rejecting atheism and, most importantly, requires a different response than the happiness argument. The reason it requires a different response - even though it could be seen as just another question of value - is that generally we start with an assumption or intuition that life is not meaningless. So the (perhaps bad) argument runs:

P1. If atheism were true, life would be meaningless. P2. Life is not meaningless. Therefore, C. Atheism is not true.

Now, yes, we may question P2 (e.g. what does 'meaningful' mean? does it rely on some idea of teleology? etc), but I think many Atheist will want to question P1 (myself included). Positively, the response is that life can be very meaningful without some externally endowed purpose for mankind - it can be meaningful because of one's life projects, one's relationships and so forth. Negatively, the response would be that the criticism relies on a false dichotomy between religion and naive reductivist physicalism (a dichotomy also unhelpfully adopted by some atheists). Many atheists - and most naturalist philosophers - do not only stand by science, but also do not believe that such things as poetry, love, or justice (which make life meaningful) are any less real as a result of science's success. They believe that it is simply mistaken to think that if my poetry book (and I) are made of atoms then poetry must be reduced to atoms (I'm sure someone studying modern metaphysics or philosophy of science could articulate this better).

I think something along these lines is a much more interesting and faithful criticism of atheism, and one that allows responses to the theist that do not just sidestep the issue he raises. But, as I said, I think that it would benefit from some sources. Nonetheless, if there's no objection (some hope!) I'll make some changes in this direction in a week's time. Dast 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe there is no criticism or addendum of the above, but as no one has objected, I'll make the changes shortly. Dast 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

While I realize that much has been done to improve the article, it still appears biased toward the atheist view. Much of the arguments invoked in the article are shorter than the rebuttals, especially the Morality section. The Atheists and Religious Groups bit does not even feature theist perspectives as all of the authors quoted are atheists. I would appreciate it if this article was made a little bit more NPOV. --BlarghHgralb 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BlarghHgralb, if you feel the article needs a bit more balance, why not have a go at editing it to achieve this? After all, Wikipedia is about editing articles, rather than just discussing them. -- Jmc 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmc is correct, we get this far to often. It's getting ridiculous. It is absolutely extraordinary how people accuse it of bias without making any concrete suggestions for improvement. Surely they have some in mind - why else would they make these comments? I, for instance, am an atheist and naturally the criticisms - by and large - seem weak to me and the rebuttals seem strong. If the criticisms are to be made stronger this can only be done by exactly the people who accuse it of bias. How can I fix a bias I'm blind to? Dast 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Although I note, Blargh, that your comment is very courteously put and my preceding comment is clearly not aimed only at you. Dast 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pending more substantive explanation by BlarghHgralb of why s/he added the POV tag at the head of the article, I've removed it. Better than explanation, of course, is editing to remove the perceived bias. Dast puts it well in saying that such editing "can only be done by exactly the people who accuse it of bias". -- Jmc 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spong & Robinson

I started editing the riff on Spong and Robinson, but have now removed the following: "In his book Exploration Into God John A.T. Robinson suggested that Christianity needed to find "a God beyond theism." One view is that some atheists have arrived at their view due to encountering religious experiences that have not sought a higher power beyond the definitions of a particular religion. Just as Christianity is seen by some--like Spong and Robinson--as needing to transcend "traditional" beliefs, likewise one might say that some forms of atheism could find a definition of themselves which is not beholden to old formats or, for that matter, dependent on religion. That is, that atheists could be so because that is the choice they have made based on their own initiative, not because they find a given god-concept to be unconvincing. In keeping with this reasoning, atheism as such would need to be a full rejection of the existence of a higher power, not simply a rejection of a theistic philosophy promulgated by a religious institution." Unsourced "one might say"s don't belong in Wikipedia. And anyway this is not about "criticism of atheism", it's about "how great atheism might be" NBeale 06:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic content in "Effects of Atheism on the individual"

I removed the following content:

There are now extensive studies indicating religious people are happier and less stressed.^[1][2] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.^[3] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of well-being"^[4] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency.^[5][6] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health^[7] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.^[8] On the other hand, statistical association between faith and well being do not negate the point that there are examples of atheists who appear to have led long, productive, and happy lives.^[9] Although some highly atheist nations, like Estonia, have low-levels of life satisfaction others, like most of Scandinavia, score quite high in these measures.^[10]

Which basically is a cherry-picked jaunt through social science data and opinion polls. In the sense of NPOV we can include prose to the effect that certain religion proponents have said that atheists are unhappy, depressive, etc. but making unequivocal statements regarding the purported unhappiness of the areligious is a point-of-view, not a scientific fact. Nor is it wise to make grand conclusions from opinion polls which are tuned to political characterizations rather than scientific control. Happiness, we all know, is something that is extremely difficult to measure and so constructing arguments such as those included above is problematic at best and soapboxing at worst. I'll also point out that the ending sentences are meaningless: some atheist countries are unhappy and others are not -- so what? It doesn't add any meaningful information to the article.

--ScienceApologist 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the above text can be be revised before it is reinserted in the article, but please notice that this deleted paragraph includes at least 3 meta-analysis reviewing a very impressive amount of studies on the subject. Mentioning them can hardly be seen as "cherry-picking". And I hope we all agree that editors are allowed to provide studies that may support the views discussed in the article, right? --200.19.190.5 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A meta-analysis is not a criticism. Such commentary is asking the reader to jump to conclusions. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree [with the anonymous user]. We would at least need some evidence that they were cherry-picked. 'Evidence', I suppose, would be a massively larger body of studies that offset these results - and I presume ScienceApologist is familiar with this body of studies, since he believes the paragraph cherry-picks from them (!). Dast 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed fully aware of the body of studies. One can look at just about any of the major psychological journals to find studies which report that religious people are more prone to various mental illnesses and disorders, for example. This is not the place to argue about which study is right and which is wrong. Instead we should try to frame this commentary in light of the subject of the article (criticisms of atheism). Quoting selected studies that do not directly criticize atheism is not criticism of atheism. Cited criticism of atheism that used these studies to support their critique would at least be defensible. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

More then just claiming you are aware of the studies is needed, you have to give us some reason to think you are not simply influenced by a pro-atheist bias. As it is, you have given precisely no reason. As to the logic of the argument of that section, it needs some changing (see my comments from a few weeks back, for example) but it is a much laboured criticism - a bad one, indeed, but a notable one nonetheless. Dast 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing, I must add, is that what you are calling 'bizarre propaganda' actually looks like good science - are you an apologist only for science that you like? Dast 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue I have is with the way the prose is written and how its tied to the sources. Citing some studies that seem to show benefits to religious belief is not a criticism of atheism. What you should do is find a source that criticizes atheism along the lines you want to include and then use that as a guide. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, It is not even controversial to say that most modern research on the topic suggest that, on average, religiousness is good for ones physical and mental health. One more example, not included in the removed paragraph, is a very recent meta-analysis on the religion-mental health relationship, with systematic review of 850 studies (!) claiming that: "The majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse." [2] --200.19.190.5 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You are failing to realize that this isn't an article on the benefits of religiousness, it's an article about criticism of atheism. If you can find a person who uses these meta-analyses to criticize atheism directly, then we can use that to add to the section you are interested in expanding. However, using these sources to conclude that atheism is therefore criticize is essentially original research and banned by Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is not that the section is perfectly written or argued - it's not - but that it is relevant and well referenced. That atheism makes you unhappy is a direct criticism - not a criticism of the truth value of atheism, but a criticism of the value of atheism. Weak? Certainly, but nonetheless legitimate. As it stands it should be edited not deleted. This is true even if you doubt (wrongly I believe) that this criticism is in the literature - if this is your worry, then put a post here asking for references, if none turn up then perhaps deletion could be discussed. Furthermore, I have outlined a general approach to improving the section above - please look at it ('Atheism and Happiness section: it needs attention' above) and perhaps suggest further or alternative ways of dealing with it. This would be far more helpful than deleting even when two reasonable editors object to the deletion. Dast 14:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, note the section has been there for a while and is the result of many editors work, not just 200.19. Dast 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevence is unclear: these studies report to say that people are unhappy who are not religious, but they do not criticize atheism directly. In order to include such argumentation you need to find a source that actually makese the argument. Simply saying that the areligious are unhappy is NOT a direct criticism of atheism: it's a description of studies comparing religious and areligious people. We are not equipped at Wikipedia to draw conclusions from studies that the studies are criticizing atheism. We can only report what others say. If you can find a source which uses these studies to criticize atheism then it will be very appropriate for us to discuss this in the article. But simply mentioning these studies is forbidden per WP:NOR. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent deletions in the "Morality" section

At the moment I am REALLY ANGRY. I've spent almost the whole day trying to add some very well sourced and verifiable comments in this article. The text is bellow, (here reproduced with the actual text in bold, and the original references in normal text).

---

...modern research in criminology acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,...

REFERENCE given:

• As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485</ref>

Counter reference for this statement: [3] (Note: This counter reference actually does not negate the inverse relationship between religion and crime, instead it acknowledges this relationship while suggesting that it may be spurious - which, according to ScienceApologist's view: "is a level of dispute removed from the content of the article and therefore the disputed prose is rightly removed".)

...with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one)...

REFERENCEs given:

• Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263-274.
• Burkett,S.,& White,M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455-462.
• Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
• Cochran,J. K.,& Akers,R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198-225.
• Evans,T. D.,Cullen,F. T.,Burton,V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway,R. G.,Payne,G. L.,& Kethineni,S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43-70.
• Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251-266.
• Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952-958.
• Johnson,B. R.,Larson,D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang,S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377-391.
• Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323-340.
• Powell,K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38-47.

Counter references for these statements: [4] (Note: By the abstract, it is not clear at all if this study really is denying the relationship found in the other studies), [5] (Note: this study is only denying that the effects of religion are mediated trough "social control", it is not claiming that the relationship doesn't exist.), [6] (Note: This old study -1982- is trying to explain the apparent confusion on this subject 25 years ago, now we are in 2007), [7] (Note: Even though this study says that at the year 2000 there were still authors suggesting confusion regarding the relationship, the study is actually a systematic review revealing "that the literature is not disparate or contradictory, as previous studies have suggested" and that "religious measures are generally inversely related to deviance, and this is especially true among the most rigorous studies.") [8] (Note: this study is the same already provided as counter reference for the first quote, as was already said, it acknowledges the relationship.)

(General note: My impression is that none of the above studies is a very good counter reference. Even if studies actually denying the relationship were provided, it would not in any way deny the statement that there are "many studies establishing this beneficial [religion versus crime] connection". Please also notice that in this morality section there is already research showing supposedly "bad links" between religion and crime.)

Your impression is meaningless. The claim that there are no counter references is refuted. The relevance of references or counter-references can now be addressed as we discuss below. It is clear that the relevance of these studies is dubious at best and original research at worst and so this prose is deservedly removed from the article. --ScienceApologist 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you are attempting to refute a claim that was never made. How can the addition of this text ever be denial of the existence of counter references when counter references were already a feature of the precise paragraph that these phrases were supposed to complement? You failed to notice the context. The one making wild claims around here is you, labelling all the serious research above as "bizzarre propaganda"[9]. --200.19.190.5 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the addition of text cherry-picks only sources that tend to support a statement while ignoring statements that tend to detract from it, the adition of text effectively denies the existence of counter-references. When people claim that the text is well referenced, they should be claiming that the text is referenced by the whole of established research. This text is not of this variety. --ScienceApologist 12:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no base to accuse me of cherry picking sources. The few supposed counter references you provided until now can hardly be seen as any better than the studies that were already reported in the paragraph long before my edit. --200.19.190.5 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

...Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”...

REFERENCE Given:

• Baier,C. J.,& Wright,B. R. (2001). “If you love me,keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3-21.

Counter reference for this statement: [10] (Note: This a study about homicide in a single religious population. Yet, It is being used as "counter reference" opposing a much more comprehensive meta-analysis on the subject. If one wants to suggest that religion can lead to more homicides, the "Gary F. Jensen" study is a stronger reference. A detailed report about Jensen's study is already in the article... User:ScienceApologist claims that: "Obviously 201 did not read the paper in its entirety because it explicitly argues against the referenced paper." ... User:201 strongly disagrees and claims instead that this supposed counter reference never argues against the conclusion of the meta-analysis.)

---

What happened after my first edit [11]? Within less than five minutes User:ScienceApologist reverted my addition, clamming that he was "removing bizarre propaganda plagiarized from an apologetics site". This first comment is complete nonsense regarding the text actually reverted, (and I am now inclined to think he mistakenly thought he was reverting some other text - see the topic above created by him)...

• Then I reverted the deletion for the first time...

A few hours latter User:ConfuciusOrnis thought it was a good idea to remove the text again, claiming: "they're some pretty weak sources... "Center for the Scientific Study for Religion"?... pfft" Beyond the unpolite comment, the fact that he misspelled the name of the renowned "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion" strongly suggest to me that he gave almost no thought on the matter before removing the text again.

• Then I reverted the deletion for the second time, while pointing (in my headline) that it seemed clear that both previous deletions were made with no real attempt to consider the actual text and it's sources...

Then, guess what (!), User:ConfuciusOrnis immediately reverted my addition for the 3rd time, and in this last revert he didn't even bothered to justify his undue move.

• I really didn't expect this kind of behaviour from Wikipedians, especially with such extensively sourced content. Would please a reasonable wikipedian put my legit edit back were it belongs? --200.19.190.5 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Nobody appears to be raising objections to the above text. I am inclined to think (or hoping) that the removals were actually the result of good-faith mistakes. I just reintroduced the text in the article. Attentive users will notice how this new text is very well integrated in the discussion of that topic, that was already presenting studies regarding pros and cons of religious involvement in regard to morality. --200.19.190.5 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm raising objections to the above text. The first sentence is a conclusion from a single paper about drug use that was funded by a religious organization. Harldy a neutral source and also not a criticism of atheism. The second selection of sources is a bit more comprehensive but again irrelevent to the subject of the article unless we allow for 200.19's original research. That's simply not the way Wikipedia works. I will remove the prose again until someone can find some secondary sources which directly criticize atheism through these arguments. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Counter-references are now given. It is irresponsible for us to report a singular opinion when the research is so varied. --ScienceApologist 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Dast, I agree with your points. But I think it would be better to restrict opinions about the "happiness" section to the above topic. --200.19.190.5 15:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Good point - I'll move them up.

ScienceApologist, I completely agree when you say that "It is irresponsible for us to report a singular opinion when the research is so varied." But you did not took the time to notice is that this page already presents detailed reports of studies suggesting bad links between religiosity and moral behaviour. Indeed, the single study you mention as "counter reference" to the meta-analysis of 60 studies I provided is no big news, since a similar (and much more generalisable) study about homicide is already reported in the section. Once again, your behaviour suggest very little analysis before deleting information you didn't like. --200.19.190.5 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you completely are missing the point. First you tried to imply in the text that there were no counter studies, which I showed wasn't true. Then you tried to say that these sources are criticizing atheism, but they aren't: they are simply positing a connection between religiosity and certain social indicators. We are not equipped to make the leap in judgement required to say that these studies are criticizing atheism. If you want to include discussion of these arguments you need to find sources that explicitly say "Atheism is bad because people who are atheists are unhappy, deliquent criminals." You have not done that. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained above, the claim that there were no counter studies was never made. How can the addition of the text in discussion ever be denial of the existence of counter references when counter references were already a feature of the precise paragraph that these phrases were supposed to complement? You failed to notice the context. --200.19.190.5 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The major problem remains that the text in question is not referenced by specific criticisms of atheism. If you want to compose text along the lines of "people criticize athesim as leading to crime" then you should have a sourced reference that makes such a claim about atheism: not a list of social science papers that deal with self-reported lack of religiosity (which is manifestly different from atheism). --ScienceApologist 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me then explain what really is happening here. Right now the morality section contains large amounts of text claiming that religion is bad for morality. More importantly, right now it only presents studies suggesting bad links between crime and religion. The presentation of those studies alone is the definition of "cherry picking" and is also a "bizarre" distortion of what research in criminology actually suggests. You kept complaining that I was "ignoring counter reference", but the very text you are censoring here IS the counter reference that was supposed to restore the neutrality of the section. I give up, do whatever you want. I hope someone willing to face fierce (although unjustified) resistance can fix the article. --200.19.190.5 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to fix the article, but you cannot fix the article through original research conclusion jumping. I agree with you that there is a number of studies that purport to show an inverse correlation between religiosity and crime, but unless someone uses this as a criticism of atheism, simply reporting on these studies is essentially original research. --ScienceApologist 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok ScienceApologist here is the paragraph:

A recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction.[15] However, an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.[16] In a response [17] to the study by Paul, Gary F. Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study. His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualism in Christianity, that is to say with the proportion of the population who believe the devil and hell exist. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior.[18] [19] [20] For example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[21]

Now as far as I can see this paragraph cites studies that show a correlation between religiosity and 'certain measures of dysfunction'. Now, according to your criteria this is original research, since it doesn't say that the studies in question are meant to be responses to criticisms of atheism - to slightly adapt a quote from you 'unless someone uses this as a [response to a] criticism of atheism, simply reporting on these studies is essentially original research'. But your criteria is silly - their relevance to the criticism is clear to absolutely anyone, so there is absolutely no need to cite an expert - appeal to experts simply isn't needed to make this childishly simple inference (that's why stating 1+1=2 without citing someone who said this is not OR). Now 200.19 is simply adding this exceptionally well referenced statement to the existing brief response:

Modern research in criminology acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime, with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.

This simply references pertinent studies that show the opposite of the studies in the original paragraph. Indeed they do not even have to purport to be a criticism of atheism: they simply show that the opposite of the conclusion of the studies cited ( a 'positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction') is found in other studies. Now what exactly is the the OR? Is it simply citing these articles? But a child could see how they are relevant, we do not need an expert to see that studies that state not-P are importantly related to studies that state P. All, this addition seems to me to do is make the article more balanced. As an atheist, I would really like the article to be balanced, since I want it to be compelling to both theists and non-theists. Your deletion seriously questions that balance. Dast 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This has nothing to do with Criticism of Atheism

I don't understand what any of this has to do with Criticism of atheism. Has any reliable source cited these studies as an argument against atheism? If not, then it would be original research for us to do so. It's that simple. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-18 15:15Z

But they are not intended as an argument against atheism - they simply balance a rebuttal of an argument against atheism. Dast 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, unless a reliable source has used this information in a rebuttal, it is original research for us to do so. Read WP:SYN. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-18 15:38Z

On that criteria, the rebuttal is original research too. Dast 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So remove it as well. Most of this article is probably OR and should be deleted as such. WP:SYN is official policy. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-18 15:44Z

Actually this is not the policy. WP:SYN says 'Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C.' But this is not what the response to the rebuttal does - rather the positions are A and not-A. There is not third conclusion drawn (such as, e.g., that either set of studies is right or wrong). Effectively the article section can be summarised as follows:

• 'Lack of theism is correlated with immorality' [cited criticism of atheism].
• Some studies show that 'theism is correlated with immorality'.
• But other studies show that 'theism is not correlated with immorality'.

All the statements in inverted commas are (approximately) published conclusions. There seems to be no extra result C derived from any of the conclusions, so it could hardly be in violation of WP:SYN. In fact, if articles could not be written with such a structure I don't think any encyclopaedic entries could be made. Dast 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. We can't just start citing study results to suit our needs. We can only cite people who have made commentary regarding criticism of atheism, and who in turn cited studies. WP:SYN is official policy as part of WP:NOR. You're trying to rebut a statement by citing alternative research, but we're not in the business of doing that. This isn't a blog or op ed piece. We only observe the discussion, we don't make the discussion. This is the whole point of WP:SYN. There's no arguing about it. You can't rebut X by citing facts from studies. You have to cite anti-X commentary from either the studies or reliable 3rd party sources, either of which would in turn cite facts from studies. You cannot say, "People often say X, citing study A, but study B points to anti-X." This is obvious original research. Who says study B points to anti-X? You have to say who is making that connection. You can't just make the connection yourself, no matter how obvious it is. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-18 18:37Z

Ok, so I think you really have misunderstood. The researcher who concludes from his results that not-A is concluding that, well, not A. What extra connection do you think the article makes? Just to make it doubly clear, the structure is:

• A [cited as criticism of atheism]
• Studies: not-A.
• Studies: A.

Where on earth is the original research in this structure? What extra connection is being made? WP:SYN quite rightly states that synthesising two separate results to reach a single conclusion constitutes original research. What synthesised results and what newly drawn conclusion do you see in the article? It would be very helpful if you pointed to the two synthesised studies and the place where you think the new conclusion is drawn. Dast 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you bring up a good argument for removing the paragraph entirely, Dast, and I have done so. The claims atheists make are not relevant to this page. The only relevance to this page are the criticisms of atheism and the responses to such criticisms. Paul is obviously doing neither of those, so commentary in that line should be removed. Likewise, red state/blue state divide may belong as a response to someone who claims that red states are better than blue states because they're more religious, but this argument is incidental to criticisms of atheism. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More problematic content

"Other atheists counter that religion, rather than atheism, would be a source of immorality -- saying religious ethical systems emphasize obedience over goodness -- and that it is actually through the absence of religion that we can truly become moral, as religion, according to Bertrand Russell, "has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness."^[11] Some feel that, due to their alleged supernatural support, these systems are inherently authoritarian, hence able to endorse immorality as easily as morality while discouraging individuals from responsibly evaluating the rightness of their actions. In support of this, atheists point to the lack of morality in many acts inspired by religion.^[12] Defenders of religious ethics usually respond by characterizing the cases of immorality in the name of religion as being an aberration based on wrong interpretations of religious scripture, and point out all the good things that religion can claim credit for, such as acts of charity.^{[citation needed]}"

I also removed the above paragraph from the text. Following ScienceApologist's argumentation, it is clear that this text also presents a number of problems. It is not criticism of atheism, neither a response for the criticism presented in the article (although the beginning gives the illusion that it may be the case). The whole text is actually criticism of religion. If ScienceApologist's view regarding the practical usage of Wikipedia policies is accurate, the above paragraph is not appropriate for an article that is about criticism of atheism. --201.9.60.131 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly don't support the removal. How can you say that it is not a response for the criticism presented in the article? Religious believers always claim that atheism is immorality. Why should not atheists response? RS

I strongly suggest for all editors the reading of the other discussions in this topic of "Persistent deletions in the Morality section" to better understand the dipute. The WP policy considerations that justify dispute over this paragraph are the same that justify the dispute over the other removed passages. --201.9.60.131 16:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slash and burn

Much of this article needs to be purged violently and rewritten. All the unsourced rambling about what "some atheists believe" or "many theists claim" or "exactly 42 wiccans believe" needs to be CTRL+A DELeted. As for the "you can't prove a negative" nonsense, read [12]. After the holocaust on criticism of atheism is complete, we can start rebuilding the article with reliable, well-written sources, and in a manner that isn't so hissy-fit back-and-forth. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-18 19:26Z

Agreed. I'll back you up, Brian. --ScienceApologist 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is generally polite to wait until discussions are well over before making the proposed deletions. As it is, you have just gone ahead and deleted what I still believe is a very well researched paragraph that is in no way in violation of WP:SYN. Dast 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dast, I am not familiarized enough with the polices to argue if ScienceApologist's view in regard to them is right or wrong. But you will notice that I removed yet another paragraph from the morality section. I did so because I think that, if he is right in his views regarding WP policy, that text also needs to be removed along with the other text previously removed. On a side note, I'd also like to say that your posture during the discussions is being exemplar. You got out of your way to defend edits that could be seen as unfavourable to your own world-view, and did so because you recognized that it was the right thing to do to bring balance to the article at that point. For this (your efforts in keeping the neutrality of the article) you have my greatest respect. Wikipedia needs both more atheists and more theists like you. Thanks. --201.9.60.131 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia isn't to be kind to previous unknown editors' content (which they are no longer around to claim as their own), but to write good articles. Bad writing by unknown writers should be removed and replaced with good writing. There's no reason to respect bad writing just because it's currently in existence. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-19 14:37Z

Brian, I think maybe you didn't understand what exactly I was saying in my last comment. So I tried to clarify it a bit by adding the text in parenthesis there. --201.9.60.131 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the..?

Why are there links to criticisms of religions, i am going to remove them. If you disagree, please discuss here. Warfwar3 16:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it is common practice for one criticism page to show links to other criticism pages. I think the links should be restored. --201.9.60.131 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have restored the links, in a section entitled 'Criticisms of other beliefs' (compare Criticism of Islam#See also) Terraxos 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh!

‘Other atheists counter that religion, rather than atheism, would be a source of immorality -- saying religious ethical systems emphasize obedience over goodness -- and that it is actually through the absence of religion that we can truly become moral, as religion, according to Bertrand Russell, "has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness."^[13] Some feel that, due to their alleged supernatural support, these systems are inherently authoritarian, hence able to endorse immorality as easily as morality while discouraging individuals from responsibly evaluating the rightness of their actions. In support of this, atheists point to the lack of morality in many acts inspired by religion.^[14] Defenders of religious ethics usually respond by characterizing the cases of immorality in the name of religion as being an aberration based on wrong interpretations of religious scripture, and point out all the good things that religion can claim credit for, such as acts of charity.’

When I tried to add the following above paragraph in the article, this is what 201.9.60.131 said:

‘I strongly suggest for all editors the reading of the other discussions in this topic of "Persistent deletions in the Morality section" to better understand the dipute (please spell correctly. The correct spelling is ‘dispute’.). The WP policy considerations that justify dispute over this paragraph are the same that justify the dispute over the other removed passages.’

What nonsense!! I read the other discussions in this topic of "Persistent deletions in the Morality section". I think this article is totally biased. If atheists are not allowed to response to criticisms of atheism, then what is the use of this page??

User:Devraj5000

There are so many reliable sources that can be used against criticism of atheism. Nobody seems to be interested in them. Look, if theists have a right to criticize atheism, atheists also have a right to response to criticism.

User:Devraj5000

This paragraph (as well as the other disputed passages) seems to be problematic for specific reasons that become clear trough the topic "Persistent deletions in the Morality section". As you know, since you replied there too, discussion is already happening at Talk:Criticism of atheism#More problematic content. Let's please keep the debate in only one place. BTW, contrary to what you seem to suggest, the section about morality is currently plenty of appropriate responses to the criticism. Indeed, more than 2/3 of the section is currently filled with text arguing that atheists are able to live moral/ethical lives and justifying why they do so. --201.9.60.131 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of irrelevant and unhelpful illustration

I'm all for illustrations in articles. Indeed, I've gone to the trouble of adding some myself to other articles. But the one that heads this article says nothing to illustrate criticism of atheism. What it illustrates is criticism of Modernism, and – surprise, surprise! – we find it also illustrating the article on Modernism.

So, unless someone can come up with a cojent reason why it's appropriate in an article on the criticism of atheism (apart from making it look more inviting), I propose to remove it from here.

-- Jmc 07:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to remove this article we must also remove articles like Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of religion, and Criticism of Christianity. --PEAR (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't even make the page look more inviting. By all means delete. --Old Moonraker 07:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you were talking about deleting the whole article. sorry. --PEAR (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the illustration looks good. --PEAR (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new picture: Image:Hortus Deliciarum - Hell.jpg. What do you guys think? --PEAR (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of irrelevant sentence

"Athiestic writers such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins respond that this could also apply to fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's teapot."

The title of the article is Criticism of Atheism. This sentence represents a defence of atheism. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins may get to have the last word in other articles, but not this one. If no one comes up with an argument within Wikipedia's terms for leaving the sentence extant, I will remove it. Catwizzle 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your premise is flawed. This is not a POV fork where theists get the last word. This is a sub-article to keep the main one from getting too big, and it has the same requirements for neutrality. Removing Harris and Dawkins to let the theists speak without rebuttal violates NPOV. ThAtSo 16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I support Catwizzle's intention to remove. Accepting ThAtSo's contention that this is a sub-article of Atheism, neutrality is maintained by the atheistic (note spelling) POV being expressed within the main article (particularly under Epistemological arguments), and by this article providing a balancing theistic/agnostic POV, to ensure a global NPOV. Addition of the contentious sentence here tips the balance unfairly. -- Jmc 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You just defined what a POV fork is. ThAtSo 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not served by the automatic rebuttal of every assertion made in Wikipedia. In fact rebuttal material may turn a NPOV piece into a POV one, as is the case here. The title of the article is Criticism of Atheism. The sub-section in question is structurally a defence of atheism and as such represents an attempt to subvert the stated purpose of the article. By all means retain the content of the sub-section, but re-structure it so that it is consonant with the title of the article. Otherwise change the title of the article. Catwizzle 22:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In a word, nonsense. Just as the article on atheism doesn't get to exclude criticism, the article on criticism of atheism doesn't get to exclude support for atheism. NPOV is not negitiable, so since I've finishd explaining, we're done here. ThAtSo 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I've had a good look back at WP:POVFORK, and I'm inclined now to support the retention of the disputed sentence (so long as the misspelling is corrected).

WP:POVFORK says "There is no consensus whether a 'Criticism of .... ' article is always a POV fork. At least the 'Criticism of ... ' article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the 'Criticism of ... " article.'

What seems to be lacking is a summary of this article in the Atheism article.

-- Jmc 23:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, if it's not there, it should be. ThAtSo 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If ThAtSo would care to re-read the comment which he dismisses so eloquently as nonsense, he will find that I do not suggest excluding criticism. What I wrote is "by all means retain the content of the sub-section". That means keep the criticism. However, the structure has to be changed. As it stands, this sub-section does not meet NPOV. It is weighted to support atheist POV by proposing a theist argument and subsequently deconstructing it. The content of any sub-section of an article entitled Criticism of Atheism should be structured conversely, thus - atheist thesis, theist (or non-theist) deconstruction. That is what "criticism" means. Catwizzle 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also having trouble finding a factual basis for the disputed sentence. The criticism of atheism contained in this sub-section is specifically "that atheists who limit their assertions to such [philosophical and scientific] arguments are ignoring the entirety of human experience". In other words that atheism is reductive. Could someone cite where "Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins respond that this could also apply to fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's teapot"? My understanding is that these are parodies of religious faith, and not a repudiation of atheist reductionism. Catwizzle 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about criticisms of atheism. It's purpose is not to criticize atheism as that would be against the NPOV policy. The tea pot and the flying spaghetti monster are demonstrative examples of the inherit problem of faith without evidence.69.122.90.226 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism as a rejection of theism sub-section

The sentence "Agnostic philosophers like Anthony Kenny criticise Atheism on the grounds that it claims too high a level of certainty, and suggest that agnosticism is the appropriate response" seems to be in the wrong sub-section. Surely it should go under Arguments for Agnosticism? If no one objects I'll move it.

The whole sub-section (Atheism as a rejection of theism) at present is surmise. Who are these writers who "do not criticise atheism per se ..." etc? Citation needed. Personally I think this is a weak argument against atheism, since exactly the reverse could be said of theism - ie that someone becomes religious because they have had a good experience of a religious person or institution. This is a description of how religious faith or atheism can come about, but it is hardly a criticism of either. Catwizzle 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are terrible arguments, but they're what's really out there, so the best we can do is faithfully (sic) report them here. We can apply the principle of charity by interpretting each argument in whatever way makes it strongest, but that only goes so far when an argument is deeply flawed.

As for moving Kenny's criticsm, that seems reasonable. ThAtSo 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to you moving that, it's a very important point. --PEAR (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If these arguments really are out there, please could you or anyone else provide citations? As you know, "some people think" or "some people say" are weasel words - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. The content has to be verifiable.

The reason I think this whole sub-section should be cut is because it is not a criticism of atheism. The writer himself admits this in the first sentence - he says it is not a criticism of atheism per se. It is a criticism of atheists. Specifically, it is a criticism of how atheists become atheists. That's outside the subject of the article. In an article about physics, would it be relevant to comment that some people only like physics because they had a good physics teacher? It may well be the case, but it's hardly a comment on physics.

PEAR could you explain why the point about agnosticism is in the Atheism as a rejection of theism sub-section, and not in the Arguments for Agnosticism sub-section? I agree it is an important point but it seems to be in the wrong place. Catwizzle 10:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PEAR won't be explaining anything, (s)he's been indef blocked. I didn't look into why. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed tidying-up of initial sections (1-3)

These initial sections have become quite messy, and it's clear from recent discussion that various editors are dissatisfied with various aspects.

I propose a revision which will meet at least some of these objections and I invite feedback before implementing it.

From my point of view, the first unsatisfactory feature is that the heading 'Arguments for the existence of God' gives insufficient indication to the reader of the substance of the text that follows - after all, it could equally well be a heading in a 'Criticism of theism' article.

What is the main point of the text that follows? That atheism denies the existence of a supreme being (or supreme beings) for which there are widely accepted proofs. So let's make the heading 'Denial of the existence of God and gods' and revise the text to make the point more clearly than currently made, along these lines:

"The primary criticism of atheism is that it denies the existence of any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods, for which, in the view of theists and deists, there are substantial proofs, though atheists regard these as unconvincing (see e.g. Dawkins, R. The God Delusion, Ch. 3). Criticism of atheism in its strong form also comes from agnostics, who contend that there is insufficient reason to assert authoritatively that any supreme being does not exist.(ref)Anthony Kenny What I Believe see esp. Ch. 3 "Why I am not an atheist"(/ref)." ((ref)(/ref) would be replaced by the appropriate WP tags, but I didn't want them working as ref tags here!)

You'll note that it also takes account of the criticism of atheism by agnostics, currently referred to in the following two sections, 'Arguments for Agnosticism' and 'Atheism as a rejection of theism' - so that I also propose removing the 'Arguments for Agnosticism' section and the second paragraph of the 'Atheism as a rejection of theism' section (ThAtSo has expressed agreement with moving this para, which is what my proposed revision would accomplish, and I'm inclined to agree with Catwizzle that (the remainder of) this section should be cut).

As I say, feedback is welcomed!

-- Jmc 04:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any widely accepted proofs of the existence of God, just a common belief that is, by its own admission, held regardless of evidence, much less proof. ThAtSo 08:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that Wikipedia supports that view (so long as we're speaking of proof in a general, rather than strictly scientific, sense) - see Existence of God#Nature of relevant Proofs/Arguments. Other reasonably RSs also speak of proofs e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia – though philosopher.org.uk speaks of "proofs" in quotes.

Still, I'm not hung up on 'proofs' (quoted or not), especially given its semantic questionability, and would be happy to replace it with 'arguments' -- Jmc 09:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many arguments put forth in an attempt to prove the existence of God, but it's not at all clear or convincing that these have much of anything to do with why people believe. In fact, theists who find their apologetics faltering can just turn to faith, freely admitting that their belief is not supported by the evidence yet insisting that this somehow makes it a virtue. Of course, another view is that they're simply regurgitating the contents of their childhood indoctrination.

In any case, it may be that such biased sources as the Catholic Encyclopedia would disagree with this, but we're not editing CatholicWiki, so we're under no obligation to endorse their POV. We can report it, though, in a context that includes reports of other notable POV's from reliable sources. ThAtSo 10:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, certainly by alluding to the Catholic Encyclopedia as a RS, I wasn't attempting to assert that it was an unbiased source – by definition, it's not so! Much less is there any implication of endorsement of its POV. My proposed revision does say "in the view of theists and deists, there are substantial proofs [arguments]" (bolding added here). -- Jmc 10:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still not so. In the view of many theists, no proof is possible or needed; faith is enough. ThAtSo 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with that. At the same time, it's indisputable that in the view of many (other) theists, there are substantial arguments for the existence of God. -- Jmc 02:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a few claims out there, but we can't endorse any of them, and we can't be selective about reporting them. So, yes, some theists and deists claim that their belief is based on proof. This claim, while common, may yet be false. Others claim that there is evidence, but it is intentionally insufficient to count as proof, because God wants us to believe by faith. Still others say there is only evidence if you already believe, and nothing exists that could convince someone who demands evidence objectively. Plenty claim the "evidence" of revelation, which they cannot distinguish from hallucination or delusion in any principled way.

In short, there is a wide sprectrum from evidentialism to fideism, including everything in between as well as a few odd stances that don't seem to fit anywhere (or necessarily make sense). Even those who claim to believe on the basis of proof are simply making a claim that we need to report, not stating a fact that we must acknowledge. It's complicated and we can't take sides. ThAtSo 02:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed ("complicated and we can't take sides"). So I take it, ThAtSo, that you're comfortable with an amended version of the first sentence of my proposed revision reading "The primary criticism of atheism is that it denies the existence of any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods, for which, in the view of theists and deists, there are substantial arguments, though atheists regard these as unconvincing" (links and references as previously). -- Jmc 03:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. To make it neutral, you need to cut it off at "for which" and replace it with "which they believe exists". This is accurate, more broad, and doesn't commit itself on the question of how they arrived at that belief. For all we know, they believe it because it makes them feel good or because mommy said so. ThAtSo 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all clear on your suggested rewording, ThAtSo. Cutting it off at "for which" and replacing it with "which they believe exists" simply doesn't work syntactically. Nor do I see that it has any effect on the semantics; I really can't see that "… God or gods, for which, in the view of theists and deists, there are substantial arguments …" commits itself to any view "on the question of how they arrived at that belief". It's simply saying that, in criticising atheism, theists and deists present the arguments (detailed elsewhere in WP) for the existence of God or gods, without thereby saying that that is necessarily the path by which they personally arrived at their belief. (And atheists respond by dismissing those arguments (refs to Dawkins, Harris et al.)) -- Jmc 04:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cutting at "for which" doesn't mean cutting just those words. It means cutting the end of the sentence off starting at those words. In other words, I'm suggesting: "The primary criticism of atheism is that it denies the existence of any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods, which theists and deists assert the existence of." This carefully avoids the issue of proof, evidence, faith or whim. It doesn't commit to the notion that theists claim evidence, as many find the very notion repulsive. For them, faith is a virtue or a gift from God, and is therefore held in much higher regard than evidence and rational argument. ThAtSo 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, your rewording, ThAtSo, makes it clearer. But recall that the section that is being revised focuses on the arguments for the existence of God (and atheists' response), and your rewording seems to abandon that entirely. And I reiterate that my proposed revision "doesn't commit to the notion that [all] theists claim evidence".

However, it's evident that, even if not implied, it could be inferred that all theists come to accept the existence of God or gods through being convinced by the arguments for His/their existence.

So let's take theists out of the picture altogether and word the initial sentence thus:

"The primary criticism of atheism is that it denies the existence of any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods, for whose existence theologians and philosphers offer a variety of arguments, though atheists regard these as unconvincing."

-- Jmc 05:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmc's original revision of sections 1-3 (04:49, 10 August 2007) strikes me as balanced, neutral and verifiable. I would support it as a replacement for sections 1-3 entire. ThAtSo's objection seems to be that not all theists support their beliefs with reference to proofs or rational arguments, and Jmc's proposed revision appears to suggest that they all do. So let's make the proposed revision say that some do, and provide refs to verify the claim. I don't think Jmc's last proposal - "for whose existence theologians and philosophers offer a variety of arguments" - is the complete answer because such theologians and philosophers would by definition be theist. Can we use the original construction - "theist writers"? With this, the new section 1 would begin:

"The primary criticism of atheism is that it denies the existence of any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods, for which, in the view of some theist writers (put the Plantinga ref here, I will seek others), there are substantial arguments, although atheists regard these as unconvincing (see e.g. Dawkins, R. The God Delusion, Ch. 3)."

I support Jmc's other proposed edits. Catwizzle 15:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

These don't work, either, because they keep on assuming evidentialism instead of some form of fideism. Theologians, unlike philosophers of religion, start with the assumption that God exists and work their way from there. Even when they put forth arguments that look like they might be intended to prove what they take for granted, they do so within a framework that accepts revelation and personal conviction, making the whole thing circular. A good example is Aquinas, whose "proofs" are more an exercise in showing how to apply logic within the framework of theism than anything that could possibly convince an objective, rational person. It's more about examining the nature of God, whose existence is never seriously questioned.

In principle, this limitation doesn't apply to philosophers of religion, but the ones who take an apologetic role operate as theologians, not philosophers. For example, Plantinga rejects evidentialism wholesale and comes up with a backwards epistemology in which we supposedly have "warrant" to believe in God despite the lack of evidence. Basically, his trick is to combine a shifting of the burden of proof with some poisoning of wells, two standard fallacies typical in theology. In short, there is a deeply anti-rational vein of thought behind claims of God's existence, which makes any reference to "proof" or "evidence" highly POV.

Because of all this, I reject Jmc's proposed edits and will slap an NPOV tag on the article if they are ever made. ThAtSo 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think ThAtSo is missing the major issue here. Here it is in its bare essentials:

• Atheists deny the existence of God/gods. (Mere verifiable reporting, no POV expressed)
• Critics point to arguments in favour of his/their existence. (Mere verifiable reporting, no POV expressed)

• Atheists find these arguments unconvincing. (Mere verifiable reporting, no POV expressed)

Most of ThAtSo's comments have focussed on the minor issue of what word(s) should be used to characterise the critics. I erred by initially using the phrase 'theists and deists', and ThAtSo rightly pointed out problems with it. I then proposed substituting 'theologians and philosophers', but ThAtSo found that phrase unsatisfactory, too – and I can see his point, if the phrase is taken to mean 'all theologians and philosophers' (English, for all its richness, suffers here from the lack of a plural indefinite article).

So let's get away from the use of any word that could be taken to have the connotations to which ThAtSo raises objections. Catwizzle offers the eminently sensible suggestion of 'theist writers'. I'd go a little further in the direction of complete neutrality (after all, I suppose 'theist writers' could be taken to mean 'all theist writers') and use the phrase 'theist and deist critics'. Since the article is about the criticism of atheism, you can't get more neutral than that.

(It might be suggested that one should simply say 'critics', but you'll note that my proposed revision distinguishes between theist/deist and agnostic critics.)

(I'm grateful for Catwizzle's support of the revision as "balanced, neutral and verifiable".)

We're now at a point where I'll shortly go ahead and make the revision (as revised) (and without any expectation, of course, that it will be set in concrete).

-- Jmc 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at it again:

1) Atheists deny the existence of God/gods.

2) Critics point to arguments in favour of his/their existence.

3) Atheists find these arguments unconvincing.

The first one is mostly true, except that some atheists simply disbelieve, as opposed to denying. Besides, denial has some very misleading connotations, but let's put that aside for now.

The second part is particularly misleading. Yes, theists (and deists and pantheists and such) believe in the existence of God/gods, while atheists do not. This is a disagreement, though, not a criticism. The criticism comes from the theists (and such) asserting that atheists ought to believe as they do on some basis or another.

When that basis at least appears to be in some way rational, then you can refer to it as an argument. It might be a terrible argument (like Pacal's gambit, for example), but at least it's an argument of some sort. However, much of the time, the basis is admittedly irrational, such as faith, tradition or indoctrination, so it's not actually an argument at all. There's also the related problem of intellectual dishonesty in the cases when arguments are put forth by people who admit that their own basis for belief is irrational. This sort of double-standard creates fake debates where the theist can always claim faith once all else fails, while the atheist is bound by rationality.

So the honest and accurate version would look more like:

2) Critics assert that atheists ought to believe in God/gods.

3) Atheists do not find such claims to be convincing.

ThAtSo 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting ThAtSo: "The criticism comes from the theists (and such) asserting that atheists ought to believe as they do on some basis or another" … "Critics assert that atheists ought to believe in God/gods".

That, of course, is precisely what the arguments for the existence of God seek to do. That's why they're called 'arguments' (and why I accept that 'arguments' is a better choice of word than my orginal 'proofs').

The remainder of ThAtSo's latest contribution to this discussion (and much of his/her previous contributions) seems misdirected. "However, much of the time, the basis is admittedly irrational, such as faith, tradition or indoctrination, so it's not actually an argument at all …" makes points that are germane to the Existence of God article, and should more appropriately be made in Talk:Existence of God. Here, we're simply reporting (in a NPOV manner) that arguments exist and are employed by critics of atheism (to "assert that atheists ought to believe in God/gods").

So, insofar as my proposed revision of this article is concerned, I take ThAtSo's latest contribution as agreement in essence.

-- Jmc 22:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Essences are a vague thing, as is my "agreement". First of all, the point I made trhere is germane to criticism of atheism, precisely because it is about the basis of such criticism. I'm not talking about whether God exists, I'm saying that the people claiming He does often do so on a basis that even they admit is irrational. We can call this irrational criticism, if we like, but we can't mistake it for the sort of genuine criticism that's rooted in independently verifiable evidence and sound logic. By all means, mention it, but don't lie about what it is. Doing that would be POV. ThAtSo 22:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo’s arguments are false because they are made on the basis that the revision refers to “proof” or “evidence”. It does not. It refers to “arguments”. Whether atheists find them convincing or not does not alter the fact that they are “arguments”. Jmc's revision is sound and should stand, unless some proof or evidence to the contrary can be produced. Catwizzle 13:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't in telling the good arguments from the bad ones, it's drawing the line between the really bad ones and the things that aren't even arguments at all. For example, should we take "Because I say so" seriously as an argument for God, even though it is patently unsound? How about a more sophisticated but equally fallacious argument that at least looks credible for a moment, such as any of Aquinas' "proofs"? And what do you do with intentional reliance on irrationality, such as "You gotta have faith"? We can't simply take any statement that's apparently indended to convince people to believe in God and pretend it's really an argument. Doing that would be POV. ThAtSo 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me jumping in when I have not read the whole thing. The way it seems to me is that we should not be making value judgments about the strength of the arguments at all. We should list all arguments advanced against Atheism that are notable. By notable, I mean that they have been documented and taken seriously by a significant number of people. This is bound to include some very bad arguments. It might even make for comical reading but if the argument was advanced with a straight face and taken seriously by enough people, and documented as such, then it should be included. --DanielRigal 20:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the issue isn't whether to mention them, but whether to endorse them by calling them arguments. In particular, the sentence I objected to made it sound as if Christian belief is based more on evidence and logic than on faith, which is not only patently false but would offend many Christians. ThAtSo 20:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting ThAtSo: "Actually, the issue isn't whether to mention them, but whether to endorse them by calling them arguments."

As I said earlier: "The remainder of ThAtSo's latest contribution to this discussion (and much of his/her previous contributions) seems misdirected [by making] points that are germane to the Existence of God article, and [which] should more appropriately be made in Talk:Existence of God. Here, we're simply reporting (in a NPOV manner) that arguments exist and are employed by critics of atheism (to "assert that atheists ought to believe in God/gods")."

The fact is that they're called 'arguments' in the Existence of God article (very first word in that article, in fact) and here we're simply quoting (and providing a link to) that word in a totally neutral manner. That can't be POV.

I would now expect to see this discussion continued, not here, but in Talk:Existence of God.

-- Jmc 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism and the Communist regimes.

Theres a common arguement against Atheism being good for society by pointing to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ect. Maybe we could put a section on this plus the Atheists' responses. Bobisbob (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone knowledgeable can extend the article by describing the role of atheism in communist societies, that would be great. However, I hope that this isn't read as an invitation to "put in that atheism isn't good for society and see what they say about that" (and I'm sure that this isn't what Bobisbob intends): every contribution should WP:NPOV in its own right. It's true that the adversarial approach to achieving NPOV is common in very many many articles about writers on atheism and their books, but that doesn't make it the right approach. It engenders hostility rather than co-operation and wastes huge amounts of everybody's time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I wasn't talking about the athiests on wiki responses to the arguement. I meant to put the rebuttals Harris, Dennett ect have make to the arguement. I myself do not think this arguement holds water but it is used alot. Bobisbob (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification: your suggested addition would be an improvement to the article. I don't really feel qualified, but if there are no other takers (and this wouldn't be any time soon)... --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' argument (if it deserves to be called such), referred to in the main article, that "Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists but did not kill people because of their atheism" is so breathtakingly false and beside the point that the only thing even more breathtaking is how little it has been met with criticism. Millions of people were killed or brought into camps both in the Soviet Union and in China precisely because of their religious views (millions of others for other reasons, but so what?), and during the whole Soviet era religious people were systematically discriminated against both in their working career (no promotions for openly religious, many other disadvantages too) and studies (no scholarships etc.), schoolchildren were asked at school whether they and their parents practised religion at home, and so on (and this is still going on in China). And all this allegedly because Stalin, Mao and other leaders "happened to be atheists"! As George Orwell (no religious man) put it: one has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that - no ordinary man could be such a fool. - - Voice from Finland, January 21th 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.197.173 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense and rubbish. It didn't matter what religion a person was: Stalin was a psychotic, mass-murdering megalomaniac, and Mao wasn't far behind with the cult-of-personality. Religion had nothing to do with it. Trying to poison the well with such garbage is laughably pathetic. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

True of Stalin, but his claim of no-one being murdered or imprisoned for the sake of atheism is also utter nonsense and rubbish. Or at least misleading. Enver Hoxha at least did imprison people for not being atheism. There's also been violently atheistic anti-clerical groups in the history of Latin America. You could say all these were simply atheist philosophies, but you could also religions are theist philosophies and not theism itself.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the claim isn't nonsense and rubbish at all. Being anti-clerical and atheist doesn't mean you imprison people for not being atheists. Talk about a flagrant non sequitur! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right so when a regime like Hoxha's declares itself an "atheist state" and says it's imprisoning people simply for religion it's still not persecution that favors atheism to theism. Likewise the actions of the Society of the Godless had nothing to do with a group of atheists hostile to religious types. Granted in a way that theory works. An Islamic state that declares disbelief in God to be the only religious outlook that will be punished is arguably still not persecuting in the name of God or theism. The same with an Islamic terror group that devotes itself to killing apostate atheists. Those cases are simply about an Islamic group or groups persecuting atheists, theism or religion as a concept is uninvolved. I'm just skeptical atheists would feel quite the same way.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So one instance means it's that way in all instances? Fallacy of composition/non sequitur/poisoning the well. Please PLEASE learn to not use fallacies. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And maybe you could learn to you know read what's actually been said in a discussion. The original proposition was no one was murdered or imprisoned for the sake of atheism. A few instances is enough to dispute that claim. Considering you call yourself "Knight of BAAWA" can I ask if you're 14 or 15?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. Looking at the original proposition, you're not being honest as to what the original proposition was.

I'll take the high road and not bother with your childish question. If you want to be uncivil, you can be. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That was probably a tad mean. You've been kind of snide in your own way, but I can get too condescending.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You confuse being blunt and pulling no punches with being snide. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm sorry for bothering you.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also this article should plausibly be called "Defense of atheism from criticism" as this has pretty much always been the purpose and focus.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so. See WP:CFORK - "… the "Criticism of …" article should contain rebuttals if available". -- Jmc (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, withdrawn--T. Anthony (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good man! You're clearly one of a breed too rare around these parts. -- Jmc (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Dawkins comment. The second qoute by Dinesh was a response to Dawkin's claim that they didn't kill in the name of athiesm. (see the source) Besides Sam Harris' response is a good enough rebuttal on it's own. Bobisbob (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Dawkins's comment is still a rebuttal to Dinesh's first quote, about "The crimes of atheism...". If his second quote is a response to Dawkins, then that's all the more reason to include it - we can't just put in one side of the argument, and leave the other side out. Mdwh (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So now we have someone (CyberGhostFace) who doesn't understand what a strawman is, and that you don't need a source to say that it is. Fallacies do not need some external source to identify them, CyberGhostFace. It's neither POV or OR to say that "evolution says we come from monkeys" is a strawman. Similarly, it's neither POV or OR to point out that it's a strawman of what atheism is to imply that atheism = communism. Do you understand now? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the arguments listed in the criticism section even say "communism = atheism". Obviously there are atheists who are not communists and communists who aren't atheists. But pointing out that a lot of totalitarian regimes were atheistic in nature isn't a strawman's argument, so your disclaimer is unneccessary.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh's argument does imply that communism is atheism, and vice-versa, and it even discusses that the atrocities were done in the name of atheism. And if you agree that obviously there are atheists who are not communists, and communists who aren't atheists: I need you to cite your source. After all: that's what you expect of me. So cite your source. It should be easy, right?

If you don't cite your source, then I'll just put the paragraph back. The paragraph criticizes Dinesh's argument by showing that atheism isn't communism, and communism isn' atheism. Further, since atheism has already been defined in the main article, it must be clear that Dinesh's attempt at smuggling something into atheism which isn't there qualifies as a strawman. Do you NOW understand? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I'm not the one throwing in my opinions onto the article. As it is now we have one person's argument and another's rebuttal. Both are cited. That's enough.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And mine was cited, too. The explanation of the fallacies were there, as well as showing that the fallacies were used. What do you think the wikilinks were? Did you just not see them? Further: you have the burden of proof. You're the one saying here that "obviously there are atheists who are not communists, and communists who aren't atheists". I expect proof, since that's precisely what I was saying! If you're agreeing with me, and I need to provide proof of it: so do you! Even on the talk page, you have to provide proof. After all: I wouldn't want you to be inconsistent.

It's also not enough to just have a "rebuttal"; a short-but-clear examination of the argument itself is helpful to show precisely the reasons that the argument holds no weight. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously not aware of Wikipedia's policies, are you?

You should see Wikipedia's rules on Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Wikilinks in itself aren't reliable sources. You need a reliable source of someone stating your opinion. "[Insert random atheist apologist here] states that so and so's argument is a strawman, because...." followed up a source that verifies your information. Obviously to you the argument holds no weight but not everyone shares your opinion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite aware of them; they simply aren't applicable in this cause because it's not a synthesis or original research. Identifying fallacies is like that, you know. Fallacies are fallacies are fallacies, no matter what. And wikilinks are a reliable source in this case. Look: I really have no idea what your problem is here. But I'll let you have your POV edit, since it's clear from your "atheist apologist" comment that your removal of the text was just from your POV. No problem. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that I disagree with it, but I wouldn't have removed it had been sourced (if I were to remove everything on my personal views alone there'd be little left. I will also point out that I have removed POV comments in the past even though I may have personally agreed with them.). I don't see the "fallacy" either, because I never got the impression that he was accusing all atheists of being communists, just that atheism was prevalent in that particular situation(s). If you want, you can bring it up to a noticeboard and see if you'll get a different opinion but I doubt it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Will this help you see the source? Dinesh's own words are the source. Thus: the source IS THERE. "Further, this criticism is simply a poisoning the well fallacy variant, as well as a strawman of atheism, viz: "the crimes of atheism…", rather than "the crimes of communism…". It is clear that not all communists are atheists (see Christian Communism), not all atheists are communists (see Ayn Rand), and attacking atheism via communism attempts to paint atheists in a negative light initially so as to discredit anything they may say, thus poisoning the well." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight of BAAWA (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because again, thats your personal viewpoint. You're making your own conclusions based on the quotes. Again, see WP:SYN. Who says its a strawman? You do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's not my personal viewpoint. I don't think you grasp how fallacies work; they are independent of someone's viewpoint! Have you ever had a course in logic or philosophy (I ask that seriously, and not with any malintent)? If you have, you'd know that fallacies aren't subjective. Thus, synthesis does not apply. I fail to see why you think it does. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. I know what a fallacy is. I just don't see how its any more of fallacy than the atheists pointing out the stuff done in the name of a religion. Because he's not saying "Therefore, all atheists are like Stalin" or "All atheists are communists", he's just pointing out that horrible stuff has been done in the name of atheism. --CyberGhostface (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See, now you're confusing what's going on, and you're trying a tu quoque fallacy in your attempt. Dinesh IS saying that all atheists are like Stalin and that all atheists are communists because he said "the crimes of ATHEISM". Did you miss that? And since what was done wasn't in the name of atheism (Dinesh never proves that it was; he merely asserts), you too are guilty of creating a strawman. So clearly: you do not know what fallacies are, and you honestly don't grasp what Dinesh wrote. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that any different from saying "the crimes of religion" when talking about religious terrorism or whatnot? I mean, surely when an atheist says that he doesn't mean all Christians are crazy bigots? He's not saying all atheists are communists. Even after reading your comments, I still don't see your logic when rereading the quote. If you still have a problem with it, bring it up on an admin noticeboard. --CyberGhostface (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again: tu quoque fallacy. Further: you didn't see me saying anything about the crimes of religion. So you've--strawmanned my position! This is a criticism of atheism page, and what you're bringing up about "the crimes of religion" has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING here. Further, Dinesh IS saying all atheists are communists: " The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. That means he says all atheists are communists. If you don't see it in the quote, I suggest you read it over and over. It's there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said you said anything. I'm just pointing out that there are lots of quotes like that on the anti-religion articles. And again, he's not saying all atheists are communists. I still don't see it. Either way, its not up for us to throw what we think it means on the article unless we have a source to back the opinion. I just took a look at a handful of articles which "straw man" is linked from. None of them presented "This is a straw man argument" as fact. They had "So and so says that this is a straw man argument [insert source here]".--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He says "the crimes of atheism", not "the crimes of communism". That necessarily means he's saying that all atheists are communists, since he further goes on with the "perpetrated through..." section, equating atheism and communism. I don't get how you can't grasp that, and I won't hazard to guess why (out of politeness). And Dinesh's own statement is the source! I don't get why you can't grasp that, either. Further, you can point out quotes from "anti-religion" articles, but those are red herrings. They mean nothing here. They have no standing here. They have no merit here. All that needs to be pointed out is that since atheism and communism are separate entities, implying that atheism and communism are the same is to create a strawman of atheism (that is, to create a different position than what atheism is). But you have it your way, ok. Your bias is showing again. Why else do you keep bringing up things from "anti-religion" articles when they have no bearing here? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* You're jumping from Point 2 to Point 10. Yes, he's saying its crimes of atheism. Because he's making an argument against atheism, not communism. That doesn't mean he's saying ALL atheists are communists. You're seriously grasping at straws here. JMC pretty much summed up the argument below.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't resist leaping into the cauldron to make a couple of points (and then leap out again).

1) Knight of BAAWA: "That necessarily means [D'Souza]'s saying that all atheists are communists".

I believe that's a conclusion too far. D'Souza's claim that the "crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology" seeking to "create a secular utopia" applies equally to atheistic fascist regimes, as Harris recognises in his response: "The problem with fascism and communism ...".

2) Knight of BAAWA: "I don't think you grasp how fallacies work; they are independent of someone's viewpoint! ... fallacies aren't subjective."

Granted, but the identification of fallacies is subjective, and I think that's what's happening here. Knight of BAAWA's contention that "Dinesh's attempt at smuggling something into atheism which isn't there qualifies as a strawman" is Knight of BAAWA's subjective identification of the strawman fallacy. However, CyberGhostface doesn't accept that D'Souza is in fact smuggling something into atheism which isn't there (nor, FWIW, do I) and so doesn't believe that the straw man fallacy is in play here.

-- Jmc (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It's a proper conclusion, since Dinesh SOLELY listed communists for examples, as well as wrote: "…all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist" IOW: atheism = communism/communism = atheism.

2. The identification of fallacies isn't subjective. Any logic or philosophy prof will tell you that.

- Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's simply answer both your responses, Knight of BAAWA, by pointing out that you're committing the straw man fallacy yourself by positing that D'Souza has said something that he hasn't. -- Jmc (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spe Salvi

I think it would be worth to mention in this article that Pope Benedict XVI strongly criticizes atheism in Spe Salvi (Saved by Hope) [13] , his second encyclical letter. In paragraph 42 of the document he states that modern-day atheism "has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known to mankind.

Damn atheists, don't you see? You are the source of all evil in the world; it's been all your fault!!! We should all believe in the Tooth Fairy so that things like that never happen again. 200.120.226.133 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, 200.120.226.133. Why don't you go ahead and mention it? Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Jmc (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wow

This is by far the nuttiest article I have read here in Wikiland and I have read some doozies. Do we also have a criticism of those who do not believe in unicorns article? That would be just as encyclodepic. This article would make better sense if it were on Conservapedia. Angry Christian (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of a disbelief or a nothingness is certainly doable in other areas. I don't think there is an article about criticism of Nihilism or 4′33″, but such a thing is not impossible.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...I don't recall Pol Pot shooting people because they believed in unicorns...

In all seriousness, I think the only reason why you're so bothered is because you yourself are an atheist. But I don't see why you're so bothered, the article despite being about criticism of atheism has a pretty pro-atheist slant...--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually my objection to the article is because it is a pile os steaming piece of shit propaganda piece. Atheism made Pol Pot murder millions! Which suggests had he only believed in Unicorns he would have loved his fellow man. Did Christian faith cause Christians to slaughter innocent people during the crusades? Seriously, this is one stinking turd of an article. Holy cow! Angry Christian (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? How is it a propaganda piece against atheists if nearly every comment has a rebuttal by atheists?

I fail to see how its any more of a "piece of shit propaganda piece" anymore than any of the other "criticism" articles on wiki. And I wonder if you even read the article. If anything, its biased towards atheism and not against atheism being that nearly everything has an atheist's response.

And no, atheism didn't "make" Pol Pot a mass-murderer anymore than religion "made" Hitler target the Jews. Obviously being an atheist doesn't make you Pol Pot anymore than being a Christian doesn't make you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. That wasn't my point.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read the entire article, 3 times now just to make sure I got it right (and because I was so astonished - I could not believe my eyes). It reads like a propaganda piece written by religionists who have the misguided notion that atheism is some sort of world view or that godlessness is something bad and/or atheists are somehow all linked in some conspiracy or nihilistic binge. And my unicorn comment was meant seriously. An article about criticism of those who reject a belief in unicorns makes as much sense as this article. Angry Christian (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A.) How is it anymore of a propaganda piece than other criticism articles? What makes it any less valid? B.) If its propaganda, how come nearly every criticism is countered with an atheist rebuttal?

And I think believing or not believing in God is a little different than believing in unicorns.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not. There's no difference whatsoever. However, Angry Christian's criticisms, as has been pointed out, display a fundamental misconception of what the wiki "criticism of..." articles are about. -Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously you think that because you're an atheist who doesn't have respect for other people's beliefs that differ from your own. I would've hoped that even people such as yourself would realize the VAST differences between believing in religion and unicorns of all things, even if you don't believe in a God (which is obvious by now). Seriously. I don't necessarily believe in other religions, but at the very least I can be respectful and not mocking of their beliefs. If a "respected" atheist would say "People who believe in God are no different than people who believe in unicorns" his credibility would drop.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why people think beliefs have to be respected. Would a jew respect the beliefs of a neo-nazi? Would a black respect the beliefs of a KKK member? Of course not. People confuse respecting the having of beliefs with respecting the content of the beliefs--and that's what you've done. Further: you don't respect my belief regarding god, so I fail to see where you get off complaining. You'd also do well to remember this: people who do not have beliefs worthy of respect shouldn't complain when those beliefs aren't respected. They might be your beliefs, but that doesn't merit any respect for them whatsoever.

Now then: this is wikipedia, so I do stay within the NPOV realm. But if you ask me for my personal opinion: I'll tell you. And you won't get it candy-coated. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you honestly comparing atheists and religious people to blacks and KKK members?? Or JEWS and NAZIS?! Wow. I'm speechless. I thought it couldn't go any lower than the unicorn train of thought but I guess I underestimated you. I'm sure a Jewish person or black person would love to see an atheist of all people to compare their plights. Ugh.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm showing you that your idea about "respecting beliefs" is wrong. If you have a problem with that, I suggest that you re-think your position. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we just stop arguing about this? I know that there's been bad blood between us but I just want to end it before it escalates any further. Obviously we have vastly different beliefs on religion, so can we just agree to disagree about it? I'm not shelving the blame on you or anyone else for that matter I just want to nip it in the bud.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet the article does imply that bad men in history were atheists...and therefore...

Atheism is not a philosophy, it is the simple rejection of theism. Period. The burden of proof is on the theists. So what is there to criticize? Well what you're doing is criticising is godlessness, and for that all you need is a bible. And a religious POV concerning atheism is hardly reliable. Believers criticizing non-believers is the sort of thing you'd expect at Conservapedia. Criticize Pol Pot for being murdering scum for sure, but this article is a criticism of godlessness and hints that godlessness and Pol Pot are cousins as if one leads or contributes to the other. Simply absurd if not slanderous.

Lastly, I have no desire to get involved in an article I think has no reason to exist in the first place. I wrote on the talk page because I was astonished to see something like this in Wikiland, nothing more. Best of luck with this bizarre article! :-) Angry Christian (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So? The criticism of religion articles like to point out the bad men in history who were religious. So why is it okay there and not okay here?

As for Pol Pot...he was an atheist who saw religion as a threat and killed anyone who was religious. Religion wasn't his sole vendetta, but it was definitely there. Saying that he was a murderer because of atheism is absurd, but saying that atheism had nothing to do with it is pretty stupid as well.

I've only made a couple of edits to this article, so I'm not the person take up all the problems with. But if you don't like the article, either nominate it for deletion or try improving it yourself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian's criticism of this article seems to me to manifest a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of Wikipedia - indeed of encyclopediae in general. The simple fact is that there is criticism of atheism just as there is criticism of Wikipedia and criticism of Microsoft and criticism of social nudity, and Wikipedia has an obligation to document these in as NPOV manner as possible. -- Jmc (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not true, Jmc. If someone rejects a belief in a god or gods, what is there to criticize? To reject a belief in god does not suppose any additional ideas, worldview or philosophy. There is no atheist book such as the christian bible, there is no manifesto, there is no plan or organization you join when you reject theism. That said, criticizing totalitarianism makes perfect sense, criticizing Nazism makes sense, criticizing anything with a ideological road map makes sense but criticizing a lack of a belief makes no rational sense. Why not just say "the bible says those who reject jesus will burn in hell" and leave it at that? That would be more accurate and would make more sense than the article does now. You're putting words in peoples mouths is the point. So this article makes no logical sense. THAT is my point. And I did not know we had a criticism of religion article (and that sounds dumb to me but for other reasons) and if we do that would not justify this one. This article makes as much sense as one criticizing people who prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate (and pointing out Hitler liked vanilla of course and don't forget Charles Manson had a hankering for vanilla with (sit down because this is shocking) - chocolate sprinkles!). You assume someone who prefers to not adopt a belief in a deity has a world view to go with it and you're simply naive/misinformed for doing so. Angry Christian (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian still doesn't get what Wikipedia is all about. His/her dispute is rightly with those whose views are presented in this article, not with its editors, who simply try to represent those views in as NPOV a manner as possible. When he writes, "You assume someone who prefers to not adopt a belief in a deity has a world view to go with it and you're simply naive/misinformed for doing so", he's betraying a basic confusion between the critics of atheism and the WP editors who report their criticisms.

For example, if Dinesh D'Souza writes that "Pol Pot ... committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic", then Wikipedia correctly reports this under the rubric of 'Criticism of atheism'. If Angry Christian finds this "a pile [of] steaming piece of shit propaganda", the proper forum for putting forward such a contention is in personal exchanges with D'Souza and his supporters - not here, which, as the heading has it, "is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject".

-- Jmc (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Christian Bias on WP

...Why is it that this page is more about rebuttals than actual criticism? Why is it that there's no rebuttals on the Criticism of Christianity page? Sounds like Christianophobia to me. I'm a christian, and one that does not live by faith alone, but also by science. Christians have done bad things, but athiests have done equally bad things. Can't we balance these two "sister" articles out so that they are both NPOV?Invisible Noise (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Short answer no, that won't be happening. For a longer explanation first see size of Category:Atheist Wikipedians and compare to Category:Christian Wikipedians. Also check meta:List of Wikimedians by religion. Starting in 2007 Christians began to outnumber non-religious and are even slightly overrepresented when compared to the world. However generally speaking "non-religious" on Wikipedia is much more likely to mean atheists than in the rest of the world and atheists are very overrepresented when compared to the world. At wikimedia atheism, of some form, is more than twice as big as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy combined. (The religious group most poorly represented on Wikipedia tends to be Hinduism) Railing against this is like railing against the wind. Wikipedia is a creation of atheists, largely steeped in an essentially modernist/atheist view of truth. For it to "treat Christianity and atheism equally" is to expect it to basically turn against its own nature. Still in fairness I'll state that Wikipedia is no more atheist than France, the Czech Republic, or the science departments of most Ivy League universities.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to insert referenced rebuttals to Criticisms of Christianity if you can find them. But that's an issue for that page, not this one. (Anyhow, I do see pro-Christian points of view given on that article - e.g., the Slavery section.) Mdwh (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Sometimes I go a bit too far in agreeing with critics. (Although what I said I basically believe if more mildly than I said)--T. Anthony (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

this shouldn't matter because most Wikipedians (especially the atheist ones) are dedicated to WP:NPOV). But it is not true that the two articles are "sisters". Criticism of Christianity is a "sister" of Criticism of Islam, being both about criticism of monotheistic systems of belief. Since atheism is not a belief system but rather the absence of one, we cannot blindly expect its criticism to follow parallel paths. Wikipedia certainly isn't theist. If you adhere to an ideology of "who isn't for us is against us", Wikipedia will unfailingly be "against you" no matter where you stand, by nature of WP:NPOV not being "for" anybody. This is the meaning of the WP:TRUTH page. If you are committed to preaching "the Truth", Wikipedia is not for you. If you just want to document the de facto existing religious convictions, Wikipedia most certainly is for you. Wikipedia documents Christianity in obsessive detail (just have a glimpse at {{Jesus}}), so it is hardly fair to call it "anti-Christian". But, of course, it isn't "pro-Christian". To Wikipedia, Christiantiy is a notable topic like any other notable topic. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

atheism is not a belief system but rather the absence of one Wow. Where to begin? Firstly, agnosticism would (arguably) be the absence of a belief system, not atheism. Secondly, I find the notion that atheist wikipedians are particularly devoted to WP:NPOV to be tendentious in the extreme. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a cute analogy I've seen somewhere, Atheism is a belief just like not collecting stamps is a hobby. Truly some atheists think all stamp collectors are morons who are wasting their time and money, but it doesn't mean they have any kind of a hobby themselves. Agnostic would be someone who hasn't decided yet if he's going to start collecting stamps or not, or maybe he should try coins or bottlecaps instead. --Cubbi (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Documenting a group in obsessive detail is not evidence that "it is hardly fair to call it anti." Christianity is the largest religion in the nations that have high numbers of English-speaking Wikipedians. And "obsessive detail" does not, in itself, say anything about neutrality. A person could write about Islam in obsessive detail largely to refute it or even denounce it. Criticism of debt is not a criticism of a disbelief, but it's a criticism of a lack. Does the article have much in the way of refutations or statements that debt is good? (I did find one paragraph) Criticisms of anti-scientific viewpoints is criticism of people against something rather than for any particular thing. Does it balance as much with refutations? --T. Anthony (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No rebuttals in in the "Criticism of Christianity" page? Pretty much every section of criticism on that page ends in a rebuttal! Bobisbob (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to attack anyone here, but going beyond the irony of atheism as a belief system, I have to ask in all candor (I'd have said 'good faith', but that might have been misinterpreted) a question that no one seems to have asked: Why is this even an appropriate encyclopedia topic? Isn't it tantamount to "criticism of the critics"?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an appropriate encyclopedia topic because it is a notable subject covered by many reliable sources. Criticism of atheism exists, is in fact quite widespread, and is well-documented. There are plenty of articles or sections of articles dedicated to criticism of critics (food critics, music critics, movie critics, critics of the government, etc.). Nick Graves (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup/merge

this article has practically no value as it stands and loses itself in idle bickering form both sides of the fence. Since "criticism of atheism" will mostly come from non-atheists, viz., adherents of some religion, the article would best be merged into Atheism and religion which discusses the stance of various world religions towards atheism. Also, "Criticism of X" doesn't work along the lines of reductio ad Hitlerum, "A believed in X. A was evil. Hence X is evil". That's a logical fallacy we shouldn't even bother with. Pol Pot hasn't got more to do with "criticism of atheism" than Attila the Hun has got to do with "criticism of Tengriism", or Vlad the Impaler has got to do with "criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy", or George W. Bush has got to do with "criticism of the United Methodist Church". Thanks, dab (𒁳) 14:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not like "Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, all vegetarians are bad." Pol Pot was an atheist, and he targeted all forms of religion, killing anyone who showed signs of praying, defrocked buddhist churches and had muslims forced to eat pork before killing them. (And yes I'm aware that religion wasn't his sole target.) Atheism certainly wasn't the cause of his actions, and I never said that, but at the same time, it did factor into some of them. It would be a logical fallacy to say, "Therefore, all atheists are in league with Pol Pot", but we're not saying that.

And I would disagree with a merge. Criticism of religion probably comes from the non-religious, too.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer examples like Enver Hoxha and Society of the Godless, though less known, to Pol Pot. Although either way I concede some difficulty in this. Still I think criticism of atheist regimes could make some sense in the way criticism of theist regimes is used as a criticism of God belief. Although I think what might make more sense is criticism of major atheist organizations as they relate directly to good or ill effects of atheism as a phenomenon rather than as a specific atheist philosophy like Communism. Also more criticism from deists or agnostics, if possible, could help differentiate.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism should be deleted and not merged with anything. Angry Christian (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"It would be a logical fallacy to say, "Therefore, all atheists are in league with Pol Pot", but we're not saying that." What you're doing (what this article represents) is far worse. I'll explain when I get some time. Angry Christian (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't really respond because you haven't explained yet, but I don't think there is anything else to say than what JMC already said.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, CyberGhostface, for your reference back to my previous comment on Angry Christian's views - see above under 'WOW'. To reiterate the salient point: "[Angry Christian's] dispute is rightly with those whose views are presented in this article, not with its editors, who simply try to represent those views in as NPOV a manner as possible".

And for the record, I too disagree with a merge. dab's support for it on the basis of "idle bickering" seems a very personal reaction - and moreover, one that appears to be based on a single section of the article. Even leaving that section aside, there is much of value in the article, expressing long-standing and substantial criticisms of atheism (and the countering of those criticisms), that would be lost by a merge. Wikipedia would inevitably be the poorer. -- Jmc (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with a merger. Criticism of atheism does come from irreligious sources (agnostics, for example). Also, the relationship between atheism and religion is more than just one of criticism (Buddhism is widely considered compatible with atheism, for example). Therefore, two separate articles are justified. Nick Graves (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pol Pot yet again

"the crimes perpetrated were by atheists who saw religion as a threat". If Pol Pot (and other national leaders) were persecuting the religious for political reasons, or to keep themselves in power, in what way is this a criticism of atheism? This is a genuine enquiry, and not just a prelude to reverting this recent addition, but I am nonetheless inclined to delete it, subject to the views of other editors. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, Jmc pretty much clarified it already. State atheism is a common criticism and is thus reported in a neutral fashion. I will point out that if it was for merely political reasons, Pol Pot wouldn't have gone further than he did. For example: forcing the muslims to eat pork, which is against their religion, and shooting them if they refused. How could that be seen as anything but Pot mocking their religious beliefs and attempting to humilate them for it? --CyberGhostface (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but mocking religious beliefs isn't atheism. I've rearranged that section as the bit about Pol Pot wasn't a rebuttal to Dawkins and Harris, but remember also that ideally we should stick with references to criticisms that people make, rather than making criticisms ourselves. Pol Pot is already mentioned in the Dinesh D'Souza quote, so I'm not sure we need to describe the crimes of Pol Pot (which are presumably included in his article) at length, just like Criticism of religion shouldn't ramble at length on the actions of fundamentalist suicide terrorists. Mdwh (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you think Pol Pot's treatment of muslims and their faith had nothing to do with his hatred of religion? Because while mocking religious beliefs isn't necessarily atheism, I think in Pol Pot's case, his contempt of religion factored into how he treated the religious.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Pol Pots treatment of religionists had to do with contempt for religion, but atheism has nothing to do with contempt for religion. Atheism is nothining more that the rejection of theism. Hatred of religion is not atheism (look it up yourself), hatred of religion is called called hatred of religion. The definition for contempt for religion is not atheism. Criticizing atheism is as silly and nonsensical as criticizing theism wich is nothing more than the adoption of a belief in a deity. Angry Christian (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree on some level I think that might be irrelevant to this article. I'm opened to removing all these "criticism of" articles as unencyclopedic, but as they stand they simply discuss criticism that can actually be cited rather than dealing in their validity. If a Criticism of the Catholic Church is that celibacy encourages sexual abuse, and that criticism does occur, it is reported whether the idea is valid or not. If Criticism of Mormonism is that they're polygamist it's mentioned whether this is still valid or not. Although if you look at most of these "Criticism of" articles they're almost all terrible and full of weasely "some say" statements. Hence I'd personally lean toward scrapping all of them.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with T. Anthony. Removing every single "Criticism of" article makes more sense than having the things in the first place, really. I mean, have you ever looked in Encyclopaedia Britannica and found an article entitled "Criticism of Atheism/Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Hinduism/Ostrich Farmers/British Rail Sandwiches"? These articles are completely unneccessary, and frankly they do nothing more than turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. Not to mention that most of the time people sneak in and add the most obsequious, slimy rebuttals to them. I've noticed the Atheism one is notorious for this, but not alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.12.89 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angry Christian - this sort of stuff would be for a Criticism of antitheism article. Mdwh (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the entire Pol Pot article and then read this one it's difficult to not conclude this article is nothing more than biased propaganda. Portraying Pol Pot's crimes against humainty as being a result of atheism is ludicrous. His decision to murder millions was not the result of him waking up one day and thinking "I don't believe in god, I think I'll go kill me a few million people". And the picture of the torture victim is an especially underhanded attempt to conflate atheism with murder and is also an insult to every person who was victimized by Pol Pot. This article should be deleted. Angry Christian (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeking opinions about this article and another one here on the Atheism project page. Please chime in with your opinion. Angry Christian (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NOR should render this debate a nonissue. If noteworthy sources have explicitly criticized atheism itself (or at least atheists in general) for the particular atrocities of Pol Pot which this article makes reference to, then those criticisms should probably be included regardless of their validity. If no such source has made the leap from "Pol Pot did X" to "therefore atheism is bad" in some form or another, then it is original research for us to include such information. Examples of atheists doing bad things are not examples of "criticisms of atheism," they're examples of potential future things atheists could perhaps be criticized for. Which is speculative at best. -Silence (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Silence would you mind elaborating. I hear what you're saying but I'm not connecting the dots very well. Angry Christian (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can clarify. Atrocities commited by Pol Pot are a historical fact. They do no amount to a criticism of atheism. Therefore, the article should not cite historical records of the atrocities as if they documented a criticism of atheism. That's original research. It goes beyond what the sources actually say.

However, the article could mention Pol Pot's atrocities if an editor were to find a book in which someone gave the following argument: "Pol Pot did bad things. Pol Pot was an atheist. Therefore, atheism is bad." An atrocious argument, no doubt, but certainly a criticism of atheism that can be documented in this article. Nick Graves (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Graves, that does clarify it some. So could I trouble you to take a look at totalitarian regimes portion of the article and would you give me your thoughts on it based on what you wrote above. Angry Christian (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The thesis sentence of the section needs a citation. I do not find it controversial, however, based on my own experience. The rest of the section gives a balanced presentation of a point of view representing this type of criticism, and then a counterpoint. I would like to see a better survey of those who make such criticism, less quoted material, and more summaries of viewpoints. But I think the section takes the basic form that is needed: presentation of critics' POV, presentation of defenders' POV. Nick Graves (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Thanks Nick Graves. Angry Christian (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text from Atheism and the Individual

Christian author Alister McGrath has criticized atheism, citing studies he interprets as suggesting religion and belief in God are correlated with improved individual health, happiness and life expectancy.[7] However, health[8] and life expectancy[9] and other factors of wealth are generally higher in countries with many atheists than in more religious countries.

I removed the bolded section section as I can't read it in such a way that makes sense. It seems to be implying that atheism creates a rejuventating smog that makes the countries it's found in healthier. Either that or it's a correlation/causation problem. --RadioElectric (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a sensible counterargument to me, although perhaps not conclusive. Both sides seem to suffer from the correlation/causation problem, so that's not a good reason for deleting one side of the debate. I'll put it back. The difference in results seems like it might be due to the ecological fallacy; it would be good if we can find a source that says so. -- Avenue (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right for the section I deleted but there isn't enough information about the McGrath quote to decide the same thing without finding the sources. Depending on the nature of the study that McGrath references it will either be an appropriate rebuttal or not.--RadioElectric (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The first of the studies cited as McGrath's sources in our footnote was based on correlations (associations) too, according to its abstract. It seems harder to tell for sure from internet sources about the other sources (which are books, not articles), but since random allocation of religious belief or atheism to experimental subjects doesn't seem possible, I think they must also rely on correlations. This doesn't mean they're incorrect, just that your argument for deleting one side of the debate doesn't hold water. -- Avenue (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the wording in the article I'd disagree but without looking at the sources ourselves we can't ascertain whether the way it is written is appropriate or not.--RadioElectric (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)