Talk:Criticism of atheism/Archive 1

message: I would love to see individuals with time and knowledge to contribute to this article!
:This is already covered at Atheism#Criticisms_of_atheism -- Astrokey44|talk 10:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section Atheism#Criticisms_of_atheism links back here. I would like to see more references and a little more coherent presentation as well as a little less POV perspective and an expansion of the article. That might keep it from being deleted. As it is, it's barely a coherent essay and omits many criticisms and seems somehwat intent on rebutting them. Correcting this would help the article to become more encyclopaedic. Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of this article (in its current form) cames from the article on Atheism. ChaTo 15:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't detect any particular bias. Could you be more specific? PHF 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean that theists are not alotted counter-counterpoints... well, do I even have to complete this argument? The demand for neutrality would never be satisfied. 72.200.139.248 09:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributors needed! 

message: Does this article truly need to be here? Many points that are mentioned in this article seem to be backed up by few if any evidence. There also seem to be many weasle words in here and this article contradicts itself by criticizing atheism and then saying that true athiesm does not exist. Finally, this article is obviously biased as it is created solely by religious people who denounce anyone that does not believe in God.
It is commonly known that the PRC declares itself officially athiest, and there are reportedly many athiests in countries like North Korea. Though it may be argued that North Koreans see their leader as "god-like," it is known presently that many North Koreans do not have faith in their leader. I don't see how these "athiests" are immoral in any way and different from Christians or other people of faith.--141.213.196.250 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an atheist and I support the existance of this article. The debate will help eliminate misconceptions one might have about atheist beliefs. Not only that, there is an article about criticism of every other religious sect, I would think it is biased not to have atheist beliefs recognized. PHF 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about - Wikipedia is as pro-atheist as quite a few "officially" pro-atheist websites? This article is a joke. It brings up criticisms, but invariably states something like "This criticism is incorrect and not many believe it." 
Yoda921 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should note that because of the nature of the article (as a "criticism" article"), the points are brought up and then common rebuttals mentioned. The format seems to be standard (look at the Criticism of Judaism article for example). Because of the nature of pages like these, it is questionable whether they should exist in the first place, because NPOV is difficult to maintain in an article that discusses POVs and specific objections to them. --HassourZain 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: I tried to find discussion of the "objective existence of the supernatural" within Wikipedia, but failed. The section heading about "objective existence of the supernatural" strikes me as oxymoronic. Can anyone provide sources that describe objective evidence for the supernatural? --JWSchmidt 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is none — which is probably why some people are atheists. — JEREMY 02:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just clarified that section a bit to reflect this. PHF 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  objective existence of the supernatural 

message: Criticism of Christianity has a response section, I don't see why this article shouldn't. PHF 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to criticism 

message: People seem upset that the analysis seems too much positive, as opposed to attacks atheism receives from other religions, I must remind people of the meaning of the word criticism
crit·i·cism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (krt-szm)
n. 
The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 
A critical comment or judgment. 
The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. 
A critical article or essay; a critique. 
The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism
from 
cri·tique    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kr-tk)
n. 
A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature. 
A critical discussion of a specified topic. 
The art of criticism.  
 
Usage Note: Critique has been used as a verb meaning “to review or discuss critically” since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense. But this use of critique is still regarded by many as pretentious jargon, although resistance appears to be weakening. In our 1997 ballot, 41 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence As mock inquisitors grill him, top aides take notes and critique the answers with the President afterward. Ten years earlier, 69 percent disapproved of this same sentence. Resistance is still high when a person is critiqued: 60 percent of the Usage Panel rejects its use in the sentence Students are taught how to do a business plan and then are critiqued on it. Thus, it may be preferable to avoid this word. There is no exact synonym, but in most contexts one can usually substitute go over, review, or analyze. ·Note, however, that critique is widely accepted as a noun in a neutral context;  86 percent of the Panel approved of its use in the sentence The committee gave the report a thorough critique and found it both informed and intelligent.
Also from 
Therefore, there is no need to make it extra negative just because you think that's what criticism is about. Also, if you think there should be a balance between positive and negative criticism, it doesn't mean the article should be 50-50, but to be balanced corresponding to reality. There is reason to believe people have precedent on bias, and I cite a study that finds americans discriminate atheists more than any other minority. PHF 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the page move to Critique of atheism. Why would you move it if I just proved that the two words have the same meaning? I don't agree with this since it appears it breaks consistency shown in other articles titles where the word Criticism is used, such as Criticism of Islam. A person would search for criticism of atheism and get critique and somehow think the point of this article was different. PHF 17:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be sincere, now that you put it that way I kind of like the name of the article more than I did previously, but what made me uneasy was the fact that every other article for other religions analogous to this one used the word criticism. And now that I think about it, people might want to make an article about "what's stupid about atheism" since it is apparently lacking. That was my original point before the whole name change when I was arguing and showing dictionary definitions trying to keep the balance when people were attacking this article for being more of a critique rather than criticism. But it's ok, I need to stop worrying about such petty matters, point conceded, thanks for taking the time to make such a thoughtful response. PHF 01:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconception about the article - About NPOV and balance 

message: --Greasysteve13 09:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the result of that debate was "KEEP (no consensus)".  This indicates to me that this section should also be kept, though it's unlikely that everyone will always agree on that point.  -- HiEv 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism]] 

message: Anybody want to argue why it should be kept? The article looks fine to me. PHF 18:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been over a week and nobody contested it, so I will remove the tag. Star Ghost 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: --Greasysteve13 10:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst we're suggesting renaming, it should be Criticism of atheism (or Critique of atheism) - maybe it's being pedantic, but "atheism" is not a proper noun. Mdwh 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, It was the slip of the finger.--Greasysteve13 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Incorrect, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28capitalization%29. I changed the title from "Critique of Atheism" to "Critique of atheism" for now, although I disagree with the "critique" over "criticism" wording preference. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you've brought the issue up on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(capitalization), which is where it should be discussed, not here. Until the convention is changed, I see no reason to ignore Wikipedia convention just for this article. Mdwh 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be called [[Criticism of Atheism]] 

message: I see User:The_Epopt is disputing the factual accuracy and citing straw arguments in the article . I would ask that either him or somebody else who agrees with this to point out said problems so we can work on fixing them, as putting the tag on by itself is not doing much good. Star Ghost 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the tags. Seems frivolous to just put on tags without putting the rationale on the talk page or working to improve the article. They lacked appropriate justification and made the article look bad in an unjustified manner. Star Ghost 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome chief!  Starghost (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: Why not excise this portion in total? We might want to have census data about how many people are atheist versus how many aren't, but as it stands this little snippet doesn't really do much. The fact that an appeal to numbers is used also doesn't seem to need to be mentioned by name, it's just a bad argument, no need to sound like Philosophy 101. Any feedback? MerricMaker 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, this specific argument was added and debunked by the same editor. To be honest, at the time it seemed to me that this portion of the text was added with the exact purpose of increasing the list of weak "theistic" arguments displayed. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leinad, assume good faith, there are no reasons to think there is an antitheist conspiracy in progress within this article. My view on the issue, however, is neutral. To judge the argument as bad might be just a personal view, as one might say it is as bad as any of the other arguments. If this argument is used when criticizing atheism, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the article. However, as it is it doesn't look worthy of inclusion. My suggestion would be citing it as part of a greater argument, such as "miscellaneous critique" or "philosophical fallacies". Neither of those sound encyclopedic, but if you delete it someone might find it is lacking, and might even subsequently add it back to the article, unknowingly of what was agreed upon. You might want to develop that section too, adding authors or media events in which that criticism was used. Just a few thoughts. Starghost (talk | contribs) 20:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry; I see no antitheist conspiracy in progress. On the other hand, I think the fact that most of this article came directly from the article about atheism helps to explain why it is more focused in replying to the arguments against atheism than focused in explaining the criticisms. Anyway, your suggestions about the argument from numbers seem reasonable to me, but they would call for a more substantial rewrite of the article to group other "common mistakes". --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this so-called "Argument from Numbers" verifiable anyway? I doubt you would find many people who would admit to having belief in such a fallacious argument. --203.59.166.123 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument from Numbers

message: I have removed the section "Claimed non-existence of atheism" - 
this is completely absurd. I am an atheist, so atheism exists!
Maybe some of that material could be put back in somewhere,
apologies to those who worked on it.Poujeaux 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the claim also exists, and I personally find it as absurd as most other claims religious in nature, so to say that is any more absurd than the others might be a personal view of yours. While you can assert that you are an atheist, people who claim atheism does not exist would simply say that you are in a state of denial. I disagree with the removal of that section. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, your argument is so frivolous it completely disregards everything that was written in that section, which by the way was well written and properly cited. I am reverting your edit until you can come up with something deeper than "I am an atheist, therefore atheism exists". Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While the page may look like that, I don't see why it shouldn't. What if all arguments against atheism are nonsensical? Should we just remove the article all toghether? Should we just list them with no counter-argument and give them validity? I think they are all nonsensical. The way to go though, you pointed out yourself, we should look for citations then. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starghost. It must feel good to believe that, if this page appears to be a collection of nonsensical arguments against atheism, it must be (or probably is) because your own position is the only reasonable one. But the truth is this article makes little effort to really explain the criticisms, let alone to provide arguments to back them up. The display of Platinga's argument in the article until my intervention yesterday was essentially a straw man followed by many "rebuttals" that did not even apply to the real thing. The section about "atheism and faith" is another good example: only an extreme version of the claim is presented (straw man?) with no argument to support it (none, zero)… but it is followed by many rebuttals, or "atheistic responses" as the article calls it. I’m not saying that these things were made on purpose, but I am saying the article is indeed biased right now. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 15:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are common beliefs and criticisms of atheism, do not blame atheist bias for the fallacious nature of, or lack of evidence for most of these arguments, because atheists did not come up with them.--203.59.166.123 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nonexistence of atheism removed

message: I just edited the morality section to improve the presentation of the quotations... and couldn’t help but noticing that, from the 3 quotations, 2 are in defense of atheism and the other one is reporting previous prejudice against atheists. See, the name of this article is not “Responses to criticism about atheism”. This configuration is in sharp contrast with all other criticism articles that I’m aware of. When I read, for example, Criticism of Christianity, I notice that the page focuses on the criticism instead of using most of the text to the many possible answers for them. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking a little further, I see the same "morality" section completely misquotes Francis Bacon. For starters, Bacon was actually a Christian (while the text makes it seems as if he was an atheist). Moreover, the quotation provided in the article is different from the actual text on the webpage provided as source (!). The actual text cited is against superstition, but without implying in any way that religion and superstition are being considered one and the same... Tsc. tsc. I'm removing it for now. Maybe latter the correct version of the quotation can be reinserted as a good example of Christian that does not believe atheism leads to immorality. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Notice the name of the page is Critique of atheism. Not criticism. Plus, like it's been discussed before, there's no extra need to have predominantly negative criticisms thorough the article, if that's what you were implying. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the greater issue is having this article being a collection of straw men "critiques" that have been "cleverly defeated" by atheists.  I understand and appreciate an article that explores the entire topic, but at some point that becomes propaganda.  To use an example, I made changes to the atheism and faith sections to acknowledge the logical fallacies found both in some flavors of atheism as well as theism.  Before I made those changes, the text created (in my opinion) a feeling that any statement that atheism implies faith is foolish; a feeling that is a matter of opinion or even Point of View.  Hence, I would venture that this article still requires a measure of review to ensure neutrality, both in a literal and contextual sense. Rminer25 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  still POV 

message: *Move Similar to "arguments for the existence of god," put a link to either Alvin Plantinga or Metaphysical naturalism#Evolutionary argument against naturalism. Plantinga's argument is only tangentially about atheism. The words "atheism" and "atheist" only appear twice in his paper, in a quote from Dawkins, in a footnote, where Plantinga conflates atheism and metaphysical naturalism. Currently, a third of this discussion page deals with one argument by one philosopher. This is totally out of proportion to the popularity of the criticism and its attenuation to atheism. Lamont A Cranston 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on linking to Plantinga

message: Please limit your comments in the above section to the reasons for your vote, and questions/comments relating to specific objections. For more discussion of whether there is consensus and how to procede, please use this section. Also, please recall that Leinad is on a break, and may wish to add to this discussion next week. Lamont A Cranston 11:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since GabrielThursday's comment in the vote, I have concluded that creating a new article with the title EAAN is the best way to procede. This article, Alvin Plantinga, and Metaphysical naturalism can link to it. That way, each of those articles will point to a (hopefully) high quality description of the argument where it can be developed in a place more appropriate than this article. My comment regarding the length of this talk page was not an attack, but a reason why the section should be moved (i.e., it was receiving a totally disproportionate amount of editors' attention considering the fact that several editors did not even think it should be in this article). By the way, we should archive this talk page soon because it is getting too long, but I think a reference to the Plantinga discussion should be made in the new section so that other editors can see why we made whatever decision we will make. Lamont A Cranston 12:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, brief mention and link as in current edit is acceptable compromise I suppose. By the way Gabriel the paper 'naturalism defeated' is described as unpublished in his CV on his own website! Please everyone keep posts short. Poujeaux 12:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of moving Plantinga argument

message: Time for a fresh look at this section, I think.
Now that the topic has an article of its own, there's no justification for retaining a section on this topic here. Any relevance it has to an article on the criticism of atheism is very hard to discern.
On that basis, I've removed it.
-- Jmc 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevance of 'Evolutionary argument against naturalism' section 

message: I have tagged the "Responses" section as being POV. Of course a section of this nature will provide more weight to one side of an argument than another, but it is riddled with POV language and needs a good clean up. It also contains some dubious assertions like "most objections of atheism have dealt strictly with moral relativity"...they have? Says who?
I would do it myself, but I'm involved with a dispute with the author of the section on another page (the C. S. Lewis article), and I don't want him to feel like I'm Wiki-stalking him. Martin 00:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell, this section just lept out of nowhere. I'm inclined to wait until the wording on the other articles have been resolved and transfer them here once it has. That is, I haven't read it, so I don't even know if it fits the article. Perhaps the other editors who were previously complaining about POV before we solved THOSE disputes are going to have something to say, so I will take their word for it if they say this section has or hasn't a place here.Starghost (talk | contribs) 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the user who introduced it has been introducting very similar sections at Criticism of Christianity and C.S. Lewis.  Unsurprisingly then, the section doesn't fit with the rest of the article very well.  Elements of it are positive arguments for Atheism, which belong, and are, in the Atheism article (of which this is a subpage).  Moreover, the idea of a separate "Response" section is contrary to the structure of the article as a whole (issue-response, issue-response) and perhaps therefore structurally POV.  My inclination is to simply remove the section, but I'd like to hear comments from the other editors before taking that step. Gabrielthursday 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it. Some of the material is interesting, but it is basically proselytizing for atheism. It doesn't fit with the article and it's POV. Lamont A Cranston 11:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Responses" section 

message: Gabriel, your new summary of the EAAN presents it uncontested again. That was the whole point. I think I'd prefer the other summary, even if it's not so descriptive, than what it actually is now. Starghost (talk | contribs) 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't actually advance the argument- it says what it is, which is entirely appropriate, I think.  Since the argument isn't presented, it isn't presented uncontested. Gabrielthursday 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes to clarify that the argument is debated by other philosophers and suggesting the reader to read the main article for critique of the same. I think it is enough to leave the section balanced. Agreed? --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way you put it it seems that other philosophers are actually backing him up. Maybe it should be established that the argument is controversial and some philosophers actually reject it. And Gabriel, saying what the argument is to me is very close to presenting the argument itself. It's weaseling out of a response. Starghost (talk | contribs) 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To be perfectly blunt, here's the impression I get from that section "Check it out, our bro' Plantinga here says y'all atheists are irrational, thanks." Add "And don't nobody be saying anything" if you like for extra credibility. Sure you wont present the argument, but it's still pretty unbalanced and one-sided if you ask me.Starghost (talk | contribs) 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't understand your post above very well (the "blunt" one)... Anyway, I changed the text again, see if the new version seems better for you. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starghost, I don't think language like "Plantinga argues" or "If so" yields the implication that his argument is undisputed.  Gabrielthursday 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leinad, good edit. Gabriel, I am sorry, but that was way too sneaky and subjective for a short summary. It is fine now though. Starghost (talk | contribs) 04:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Starghost, but there was nothing wrong with the summary in the first place.  I'm pleased Leinad has been able to craft it so that you're happy with it, but there was no substance to your complaint in the first instance.  The purpose of a summary is to provide an idea of what the gist of the subject is- explaining that it's been criticized is unnecessary since no one would infer from the summary that it was undisputed.  Since the merit of the argument wasn't touched on in the summary, mentioning the presence of criticism wasn't necessary.  Gabrielthursday 05:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but there WAS something wrong with it. There's no substance in your response that the point of a summary is to do x but not y and that you're not supposed to touch the merit of the argument, just so you can say "This guy argues that atheists are irrational for x reason" and you're left with the impression that they are irrational, since that is a one-sided view. The argument isn't presented, but his view that atheists are irrational is, and THAT is left undisputed. You don't need the response to the actual argument, just to that particular view that was unbalanced. There is something wrong with saying atheists are irrational in the article and leaving it at that. You can phrase there was nothing wrong with it as fact, when it is in fact your opinion that there was nothing wrong. That's actually pretty consistent with your writing style in articles though. But apparently your comment was purely festive since we are no longer planning changes to the article, and you just wanted to chime in to say "I'm right and you were wrong". It's ok, I'm just satisfied to say we disagree on the previous content of that section, and that the issues are now fixed. If you want, you can keep up your one sided "I'm right" argument, it doesn't matter anymore.Starghost (talk | contribs) 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm entitled to respond when I'm accused of being sneaky, subjective & weaselly.  Look, you claim that one is "left with the impression that they (atheists) are irrational".  Frankly, I find that a bizarre implication or impression to draw from the summary as originally written.  Firstly, the summary clearly indicated that the beliefs of evolution & naturalism are held to be irrational under the EAAN, not atheists themselves, except their belief in E&N.  Moreover, the summary didn't present Plantinga's conclusion as a fact, but clearly as an argument.  It stated what the argument relied upon and described the conclusion made using the language "if so"- indicative not of certainty, but that it is debateable.  No implication about the merit of the argument was made.  Also, it was a summary of three sentences, and pointed to the full article - to see an implication in those circumstances that an argument on such a controversial topic is unassailable or uncriticized is completely unwarranted.  Starghost, you say that "the argument isn't presented, but his (P's) view that atheists are irrational is, and THAT is left undisputed."  Well, that is Plantinga's view (subject to the clarification I made above).  Nobody alleges that Plantinga doesn't make the argument.  Again, you claim with respect to the summary that: "There is something wrong with saying atheists are irrational in the article..."  The summary didn't say that- it says that there is an argument that atheists who believe E&N are irrational to that extent.  Finally, however invalid you may deem my arguments, to imply that they were mere assertions- "I'm right arguments", or substanceless is unfair.  By all means rebut the arguments presented, but grant at least that they are arguments.  Gabrielthursday 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are arguments, but they are pointless. Is there any constructive reason why you would dwell on this? The issue has been solved, so why do you insist on arguing? I don't see how it could be anything than saying "I'm right about this". Plus, this discussion is wholly based on what levels of subjectivity we find acceptable, you are obviously more comfortable with a deeper level than I am, since you were comfortable with phrasing that would require meticulous reading not to leave the possibility for improper assumptions. Something that can be used for learning purposes shouldn't require this kind of analysis. It seems fairly obvious to me how not mentioning explicitly that there is controversy (as opposed to implicit "IF"), showing Plantinga's view that atheists are irrational without showing a view that atheists are rational, or mentioning an argument that says atheists are irrational without showing an argument that says atheists are rational, it is fairly obvious to me how editorial choices can form certain impressions, emphasize certain things and even form different opinions than if other choices are made.Starghost (talk | contribs) 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was defending myself against the accusation of being "sneaky".  Since the best way to do that was to argue that the original summary was NPOV, I did so.  Gabrielthursday 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "better" summary 

message: Some of the citations may be urban legends.  The Joseph Story cite is to an AOL homepage. That quote is listed as a known distortion here.  A specific cite to Story's works or an opinion he wrote as a judge is needed. --John Nagle 02:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible bogus section, we might say. The whole text on morality seems to be a mess. It would not be the first time something written there turn out to be simply not true (see the section "still POV", above). The criticism of religious morality described there is not only unsourced but also, IMO, ignores essential aspects of mainstream religious practice, (such as appeals for sainthood, for example). Given the unreliability that this section is showing, how are we supposed to assume that most information written there is anything more than a random editor's OR-based opinion? I contend that the section needs some serious cleanup, ASAP. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Story quote, which was from a christian apologetics website. If the quotation can be verified, it can be added back. I also removed the worst of the weasel worded claims about religion offering nothing but "thou-shalt-nots." Every major religion has plenty of affirmative statements about morality - the fact that some adherents only pay attention to the prohibitions is a reflection of the laziness and self-centerdness of people in general, not the religions themselves. Until someone can cite a philosopher, theologian, study, et cetera making these claims, they should stay out.Lamont A Cranston 11:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits Lamont. I further modified the section, reorganizing the content and adapting some text that is presented at atheism. I also know some studies regarding religiosity and moral/prosocial behavior that I may mention latter. If someone wants to remove the "complete rewrite tag", I’m not against it. But it may be good to leave the section under a reconstruction status a little more, so others can be motivated to contribute. (PS.: just to be clear, the section still needs improvement, but it is much better now and may not require the tag anymore.) --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As the editor who first opposed the use of that tag, I must say that looking back it looks easy to say it was justified. Although I wouldn't say justified so much as I would say "right", since at the time justification was evasive, and we had trouble for weeks trying to pinpoint the exact problems. But I agree with you and I must say the article has improved a lot since that archive you posted and I would say Gabriel had a lot to do with it, since the discussion for this article was pretty much dead before he arrived. I must say though, every editor in this discussion has behaved exceptionally and I think your fear of being beaten by angry editors is the one that might be unjustified in the light of our good work. Are you implying that editors in atheism related articles are angry? >:( just kidding. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible bogus quotes. 

message: I think we should archive everything up to the subsection called "Responses" section. Plantinga discussion took up a lot of the talk page, and the Plantinga issue has now been resolved in a way that left all parties satisfied (as far as I can tell). The current article on EAAN is much better than what we had at this article earlier. Lamont A Cranston 01:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  But I've never done it before, so perhaps I'll leave it for someone who knows what to do.  I'll be sure to add a link to the prior EAAN discussion on the EAAN talk page when it's done.  Gabrielthursday 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive the talk page

message: Critique of atheism has been moved back to the standard title, Criticism of atheism. The article itself calls it "criticism". This title seems to be a (misleading) anomaly. All other articles of the same nature use "criticism", not "critique". "Critique of atheism" implies that Wikipedia itself is critiquing atheists, which is obviously incorrect. Nor can most of the criticisms and comments listed on the article's page correctly be dubbed as "critiques", specifically. This page is a record of criticisms/evaluations, not itself a critique of atheism. It's not an encyclopedia's job to critique atheism. Until Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of religion, etc. get moved to "Critique of..." style, making an exception for this specific page reeks of bias and inconsistency, even if that is not what motivated the page-move. -Silence 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved back

message: It might be pointed out that pascal's wager, the argument from morality etc are not arguments against atheism as such, but against being an atheist. The argument from morality, ultimately, winds up being that even if there were no gods, one ought to believe that there are, that is: it would be nmorally good ihn those circumstances to believe a lie.
: No, it's an argument against atheism. "Being an atheist" is difficult, because if atheism was true (*cough*impossible*cough*), people would be forced into accepting the moral implications of it.  Similiar to this entire article, (one of the evidence that wikipedia is pro-atheist), the actual criticism is destroyed and what is presented here is a lot different to that which is usually given.
Yoda921 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  argument from morality 

message: "it is impossible to prove a negative." why do people keep saying that? Hasn't anyone ever seen the proof that there is no fractional representaion of the squareroot of 2? In fact all proofs are proving the negative of the opposite. 24.237.198.91 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to prove you're not a brain in a vat? Is it possible to prove there is no god, no flying spaghetti monster? My specialization is not in philosophy, but taking mathemathical proofs on closed systems and to extending to every sort of proof there is doesn't sound like a valid argument, specially in existential matters. When talking about Empirical proof, which is more closely related to science and also something more closely related to the proof atheists probably demand, finding empirical evidence that something doesn't exist isn't always possible, because if it doesn't indeed exist then you might never find proof. It is no surprise to me that there are separate articles for mathemathical proofs and logical proofs. Starghost (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is there are proofs of negatives, therefor it's possable to prove a negative therefore that statement is false.24.237.198.91 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is, I said it's probably fine to say that there are proofs of negatives in mathemathics, probably not fine to say that empirically or logically. The concept of mathemathical proofs is irrelevant to this article, thus, as far as I know, the statement remains true. Starghost (talk | contribs) 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, if that argument strikes you as an oversimplification or poorly phrased, you might want to suggest something better after looking at this article Negative proof, in order to have it better presented within this one. Starghost (talk | contribs) 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This "cannot prove a negative" statement seems nonsensical to me. If I prove I am in London, am I not also proving I am not in New York? If I prove I weigh 200 lbs, am I not also proving that I do not weigh 300lbs? And so on. It may be MORE DIFFICULT to prove a negative (hence why alibis are hard to establish).
Exile 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "you cannot prove an unconstrained negative"?  It is easy to prove "there is no black marble in the sack" by just looking in the sack because the area you need to check is constrained to the finite sack.  But you cannot prove "there is no 3-meter wide marble" with the implication that you need to search through the entire universe, for all time, to be sure.  And most definitions of gods have them located in unconstrained locations (like "heaven" or "everywhere"). Spejic 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible? 

message: What difference does it make, if there is a God or not? If there is an omnipotent Creator of All Things, then all things are as they should be. If the universe is governed by laws of physics, then all things are as they should be. The only real evidence that comes from either side of this debate is that neither side is happy about how impotent and irrelevent they are. What difference does it make whether or not the source of all this is self-aware? Does no one see the absurdity of this argument? The best argument against both sides of this argument is the argument itself. Where else would you see this?!?! I LOVE this planet! Dotcomma
:You're again posting commentary that is outside the scope of WP.  Please read WP:NOT as previously requested, and try to contribute within policy. Thanks. *Spark* 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? "What difference does it make, if there is a God or not?" It makes all the difference in the world. I won't make a "personal attack", but the argument is not absurd (as in "pointless).
Yoda921 12:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the absurdity of the entire atheism/theism debate. 

message: I'm editing this section to make it at least presentable. I think it should actually be deleted;
it starts with a false claim about the connection of atheism with communism, continues with two
off-topic descriptions of the practices of communist states and ends with a us-centric remark.
how could that fit in an encyclopedia?Treiskaitetarto 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you are right, this section should be deleted. It is off-topic and the argument is backwards. Hitler believed in God, but this fact does not qualify as a criticism of religion!  But this is not the only section of the article that consists of an incoherently argued non-criticism of atheism. Poujeaux 17:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  atheism and communism 

message: I moved the following from the end of the "Arguments for the existence of God" section for discussion, as they seem to me to be a poor argument, inappropriate for an encyclopedia: --Ronz 17:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why they are inappropriate for an encyclopedia in the sense that they are a poor argument, but I guess it could stay removed for the sake of NPOV. 71.243.175.126 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miracle of the Sun

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: An anon user has now removed it.  I won't contest it.  DEVS EX MACINA pray 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Atheism and religious groups 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that it makes no sense, and I have decided to be bold and removed it.  Dionyseus 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Atheism As Faith section 

message: 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, 
# That Atheism makes life meaningless. 
# 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)
thread_title: Atheism and Happiness Section: it needs attention

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spong & Robinson 

message: I removed the following content:
:There are now extensive studies indicating religious people are happier and less stressed.BBCTime 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.Is Religion Dangerous? p156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being Guilford Press 2007 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"Smith,Timothy, Michael McCullough, and Justin Poll. 2003: “Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events.” Psychological Bulletin 129(4):614–36. 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. Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health Harold Koenig (ed.)  Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental healthIs Religion Dangerous? Ch 9. 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.Hackney, Charles H. & Sanders, Glenn S. (2003) Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1), 43-55.  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.The List of atheists is said to contain examples. There are of course many examples of heavy smokers who have long lives as well, so this does not settle the point. Although some highly atheist nations, like Estonia, have low-levels of life satisfaction others, like most of Scandinavia, score quite high in these measures.Happy Planet Index
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A meta-analysis is not a criticism. Such commentary is asking the reader to jump to conclusions. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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."  --200.19.190.5 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problematic content in "Effects of Atheism on the individual"