Talk:Criticism of atheism

Couple of details, might be worth adding

I'm not quite sure how things are done on the discussion pages so I hope I don't have the ettiquette wrong, but anyway in wikipedia browsing today I stumbled upon a couple of points that might be worth including (preferably, by someone who can put them into coherent arguments/sentences) about the 'Atheism as religion' idea. On one of the evolution pages, I found an interesting quote by Dawkins, "There's got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can't think of one, then that's your problem not natural selection's problem..." not really something that can be just shoved into the article, but if someone wants to take the time to fit it in (maybe find some quotes from others, more directly addressing it as an example of 'faith') (Personal view; I agree with the statement to a point. I think you can make a somewhat educated guess that a feather evolved, based on the evolutionary explanations elsewhere. But that type of 'somewhat educated guess' is precisely what I mean when I talk about faith.)

Later in this article is a comment about Atheists seperating faith into 2 types (the one usually being attributed to Atheists and the latter being attributed to Christians) What really struck me about that comment was how much the the first (the 'Atheist' type) sounds like a famous description of faith (in a Christian context) from C.S. Lewis (the quote is, I think, something like 'Faith is the faculty of maintaining what I have reasoned to be true, in the face of changing emotions and fancies') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.5.120 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One other interesting detail, but needs outside sources if anyone cares to find one. Not sure this even qualifies as 'Criticism of Atheism,' but it seems to me that one of the fascinating characteristics of Atheism versus other religions is that one can denounce, say, an evil 'Christian' as acting in a way that clearly goes against the Bible, but one cannot denounce an evil Atheist as acting in a way that goes against Atheism. (Unless, to be pedantic, we're talking about someone like the Maquis de Sade who's hatred of God clearly runs contrary the Atheist belief in the absence of God. But, even then, it's only the hatred of God that can be deemed "contrary to Atheism," there's nothing else about him that can be termed 'un-Atheistic,' in the same way that, say, pedophile priests can be termed 'un-Christian')

I just figured, if I've thought about this peculiarity (flaw?) in Atheism, there must be others who have thought likewise (more notable & quotable people) and they might have a quote or two we can add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.5.120 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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) [1] , 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)

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)

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)

Good point about the size of the Criticism of Atheism page. I suppose, if anyone has any theologically minded friends (or is a member of more Apologetics oriented messageboards) it would be a good idea to give the link to this page to as many Christians as possible. Big fan of the 'wikipedia' concept, but this is the unfortunate side-effect (the opposite side to the ridiculously large pages you'll find about Pokemon or Bleach (the latter of which is, admittedly, a darn fun show))

Now I remember what I started typing... Someone with an interest in neutrality (I doubt we have many or even any genuine 'Evolution is wrong' Creationists here) should probably have a go at the 'Objections to Evolution' page. The layout of that page is atrocious; people start with the atheist rebuttals before they've even finished describing the objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.5.120 (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Disagree with merge. I think not only should this article exist, but it should be expanded to include oppression and disenfranchisement of atheists. Something along the lines of this, with all the nonsense comparisons (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) listed as canards, where they can be countered and put to rest. Perhaps a new article is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merge. Atheism has criticism too, just like any other belief. To merge this in would be censorship pretty much, as the section there would probably be deleted. Deleting this page wouldn't be a wise move, as it would be unfair since the other religions/beliefs have criticism pages too. Why should atheism deserve special treatment. Plus the article is too long to be on the same page.Invisible Noise (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sam Harris

I posted this on the related WikiProject a while ago, but nothing yet, so I'm posting it here.

I can't make any more edits today because I might be violating 3RR so I thought I'd bring it over here and hope a neutral third party might clarify this.

The article has a section detailing the role of atheism in totalitarian regimes. It has a criticism by Dinesh D'Souza going on about Pol Pot, and then it has a rebuttal by Sam Harris, which states that "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok." Fine. This is a direct rebuttal to the accusation about atheism being responsible for people like Pol Pot and Stalin, and its perfectly sourced.

User:Stuthomas4 then adds "Furthermore in his book "The End Of Faith", Harris states that religion is by far "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present." I thought this was unneccessary, and wrote in the history that "There already IS a rebuttal by the same person that directly confronts the atheism/dictator controversy" and "its not even a rebuttal about the criticism about atheism. Its just a statement that religion is responsible. Sam Harris's initial statement is more than enough". All Stuthomas4 has said is that "It is indeed a rebuttal. Leave my edit alone."

So I was wondering is if the intial edit was right and if the additonal quote by Harris is necessary.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The addition certainly fails to accord with "Wikipedia articles should not end up being a series of disjointed comments about a subject, but unified, seamless, and ever-expanding expositions of the subject." (see here). It jars. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Antiatheistic canards

Someone should start an article like this, but for atheism, with all the nonsense comparisons (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) listed as canards/fallacies, where they can be countered and put to rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally I'm fine with having the counter-arguments placed in this article, but that's an interesting point. I note that there is a Criticism of Judaism article, but this seems to be specifically about arguments of the religion (i.e., its beliefs, etc) rather than followers of the religion. Imagine giving time to all of the antisemetic arguments in that article? This article on the other hand is not just about philosophical arguments against atheism, but includes prejudice about atheists themselves - e.g., that they are immoral. Mdwh (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wherever it happens, I just think there should be a place where all the fallacious bigotry against atheists can be laid out (by those who hold such views, preferably), and then debunked (by those who know better). There are snippets of this strewn throughout WP, but it should be brought together in one place, as it has been for various religions and sects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So should the criticism of Christianity section, rebuttals would benefit all the crticism artcles.Invisible Noise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia's Atheism Article

The Atheism article from Conservapedia has much better criticisms and I think they should be incorporated into the Wikipedia page.

Here is Conservapedia's Atheism article:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

The Conservapedia article on Atheism cites a number of notable conservative Christian individuals. Featherduster765 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To save us wading through all of that, which particular sections are you referring to? Mdwh (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have waded through the 'Criticisms' section in the 'Atheism' entry in Conservapedia, and I can't see that it "has much better criticisms" (whatever 'better' means). You need to be specific, Featherduster765. -- Jmc (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As bad as Wikipedia is with it's biases, Conservapedia is ten times worse. If you're going to use Conservapedia, you should probably see what source it refers to make sure it's not being taken out of context, and for said source itself to be reliable.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why no page dedicated to Criticism of Theism?

I find it an amusing double standard, considering all of the criticisms of Atheism this page have already been addressed publicly by numerous individuals; and are pretty weak.

Granted, there is a page dedicted to "Criticism of Religion". Though they may be mutually appraising - Theism and Religion aren't the same thing.

Whilst technically they are not exactly the same, there's enough of a crossover that it's not clear there's enough material for a separate article - what do you think should be covered, that isn't already covered in criticism of religion? Mdwh (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Criticism of religion, there's also an article on Antitheism. While it doesn't really dig into the arguments against theism, it does provide sources that someone interested in criticisms of theism could use. EastTN (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are so many articles on this, the burden of proof is on someone claiming we need more. Articles like atheism, criticism of religion, theism, existence of god etc all go into this. It may be that there is room for another one, but you need to provide a good argument why, including detailing what its scope would be (being quite distinct from existing articles) and how it would fit in to the wiki. Richard001 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Morality issue

Shouldn't there be a counterargument pointing out that if theists are only acting "morally" (by their religion's arbitrary standards of morality) because of fear of punishment by a god or hope of reward for their good deeds, they are really just being selfish, and are quite pathetic people? Richard001 (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That argument is made, in a bit more encyclopedic tone, in both the Criticism of religion and Criticism of Christianity pages. My sense is that it fits better there - I've typically seen it used by atheists criticizing religion rather than as a response by them to criticisms of atheism. It might be worth a sentence, though. Perhaps we could modify the paragraph:

"Atheists almost uniformly reject these views, and many have argued that no religious basis is necessary for one to live an ethical life.[17] They assert that atheists are as or more motivated towards moral behavior as anyone. Many atheists are drawn towards views like secular humanism, empiricism, objectivism, or utilitarianism, which provide moral frameworks that are not founded on faith in deities.[citation needed] Atheists such as Richard Dawkins have proposed that our morality is a result of our evolutionary history. He proposes that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time.[18]"

by adding to the end a sentence along the lines of:

"Critics such as Dawkins also contend that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality, in that positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment." (With an appropriate citation)

Of course, that will probably mean that we'll also need to include the religious counter-counter-argument that the proper motivation for leading a moral life is love of God. EastTN (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean you fear not being loved by God?80.101.119.181 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Let's use human love as an analogy. A man might do things to please his wife because he was afraid she'd punish him otherwise. Most people would consider that a dysfunctional relationship. In a healthy relationship, he'll do things to please her because he loves her, and doesn't want to disappoint her - even though he doesn't expect for her to leave him, beat him, or otherwise punish him. The major religions generally teach that our primary motivation should be love, not fear. EastTN (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but, God does 'leave you, beat you, or otherwise punish you' if you don't believe in him, right? (Oh, and I just realized Wikipedia isn't the place for these kind of debates ;), maybe we should cease this) - 145.93.224.191 (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)(same person as 80.101.119.181)

And when husbands misbehave badly enough, most women will (quite justifiably) leave them. Even so, we still understand that in a healthy relationship husbands and wives do things for each other out of love. Are there times in a man's life when it's helpful to remember that if he has an affair, his wife might leave him? Sure. But the basis of the relationship should be love, not fear.

You're right - this isn't the place to try and debate which side is correct. But I did think it was appropriate to try and clarify what the religious response is here. When atheists argue that religion does not promote true morality because it promotes obedience out of fear of punishment (like the man who behaves well because he's afraid his wife will leave him and take the kids), believers respond by saying that the proper motivation is love of God (like the man in a healthy relationship who behaves well out of love and respect for his wife). We may or may not agree with it, but that's a different argument than saying we should be moral because we're afraid God won't love us (like the man who's constantly afraid that if he doesn't say the right thing his wife will stop loving him). 146.145.79.247 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious POV paragraph

I am removing the following under WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV:

Some moral judgments of atheists do tend to differ from those of theists. A 2003 survey in the United States by The Barna Group found that those who described themselves as atheists or agnostics were more likely than theists to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage; enjoying sexual fantasies; having an abortion; sexual relationships outside of marriage; gambling; pornography; using drugs not prescribed by a doctor; getting drunk; and homosexuality.

This survey was conducted by Christain Conservatives (The Barna Group); therefore strongly POV, the presupposition being that the questions relating to cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage; enjoying sexual fantasies; having an abortion; sexual relationships outside of marriage; gambling; pornography; using drugs not prescribed by a doctor; getting drunk; and homosexuality are implicitly moral issues when they are not.

If someone wihses to include this kind of material please provide neutral sources that are not conducting adgenda based surveys that are simply designed to buttress a warped sense of moral self-righteousness. Measles (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Barna Group is one of the few survey firms specializing in studying religious groups. Survey data is routinely used in Wikipedia. The text under discussion does not take a position on whether atheists or believers are right on any one of these issues - it merely says that they tend to make different judgments. That's directly germane to the discussion. That's all this source is being used to demonstrate. Atheists often make different decisions about what is right an wrong than do most traditional religious believers. (If the converse were true - atheists did by and large have the same stand on most social and moral issues as the rest of the population - that would also be relevant.) Excluding this creates the impression that there are no real differences of judgment/belief/opinion underlying the dispute between believers and atheists on morality. EastTN (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

it's a primary source. Have you got a reliable secondary source that refers to this survey? if not, best exclude it. If you have further issues with this we can proceed to WP:RFC. Measles (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an arm-wrestling context here, but I think you're misinterpreting either the intent of the text (which I may not have written well) or the intent of the guidelines. The key passage in WP:PRIMARY that seems relevant here is: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." The text was intended to do nothing more than report the survey results, and provide a link for the reader that could be used to review the survey itself. No interpretation was intended (though I may have inadvertently colored the tone of it by mistake).

Based on your initial response, I'm wondering if the phrase the struck you as taking a POV was "moral judgments." Using that phrase wasn't intended as moralizing (pun intended). Based on this exchange, I would propose the following:

"Atheists do tend to make different judgments on a number of issues than do theists. A 2003 survey in the United States by The Barna Group found that those who described themselves as atheists or agnostics were more likely than theists to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage; enjoying sexual fantasies; having an abortion; sexual relationships outside of marriage; gambling; pornography; using drugs not prescribed by a doctor; getting drunk; and homosexuality."

This would avoid casting the issues as "moral" ones (though I do believe that the question "is putting milk in your tea immoral" is by definition a moral one, even if the answer is clearly "no, of course not, you fool!") I think it would result in text that makes only "descriptive claims." On another note, I did find a couple of secondary sources, but they were more editorial than journalistic. They make the argument that belief is necessary to support morality, and that unbelief undermines morality. They could be used to document the fact that the "morality" argument is made by believers against atheism, but that's already been done. It would seem more useful to me to simply lay out the survey results showing that people make different judgments about things based on their world view - without opining on which set of judgments is correct. Whether you think believers are narrow-minded and intolerant, or that atheists are immoral hedonists, it helps to understand the debate if you know that they come down on different sides of a number of hot-button issues. EastTN (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the following would be a more accurate representation:

According to a 2003 survey conducted in the United States by a Christian organisation known as the The Barna Group, those who described themselves as atheists or agnostics were more likely than theists to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage; enjoying sexual fantasies; having an abortion; sexual ::::relationships outside of marriage; gambling; pornography; using drugs not prescribed by a doctor; getting drunk; and homosexuality."

You'll need a cite for the "Atheists do tend to make different judgments on a number of issues than do theists."Measles (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response; I think it gives us the framework for a solution. First, I'm comfortable dropping the sentence - "Atheists do tend to make different judgments on a number of issues than do theists." While it strikes me as a fair summary of the survey results, that is something that can properly be left to the reader.

I'm less comfortable with the Barna Group as a "Christian organization" - that seems to carry the connotation that they're a church group, which isn't quite correct. How about:

According to a 2003 survey conducted in the United States by The Barna Group, a Christian-affiliated research organization, those who described themselves as atheists or agnostics were more likely than theists to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage; enjoying sexual fantasies; having an abortion; sexual ::::relationships outside of marriage; gambling; pornography; using drugs not prescribed by a doctor; getting drunk; and homosexuality."

I think that's a bit more accurate (and it does include the wikilink to the article on The Barna Group so that readers can check out the organization). EastTN (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I can run with that, unless anyone else has any objections?? Measles (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Move

Anti-atheism, is a commonly used term across a wide range of scholarly sources and would appear to be the most appropriate term for this article. Measles (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While the term "anti-atheism" is used in a few scholarly sources, it isn't an astoundingly high number compared with the number of sources that use the exact phrase "criticism of atheism". Moreover, the title is more consistent with other Wikipedia articles in the same vein, such as criticism of religion, criticism of Christianity, criticism of communism, and so forth. I oppose the undiscussed move. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I oppose it as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a clumsy phrase not much in use. Please restore the old title. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please restore. It's an ill-conceived move. As silly rabbit has indicated, 'Criticism of Atheism' ranks it with a whole gamut of WP articles on 'Criticism of ...', ranging from 'Criticism of Amnesty International' to 'Criticism of Wikipedia' (or should that be 'Anti-Wikipedia'?). -- Jmc (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree--Anti-Atheism connotes a kind of militant opposition to atheism which I don't think the article itself implies. Please restore the original title.--Pariah (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK that appears to be some kind of consensus. Personally I think the article criticism of atheism is, in its current state, a synthetic mish mash of statements, with a few cherry picked POV quotations thrown in for good measure. The morality section is particularly poor, and polarized in a manner that reads: "they said this...we said that" (atheist/theist). Actually presenting serious references that address the issue of atheism and morality in a more general sense rather than doing a comparative analysis of various belief systems would be a better idea. Overall, it would be nice if there were more specific references to reliable secondary sources (other than those written by agenda driven theists) that have dealt specifically with the topic criticism of atheism. Measles (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration, Measles. I look forward to your rewrite. -- Jmc (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

why wait?? Measles (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why indeed? Get to it. Be bold! -- Jmc (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

you first ; ) Measles (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is odd. Measles raised a number of (to her/him) serious issues with the article and now invites others to rewrite it to deal with her/his issues!? -- Jmc (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

gosh, that's really odd, isn't it? Measles (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of first subheading

Though I wrote it myself, I've never been comfortable with the first subheading ('Denial of the existence of God and gods'). The problem is that it can be seen as merely tautologous - after all, that's just what atheism is. But the burden of criticism in this section is the failure of atheism to accept any of the long-standing arguments for the existence of God. So I propose to rewrite the subheading as 'Rejection of theistic arguments'.

At the same time, I'll remove the link 'Main article: Arguments for the existence of God', since it's not a main article for this section, but simply a reference for detailed exposition of the arguments. As such, it should be just that - a linked reference within the text, and oh, what do you know, it's already there.

Your feedback welcomed.

-- Jmc (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

sounds good to me. Measles (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheist ideology of Marxism caused atrocities?

I tagged "Although, this has more to do with the following of the atheistic portion of Marxist ideology" citation needed, because the claim seems very questionable to me and was not cited. The Communist Manifesto obviously had some very anti-religious passages, but it never said to carry out the change with violence. It was about changing society to end people's longing for religion. Where in Marxist philosophy does it say to kill religious people? I think [2] there is a good summary of Marx on religion. Madridrealy (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, it's obviously false. Dionyseus (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism and health

I seriously challenge the claim that life-expectancy, well-being, and social health are better in predominantly atheistic nations, because of atheism. Psychological studies have shown that religious groups have a noticeably longer life-expectancy and are least likely to develop mental disorders or other health problems. This is the most recent observation made by The American Psychologist and by the American Psychiatric Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.253.55 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does not claim that such variables are better in atheistic nations because of atheism. Rather, a mere correlation is pointed out. The same type of correlation you mention is also pointed out in the article. Clearly, there are conflicting data, and the article reflects that. Nick Graves (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Faith?

Faith can mean 'complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.' Faith can also mean 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'. When a theist speaks of his faith, it is argued, he refers to the latter definitions. When he wishes to assert that "atheists have faith, too", the only definition that fits is the first[citation needed], but his argument implies the latter definitions, nonetheless (see equivocation).

Quite often theists have used the argument that life occurring from no life is highly improbable to the point of near impossibility. This is also the case with many of the "proofs" of God such as those by Thomas Aquinas, which would also be more in line with the latter than the former. Now while they may be wrong in their assumptions to come to the conclusion of the probability of life or the existence of God, what they are speaking about would be more in line with the latter definition that the former in their argument. The validity of what they are saying does not impact what they "wish to assert", so they may indeed be asserting both points at the same time. Perhaps a qualifier such as under a purely theological perspective would improve this paragraph. Or change to "the definition that usually fits within context(the only definition that fits) is the first".

I could be wrong, just thought I throw out this point.198.178.190.1 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Just got an account because many people use 198.178.190.1. I'd like more reason as to why this post has been deleted.Jaydstats (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)