Talk:Criticism of atheism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Criticism of atheism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This has nothing to do with Criticism of Atheism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slash and burn

Much of this article needs to be purged violently and rewritten. All the unsourced rambling about what "some atheists believe" or "many theists claim" or "exactly 42 wiccans believe" needs to be CTRL+A DELeted. As for the "you can't prove a negative" nonsense, read [1]. After the holocaust on criticism of atheism is complete, we can start rebuilding the article with reliable, well-written sources, and in a manner that isn't so hissy-fit back-and-forth. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-18 19:26Z

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

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

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

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

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

What the..?

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

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

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

Oh!

‘Other atheists counter that religion, rather than atheism, would be a source of immorality -- saying religious ethical systems emphasize obedience over goodness -- and that it is actually through the absence of religion that we can truly become moral, as religion, according to Bertrand Russell, "has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness."^[3] Some feel that, due to their alleged supernatural support, these systems are inherently authoritarian, hence able to endorse immorality as easily as morality while discouraging individuals from responsibly evaluating the rightness of their actions. In support of this, atheists point to the lack of morality in many acts inspired by religion.^[4] Defenders of religious ethics usually respond by characterizing the cases of immorality in the name of religion as being an aberration based on wrong interpretations of religious scripture, and point out all the good things that religion can claim credit for, such as acts of charity.’

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

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

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

User:Devraj5000

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

User:Devraj5000

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

Removal of irrelevant and unhelpful illustration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of irrelevant sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism as a rejection of theism sub-section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed tidying-up of initial sections (1-3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I say, feedback is welcomed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at it again:

1) Atheists deny the existence of God/gods.

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

3) Atheists find these arguments unconvincing.

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

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

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

So the honest and accurate version would look more like:

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

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

ThAtSo 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) [2] , 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.^[5]

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)

^ "Why I am not a Christian". Retrieved 2007-04-10.
^ "The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism". Retrieved 2006-03-05.
^ "Why I am not a Christian". Retrieved 2007-04-10.
^ "The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism". Retrieved 2006-03-05.
^ "The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay," The Barna Group, November 3, 2003

[1] "Why I am not a Christian". Retrieved 2007-04-10.

[2] "The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism". Retrieved 2006-03-05.

[3] "Why I am not a Christian". Retrieved 2007-04-10.

[4] "The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism". Retrieved 2006-03-05.

[Morality_Continues_to_Decay-5] "The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay," The Barna Group, November 3, 2003

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]