Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 3

message: I noticed that the meme-term was attributed to Dawkins essay Viruses of the Mind and not The Selfish Gene. While correcting this, I became derailed by the entire paragraph structure. To me it didn't read well because it repeated itself and was somewhat polemic in nature. Attempted to write it a bit more tersely. --EthicsGradient 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Now, could you do the same thing to all the other sections in this article? :) More seriously, I think something drastic needs to be done, maybe the article needs some restructuring. I'm mostly bothered that things are getting repeated and well some sections are very poor. It is interesting that the German version follows a historical approach and is in much better shape than ours, but their situation is of course different as they don't have separate "criticism of" for each religion... --Merzul 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I really wouldn't know were to start... the Dawkins fix was easy because I kept changes within one para. --EthicsGradient 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer viruses/memes 

message: The degree in which a religion is authoritarian can be estimated by
    * How much influence the religion's laws have on the laws of the land.
    * How heretics are treated.
    * How apostates are treated.
    * How unbelievers are treated.
Undoubtedly these criteria will measure a certain kind of authoritarianism, but isn't there much more to it? Even when a religious organisation stands back from overtly getting involved in politics, it can still be a willing tool of legitimisation of hierarchical, feudalistic or monarchical power in many ways, can't it? Bhikkhu Santi 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, and that would be an interesting aspect, so please be bold and add it to the article. The current text is just original research and so anything you write will be just as good, but if you can back it up by citing some sources, it would be even better of course. --Merzul 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious authoritarianism 

message: I have jusy copy-edited the article, not the NPOV. Please, users, clean up the NPOV A.S.A.P. The article's too much for me to handle. The NPOV in this article currently does't even exist.
* Look at these lines:
*"From an outsider's point of view, many religions impose seemingly arbitrary restrictions on followers, regarding what they must or must not say, eat, drink (e.g. Kosher); whom they may marry, what they must (or must not) wear in public, with whom they may associate."
* "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of  religious wars. Some argue that these are mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules. However, the tendency for religious war can also be attributed to the frequency and extent to which heretics and infidels are considered evil, and to the power of religion to reinforce tribal identity and encourage ignorance of outsiders. These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims. Furthermore, where God is credited with creating morality, he can be considered to have the power to allow or demand exceptions. This may result in holy warriors committing atrocities in the name of their deity. Finally, a focus on their "next life" may encourage soldiers to take a willing part in war, and to risk their present lives with greater abandon."
*"Most western criticism of religion focuses on the Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity, with books titled things such as "The God Delusion" and "The End of Faith". Not all the criticisms would apply to all religions: criticism regarding the existence of God, for example, has very little relevance to Buddhism."
Not trying to be rude, but this article it totally not true, well a lot of statements need reference? Any users would like to help. This is more than I can handle. Showmanship is the key 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was one big copy-edit, thank you. I'm afraid I'm equally stuck with this article. I have an atheist POV, so I think many things in here are true. But the threshold for inclusion into wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so if any statement here seems blatantly false, you can go ahead and delete it. It is after all, the one who includes the information that should provide the attribution.  I can't say much in defense of the first two examples, maybe other people can, but the last example seems fairly neutral to me, most books in English do criticize Christianity and Islam rather than Buddhism. Although whether the existence of God is irrelevant to Buddhism is indeed one POV, but it is probably the point of view of one of the authors implied there. In either case, I encourage you to be more bold than usual with this article :) --Merzul 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits and NPOV

message: I'd like to congratulate all editors, who've been ironing out this article's makeup, and discussing it. Thankfully (so far), the article hasn't been deleted, as criticism of Religion does exist. You (all editors in this discussion) have (for the most part) kept the discussion civil. I'm an atheist, giving my 'thumbs up' for the mostly civil manner displayed in this discussion. PS- The 'talk page' should be Archived soon (for page length purposes). GoodDay 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Views_please:_.22Criticism_of_X.22_articles. on "Criticism of X" articles. --BozMo talk 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion just before archived didn't reach any solid consensus other than "critique" being a better word. I'm not sure, I would agree with CMummert's view there that "Criticism of" articles are justified when "criticism" is notable in its own right, thus Criticism of wikipedia is an article, but criticism of software engineering is not... The biggest problem of this article is that since sub-articles like Criticism of Christianity receive all the attention, this one is left in a poor state. I think everyone would agree that the German de:religionskritik is clearly worthy of an article. --Merzul 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be in "Criticism of X" articles 

message: Its seems there's a paragraph that talks about terrorism, but only mentions islamic terrorism.  I think relgious terrorism from other cultures should be added as well. Also maybe some mention of other forms of religous wars should be added aside from just terrorism.  Acts like The spanish inquistion or even the Crusades or English Civil war should be added.  Afterall terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to religous wars.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.229.178 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relgious war section

message: Hi again. I have scratched quite a bit of what I wrote before and tried a different tack. I would appreciate feedback on whether this works better. Nuloy 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworking my additions to Implausibility of specific beliefs 

message: "The fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure. He cannot generate self-assurance out of his individual resources -- out of his rejected self -- but finds it only by clinging passionately to whatever (ideological) support (system) he happens to embrace. This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength.... He easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life." - Eric Hoffer 
202.168.50.40 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology of Fanaticism 

message: The section "Plurality of Religious Message" is inaccurate. Orthodox Judaism does have a belief in reincarnation, called gilgul neshamos. It is also mentioned on the reincarnation page. Please do your homework before making blanket statements about subjects you are unfamiliar with. 24.215.222.202 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in "Plurality of Religious Message" Section