Talk:Criticism of atheism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Hitler and the German Christian movement

The section I added I got mainly from other articles within the Wiki, namely the German Christians and Ludwig Müller articles. They cite the Confessing Church article (see citation 2 of the German Christians, and citation 3 of Ludwig Müller.

As for the article I cited, the article on German Christians, I was citing my sources in the style of these two articles. Admittedly, it was because I didn't want to copy the four different references it cited - mainly because I am lazy, and I apologise for that - but I honestly thought that was an OK way to cite a source. Is there something I'm missing here?

Chargee (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing wp:CIRCULAR :-) And of course, laziness is not an excuse. And then there is the edit summary of Saddhiyama's original undo. Discussion please... thx. - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Would there be any way to cite a section of another Wikipedia article that already contains all the relevant references and citations, not because of its own content, but with the note that it contains these citations? Or must I add all of the citations from this article? If I cannot do that - and I am fine with adding proper citations, from the aforementioned articles - I may suggest you also edit the German Christians and Muller citations of the "Confessing Church" Wiki article which I mentioned above, as I think those do not meet Wiki guidelines, either, at least according to you.

As for the rest, it would seem based on the Positive Christianity movement that non-Protestant forms of Christianity - Catholicism, namely - were being attacked institutionally.

Chargee (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Chargee, it is better to transfer over the citations if you take stuff from other articles since most readers probably won't investigate if the claims have sources in the other articles. Citations should be placed along with the claims in the same article. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I'll take care of it. Chargee (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Wording? - Recent edits

I have a hard time understanding how this edit is weasel wording. After all Alister McGrath is very clear in his position.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by an ip earlier today, here, which introduced two new sources and critical content. I'm not happy with the wording choice for these sources at all. Perhaps we could include the sources (I'm not familiar with them, but the authors at least are notable, which is a good starting point). The proposed wording falls afoul of words to avoid, like "reminds" in the first passage. We need to attribute these claims more clearly. I'm also concerned about the weight of the first passage, which seems to be a quote taken from the middle of a debate. I'd rather not cherry pick quotes out of debates like that when we have no secondary coverage of them. If this is a notable idea, then surely there is a better source to cover it somewhere.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jess, I agree with your concerns and agree that the book source is appropriate for the scope of the article. I have it and will look at it one of these days and see if it can be worded better.

To editor 24.94.18.234, looks like you really did get the book like you said. Good for you. You can condense what the source says or at least just note the essentials of the source you are referring to so that it looks more clear and hopefully be acceptable to others. Maybe a direct quote would be a good idea to put in there if it captures the idea better. Just be careful with the choice of words since criticism pages can be quite delicate due to the nature of the content. --Ramos1990 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in broad agreement with Jess and Ramos1990. The edit by 24.94.18.234 is poorly expressed ("... not the idea they believe in ..." - just who are "they"?). If there's a direct quote from McGrath that makes the point (whatever that is) more comprehensibly and avoids words to avoid, then it could be incorporated. In the meantime, I support the reversion of 24.94.18.234's edit. -- Jmc (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I reread the source editor 24.94.18.234 spoke about and think another paper in the book is better as it is more balanced and focused on what editor 24.94.18.234 wrote. I will post it. --Ramos1990 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Ramos1990. That encapsulates the criticism neatly and clearly. (I added a WP link for Jeffrey Robbins.) -- Jmc (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your approval and kind word Jmc and thanks for adding the wiki link.--Ramos1990 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthropology & Atheism

[The following paragraph is the passage under discussion in this topic. It was added to the section 'Atheism as faith', but subsequently removed. It is not currently (21 Dec 2012) part of the article.

"Jack David Eller, an anthropologist, has noted that most cultures do not have beliefs in gods and stated, "Surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion, but is the most common form of religion." (Italics his) "

-- Jmc (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings,

I am addressing Saedon and editor 75.76.88.18's recent suggestions to remove a source on atheism and anthropological finds. I think it is well intentioned, but not well justified. The source is properly cited and the source is relevant to the article. The quote clearly says that atheism is a "form of religion" and does not claim atheism is a religion itself. Its just like theism, it is not a religion itself but a form of religion which can be subdivided into different categories. For one thing, in other works, Jack Eller notes that since anthropology is a Western thing and since Western religion is generally assumed to be marked by beliefs in at least one god, then anthropologists generally have classified religions as those with gods (theism) and those without gods (atheism) as a major hierarchical division. It should be remembered that the terms theism and atheism are both generic terms (even though the term atheism is sometimes used as a more encompassing idea or worldview by people who self-identity as "atheist").

The source simply notes that most religions fall in the latter category of religion as most cultures anthropologists have encountered do not have gods. If we go by the etymology of atheism there should still be no problem with the source. The term "atheism" means "lack of belief in gods" from the Greek roots, NOT "lack of religion". Eller notes this important point. He also notes that "atheism" is NOT synonymous with "secular", "nonreligion", "irreligion", or "anti-religion" either since theism has its corollaries with these too. --Ramos1990 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, atheism means "lack of belief in gods", not "lack of religion". Some religions, such as Buddhism, can include atheism. However, atheism also includes the non-religious. To say that atheism is a religion is absurd. We can certainly note that some criticisms of atheism have been in the category of "atheism as faith", but this article is not a coatrack for every wacky idea about atheism out there. Jack David Eller's comment is not a criticism, and so does not belong in this article. If his commentary is notable, bring it up at Talk:Atheism.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that we can leave the "atheism as faith" section as it is with one point and one counter point. I may take your suggestion and mention Eller's anthropological observations there and even Spencer's view of atheism in the Atheism talk page. I am not opposed to keeping both Eller's observation and Spencer's comment in this article since they do show other dimensions of conceptions of atheism rather than the clumped up and irrational versions of secularity and irreligiosity only. Many forget, are not aware of, or are in delusional denial of the existence of religious atheists and nonreligous theists. Go to a Unitarian congregation and you will find both easily. Following one of your points, I would argue that it is also absurd to argue that theism is a religion itself also since there is no religion called "theism". Both the terms "theism" and "atheism" are supposed to be merely descriptive words, not nouns. They were used in the past as "theistic" and atheistic" without the -ism and this made more sense. Both theism and atheism include all varieties of religious and nonreligious people since religious and nonreligious people either have some form of god belief or they lack it.

Perhaps some of the confusion lies in identities. Most theists do not self-identify as "theists" nor do they believe in "theism". Rather, they usually identify themselves by more specific terms which include conceptions of theism like Muslim or Hindu. The awkwardness is in those who self-describe as "atheists". They identify themselves by what they do not have, not what they do have and out of this weird and void identity they create groups, cultures, societies, and beliefs. However, some atheists do use more reasonable identities like Unitarian Universlaist or Raelian or Buddhist all of which are not void or generic identities. --Ramos1990 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the issues here somewhat differently than the discussion above does. First of all, it doesn't matter whether or not Wikipedia editors consider a criticism to be correct or not. What matters is what the sources think. If there's a concern that a particular source is not reliable or is trivial, that may be a valid reason to remove it. There are three paragraphs removed in this edit: [1], of which the third is the Eller one. Taking them one-by-one:

1. I think deleting the first paragraph is the right call. It's sourced only to a defininition on about.com, and is basically an original research argument by the editor who wrote it.
2. I'd keep (restore) the second paragraph, about Spencer, who seems like a clearly notable commentator. He does seem to be making an argument within the subject of the section, about atheism as faith. It's unclear to me why it was deleted.
3. The third paragraph is the one about Eller's views. It seems to be reliably sourced and within the subject matter of the section, and it doesn't matter whether we agree with him or not. The fact that his scholarly field is anthropology does not disqualify his opinion here, especially in that he is talking about comparative cultures. Is there some reason to believe that his opinion falls under WP:FRINGE? If not, I think it should be included.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Trypto. Thanks for weighing in. I agree that we shouldn't be making assessments on the validity of criticisms within the article. I deleted the 2nd and 3rd paragraph because they aren't a criticism of atheism. We shouldn't start the section with an actual criticism (such as "atheism takes faith, and can be dogmatic"), and then back up that criticism with a non-critical assessment (such as "atheism can sometimes be classified as a religion"). To me, that sort of touches on the spirit of WP:SYNTH; we should be using sources which directly discuss the topic, not 'chaining' one to another. Keep in mind, the scope for the article is "criticism of atheism", not "atheism as faith". If the latter commentators are notable, then the right place for their assessment would be Atheism; since they aren't directly criticizing atheism, but instead providing a novel perspective on it, they don't belong in Criticism of atheism. Does that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so SYNTH is indeed a valid consideration. The question is whether these are actually intended as criticisms of atheism by the sources, or whether they are simply analyses of atheism but not intended as criticism. It seems to me, on the face of it, that Spencer is criticizing atheism when he says things about it being "rigorously inconceivable" and "literally unthinkable". Do you disagree? But for Eller, I think you may be right. I'm not familiar with the source, so I don't know the context of the quote, but is Eller saying these things in the context of finding fault with atheism, or merely pointing out how it has much in common with religions? If it's the former, we should restore the material; if the latter, we should leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Tryptofish and Jess, Thanks for your input. We can leave out the about.com stuff, the Spencer quote should be restored per Tryptofish, and Eller can be included, if there is a need, in the Atheism page per Jess. I have the source for Eller, so I can shed some light in his context. His quote on atheism as the most common form of religion is part of a section, in the source, that simply informs on how atheism, theism, religion, secualrity are not mutually exclusive concepts. In the quote, he merely attempts to correct the misconceptions that many have such as assuming atheism essentially is nonreligious, irreligious, or anti-religious and theism is a fundamental part of religions. So for this reason, Eller's observation on atheism as most common form of religion can be put elsewhere. What do you guys think?--Ramos1990 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That being the case, I don't think that Eller's comments should be kept here as criticisms of atheism. The decision about the Atheism page should obviously be made there, but I would actually feel negatively about it there, per WP:UNDUE. It just doesn't seem to me to be that central to the overall topic. (I wonder about it at Religion, though.) I think we have consensus to leave the about.com stuff out. Before restoring Spencer, I want to wait and find out whether Jess has any objections to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(I thought it useful to quote the passage in question at the head of this topic, otherwise this talk about it is proceeding in something of a vacuum.)

As for whether it should be part of the article, my vote would go for inclusion. It serves to reinforce the criticism that atheism is in itself a form of faith/belief/religion.

--Jmc (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure if we should be adding content to "reinforce the criticism", JMC. This article should serve to document criticism of atheism, not as a vehicle to criticize. @Trypto, I have no problem at all with adding any direct criticism to the article. If Spencer fits that description, then adding him would probably be a benefit. That said, the previous content we had was not appropriate for the article, IMO. It read to me as though he was pondering on the nature of theism, atheism and the universe, which is a topic we really don't have time to detail here. I don't see much direct criticism within the passage we were using. His biggest criticism was not of "atheism" specifically, but of "atheism, pantheism and theism alike" (i.e. everything). His analysis seems pretty out there and tangential to the topic, and his point about atheism being a religion (the most relevant) is already documented by Liddle and McGrath above. I'd be happy to discuss this bit more, but just to clarify, are we talking about adding that passage about Spencer back in, or are we talking about adding some other content about Spencer?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Jmc, I can't really support including Eller if the source material, in context, indicates that Eller himself did not consider it to be a criticism of atheism. By including it in this way, we would be putting words in Eller's mouth. Jess, I was thinking about simply restoring the Spencer paragraph, and wasn't really thinking about different content – but I'd be receptive to putting it back in revised form, if you have an idea about how to do that. I realize that Spencer was talking about "atheism, pantheism and theism alike", but that doesn't change the fact that he was talking about atheism. (In other words, one does not have to endorse theism in order to criticize atheism.) As you seem to agree, his arguments fit with the same ideas documented by Liddle and McGrath. It seems to me that he is criticizing atheism, along with (what's the word here? philosophical concepts of primary causes of the universe) generally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Any word on the latest comments on Spencer?--Ramos1990 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I have not heard other objections and since Trypofish, Jess, and me think Spencer is ok (maybe reword later). Then I will be BOLD and insert Spencer back as it was before. --Ramos1990 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys! I've been pretty busy, and I actually forgot I was involved in this discussion. Too many pages on my watchlist! Since I haven't been able to comment, you were definitely right to settle on consensus and put the content back in. If I have a chance, I'll look everything over and perhaps provide more sources. Thanks for the discussion!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Spencer about atheism as religion

I have doubts in the following good-faith addition due its total incoimrehensibility by a layperson, hence its suitability for encyclopedia.

In his book First Principles (1862), the 19th-century English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer has a chapter on "Ultimate Religious Ideas" in which he writes that, as regards the origin of the universe, three hypotheses are possible: self-existence (atheism), self-creation (pantheism) or creation by an external agency (theism). Analyzing these three hypotheses, however, Spencer finds that, "differing so widely as they seem to do", they all "contain the same ultimate element. It is impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence somewhere", whether with regard to a part of the universe (atheism), the universe as a whole (pantheism), or an external creator (theism). Furthermore, the idea of self-existence is not merely inescapable but "rigorously inconceivable; and this holds true whatever be the nature of the object of which it is predicated". For Spencer, therefore, atheism, pantheism and theism alike, despite "seeming to their adherents quite rational, turn out, when critically examined, to be literally unthinkable". In view of its inability to evade assuming self-existence somewhere, "even that which is commonly regarded as the negation of all religion — even positive Atheism comes within the definition" of religion.

From this text, taken out of context, it is impossible to understand what Spenser has in mind and how he came to his conclusion, which is most important for our article:

• Why is that "Atheism comes within the definition or religion".

By this logic, mathematics is also religion, since there are postulates which cannot be proven, only taken on faith.

• What is his definition of religion.

Not to say that smart as he is, there are three flaws in his logic:

1. assuming that all atheists subscribe under the 'self-existence' option. The very concept
2. missing the option of inherently unanswerable question (akin to Gödel's incompleteness theorems)
3. Missing the possibility of Inadequate language, e.g., due to inherent anthropomorphism: why anything has to be "created" or "exist". Not to say what does "exist" mean.

In other words, without knowing where Spencer comes from, it is impossible to judge his conclusion beyond believing his word of authority. In the latter case it is sufficient to say that Spencer concluded that atheism is aking to religion, without much philobabble. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Another problem, no criticsm of Spencer provided (which does exist and abound), hence WP:NPOV problem. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Incomprehensible is an extremely apt descriptor. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the incomprehensibility. But, first, please see the talk section directly above. And a couple of points. It really does not matter what Wikipedia editors think of the quality or logic of Spencer's arguments. Obviously, this talk page isn't a forum for discussing whether or not Spencer was correct. As for NPOV, the page isn't about "criticism of criticism of atheism", so there's a limit to how much point-counterpoint we should have on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I rather doubt that this incoherent mess could be considered a notable criticism of atheism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Röbin, I'm actually not that strongly determined to keep it, but I am reacting to what I see as flawed arguments. I'm pretty sure that Spencer, the person, is notable as we define notability. It's reliably sourced that he wrote these things. It seems clear that he was criticizing atheism in the context of that section of the page. The objections that are being raised come very close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT: that Spencer's argument is difficult to understand, not really logical, not a good enough argument. I'm wary of including or excluding material on "criticism of..." pages based on such considerations, because there's simply too much opportunity for editors to use these kinds of objections to push a POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Tryptofish. Perhaps rewording or condensing of the source is in order, not removal, as the way Spencer is worded is what is making it difficult for some of the editors. Trypofish is correct in that 1) criticism of criticisms are not a necessary requirement in order to insert into this or any other "Criticism of..." article in Wikipedia (by default "Criticism of ..." articles have a slant on the topic already) and 2) Trypofish is correct also that one need not "agree" with the source if it is true or not. The list of "flaws" detected by Staszek Lem on Spencer are completely irrelevant since all criticisms have flaws according to those who disagree with those criticisms by default. Everyone will disagree with everyone else when criticism is involved in both directions.

If one looks at other similar pages like Criticism of Religion one will see an abundance of flaws in all the criticisms to be found there as most criticisms do not apply to most religions at all except mainly 3 monotheisms and actually are not representative or applicable to most monotheists or non-monotheists either in any given sense. Even monotheists from all 3 religions note many flaws in the criticisms aimed at them. By the way, one will not find much criticisms on other types religions there too such as polytheistic, pantheistic, or even the majority which are atheistic religions (animism, ancestor-spirit, naturalistic,etc). In these "Criticism of.." articles, proper citation and relevance to the article are the key components. Obviously some will not be in favor of criticism of their beliefs or worldviews, but this is what the article is strictly about. --Ramos1990 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"the list of "flaws" detected by Staszek Lem on Spencer" is actually the list of "flaws" of the rendering of Spencer's arguments. Let me repeat and enhance: we cannot comprehend Spencer's argument without knowing (a) his definition of religion (b) his definition of atheism (c) why assuming 'self-existence' is a feature of religion and not feature of atheism. And so on. It this shape the paragraph is useless: we even don't know whether it is a critique of atheism at all (i.e., whether it belongs to this section). THe correct solution would be article Spencer on atheims and religion, with a brief summary here. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Secular humanists

I think this addition extrapolates a lot from the source, which merely indicates what one unnamed audience member purportedly stated at some unspecified meeting: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey IRWolfie, well Pasquale's piece is a study of diverse dimensions of "secular" groups, organizations, and sects and discusses different intensities (soft to hard secularism) that are found among these sects in America. One of the dimensions he focuses is on is how people with no religious affiliation perceive other groups of people within that same demographic. One extreme is atheism as fundamentalist and the other is humanism as weak in terms of fervor against "religion" and society in general. The stigma on atheism as close minded extends well into the minds of secular people as well and is one of the reasons why very few people self identify as atheist even when they lack belief in gods. Inner criticism is quite a valid thing to note here since even different atheists criticize atheism for diverse reasons. Lets not forget that most criticism cited in any criticism article is usually done by individuals. Perhaps rewording would solve the issue. I just put in the bare bones.--Ramos1990 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Restored intelligent design

Hi, I restored the intelligent design phrase; we currently provide details of what people are most notable for and the individual is most notable for ID, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That information is surely not relevant and does not add useful context to what Fuller addressed. Furthermore, that information would be misleading as many would confuse him as a Theist, creationist, of even a Christian (this has happened before on other pages). In reality he is a secular humanist and not a creationist, so since this kind of mixing up does occur and has occured, it is best to leave the information neutralized. If people click on Fuller's link they can see that Fuller did support intelligent design and that he is a secular humanist.--Ramos1990 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

He says he is a secular humanist, but the source paints a different picture of that than the text you put into that article, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey good edit on the Steve Fuller article. He does support intelligent design in a nominal way - for what it does: provoke discourse on issues that are stigmatized, but I did mention that he does not favor it in a personal or epistemic way. What I wrote in his article was not that much and was not really anything out of the ordinary. So the simple copy edit should be ok. I was just highlighting pretty much some important points that often get overlooked. Him as a secular humanist (he had mentioned this on some of his books too like "Dissent Over Descent") and his views of religion as a positive force in the world is not problematic as many secular humanists already have this more relaxed and supportive attitude already. It goes to show that these subtle differences in views do exist. Not all nonreligious people are nut jobs who imagine religions as the cause of humanity's ills. Coming back to this article, its best to leave his info as neutral and basic to prevent mislabeling him and red herrings. If people want to know more about him they can click on his link for more info. --Ramos1990 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible bias in "New Atheism" section

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but does anyone else feel that the criticism of New Atheism part is a little one-sided? Have the New Atheists or their co-thinkers really not made any attempt to defend themselves against these criticisms? If so, you wouldn't know it going by that section. Some of these criticisms seem rather silly and gratuitous, especially the comparison to "religious fundamentalists"; when was the last time Dawkins used terror to spread his influence, or Dennett attempted to make everyone conform to an atheistic agenda the way religious fundamentalists attempt to make everyone conform to theirs? I'm sure this must have been dealt with before, by someone out of the billions on this planet. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The extend of Hitler's Catholicism Was Indeed Very Questionable

Speer himself admitted he was only a member of the church and "had no real attachment to it."[3] He also claimed Hitler "had been impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs" and favored using religion as a driving force to spread his views because of the way it motivated the Muslims in the Umayyad Caliphate during the Islamic invasion of Gaul. Speer even claimed Hitler felt this invasion would have made most the world Islamic if France had been taken during the Battle of Tours.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Should the 'Atheism and the individual' section be deleted or rewritten?

Personally, I would say that the second part of this section deals almost exclusively with matters of fact that are either true or false and that could be interpreted either positively or negatively (depending on the reader). However, it does not discuss any criticism (or any critics, for that matter). Therefore, it does not seem to fit in with the subject matter of this article. In contrast, the first part about Pascal's wager does belong in the article, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elwood1992 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hitler as an atheist

A section claiming that Hitler was an atheist was added by JoetheMoe in April, and only now removed by an ip. Ramos reverted it, saying that it was well-sourced content... and it certainly does appear that way. However, the claim is startling given that all our other sources say just the opposite, and Hitler's public religious stance was unquestionably aligned with Catholicism. I checked each of the sources, and the word "atheist" appears in none of them, as far as I can tell. One of the sources, for instance, is just a compilation of writings from Hitler which one one occasion speaks poorly of Christianity. It's original research to conclude Hitler was an atheist based on that source. The section goes on to synthesize a variety of other sources, none of which tell the whole story we're presenting. I reverted the material. We should insist on very strong sources before presenting this idea, since the sources we have now are directly opposed to it. If I've missed something, let me know, but this appears to be a clear case of OR. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mann Jess. Yes it did appear to be well sourced. I myself have not looked at these sources and since the IP did not explain specifically why the removal, and looked kind of like WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I found it best to keep while it is discussed if it is worth keeping or removing by those interested in that paragraph. You did a better job in explaining your reasoning for removal than the IP so I will trust your judgment on this. If anyone disagrees or finds better sources, then they are welcome to contribute. --Ramos1990 (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, no worries. I revert stuff like that all the time for the same reasons. I looked into it because the claim seemed contrary to the sources I knew we already had, and the ip was pretty insistent that the sources used didn't say what the paragraph claimed they did. Anyway, thanks for helping out!   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

All of the documentaries shown on TV I've seen have Hitler and the Nazis in general put down as pagans interested in a sort of nationalistic folk mysticism, little wonder he liked Wagner with the nationalism and multiple gods. His morality was more that of Nietzsche ("do what the hell you want to further your own aims and screw the weak"), he certainly didn't take much notice of "Thou shalt not kill!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.67.254 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

POV Edits On Hitler's Religious views Are Unacceptable

One of the sources includes Albert Speer's memoir Inside the Third Reich and he acknowledges in it that Hitler didn't have "any real attachment" with the Catholic church. Also, stating that the cited quotations "suggested Hitler was an atheist" and is also different from stating that they "proved he was an atheist." Dawkins is not a neutral resource and it is easy to assume from a neutral point of view that he was only making that statement for propaganda purposes. He is after all an atheist advocate and his statement, which misleads audiences from historical evidence, should probably be excluded from this article. I will get an administrator if this vandalism continues.50.157.103.28 (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the authors of our sources be "neutral", as no such thing generally exists. If you think Dawkins is not a RS, the place to discuss that would be WP:RSN. In the sources you restored, there is no mention of the word "atheist", so (as mentioned above) it is synthesis and OR to tie it to this topic. Please don't edit war your changes into the article. Discuss them here first, and gain consensus. Also, read WP:NOTVAND. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be included what Hitler's religious views were. Geoffrey Blainey's A Short History of Christianity, which was one of the resources included, clearly acknowledged that he sympathized with Mussolini's take on religion and was an atheist. Also, Albert Speer was Hitler's chief architect and close companion and not including his statement on Hitler's views of the Catholic church is uncalled for. Using a corrupted statement from Dawkins is not the way to present an argument either. Hitler was a staunch opponent of Communism and his public stance towards Christianity stemmed from the fact that he hoped to benefit from the fact that Communist ideology states that "religion is the opium of the people." Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not a place to censor reliable information.50.157.103.28 (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The memoirs of Speer are notoriously unreliable, and as a primary account should not be used for this purpose. We would need secondary sources instead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is begging the question: why must Hitler's view about religion be included in the first place? Even if Hitler were an atheist, how does that reflect as criticism of atheism as a whole? Would it be legitimate to point out that many mass murderers have been devout church-goers in the Criticism of Christianity article? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 11:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, please stop typing absolute nonsense. Speer's memoir is an account from a first-hand witness. His account has been back by various scholars too. I will see to it that you are reported for vandalism if it continues. Wikipedia is not the place to promote one-sided propaganda.50.157.103.28 (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on our policies regarding WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources (and of course you could also read up on the reception history of Speers memoirs, but I expect it may be too factual for you and your "various scholars").

Anyway Techbear makes a good point that touches on the problematic nature of not just this but all "Criticism of..." articles, namely how do we determine what qualifies as criticism and what is notable without delving into WP:UNDUE or WP:OR-area. WP:COATRACK seems unfortunately to be the standard for almost all of our "Criticism..." articles and this particular issue is a fine example of this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:Primary sources states: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. As I didn't misuse it, it is a reliable resource.50.157.103.28 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did misuse it. You used the primary source to back up a separate unrelated claim, and that is a WP:SYNTH violation. Exactly the kind of problems connected to using primary sources which would be avoided by the use of secondary ones. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't misuse it and reinstated old information from very reliable resources that discussed Hitler's religious views and were very much related to the allegations Dawkins made. Just so you know, WP:SYNTH clearly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

Saddhiyama, your unreliable assumption about the credibility of Inside The Third Reich is not accurate at all. Speer's memoir has indeed been used by various historical scholars, such as Joseph E. Persico and Gitta Sereny, to document information about various historical events which took place in the Third Reich and it has not at all been reasonably debated that his claims about Hitler's personal beliefs were false. The only questionable claims about Speer's history are: a) the true extent of his loyalty to Hitler; b) his knowledge of the Holocaust and slave labour policies the Third Reich enforced; and c) the allegation he made that he tried to assassinate Hitler in February of 1945. It has been alleged he made these false accusations in order to avoid the noose at Nuremberg and that he still made them afterwards in order to redeem his image. Saddhiyama, you need to seriously stop this nonsense or I will report you. 50.157.103.28 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am also divided on TechBear's assumption. On one hand, it can be reasonably argued that Hitler's religious views have no place in this article as it may not relate directly to criticism of atheism. On the other, it can be also be reasonably argued that Hitler's attempts to tie atheism to Communism, as well as his persecution of the church, do relate to politics of atheism. 50.157.103.28 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Dawkins' comment is even in the article, to be honest. It would make absolute sense if there was existing commentary about Hitler being an atheist, but we don't have that right now. While it is well sourced, it is out of place to discuss Hitler's religious views if we're not explicitly criticizing atheism with relation to them. I've removed them for now. We can reintroduce them if we end up with strong sourcing of a "criticism of atheism" using Hitler.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't expected to be complete and material like this provides the hooks for expansion. The information is missing but the sources exist since "Hitler was an atheist" is quite the common argument which is made. I can expand on this relatively soon. The very context was in the paragraph above the line you removed and in the source, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I'm fine with it being expanded. It just doesn't make sense to include Dawkins and no one else, since Dawkins isn't exactly criticizing atheism. While the Pope's mention of Nazis gives some context, I think we really should have an explicit mention of Hitler before the Dawkins quote. I suppose the Nazis could have been rabid militant atheists without Hitler being one, for example, so it seems to be entering into synthesis territory as worded now. As long as we can add a "criticism from Hitler", then I'm fine with the current composition.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Dawkins that is making the connection between what the pope said and what he said (see the source), so it can't be a WP:SYNTH. Both sources explicitly include the same quote. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.50.157.103.28 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum, association fallacies, and ad hominems: A Fork

Currently the part on Hitler, under the section "Atheism and politics," provides opposing arguments on Hitler's religious views. The only "criticism of atheism" to be had here relies solely on an association, a kind of populist appeal to empty pathos that should be cause for suspicion in an encyclopedia.

Most of the content of the arguments seems to try to connect Hitler's actions to his religious beliefs rather than the other way around, thus the question of whether or not he was an atheist or Christian for the purposes of this article (as opposed to, for example, Religious views of Adolf Hitler) comes down to validating or falsifying the association with one side or the other. Should these articles become competing lists of bad guys? What does a debate over whether Jeffrey Dahmer was a creationist contribute to criticism of creationism?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think Hitler belongs here -- not even a link to the article on his religious views (still creates an association with rhetorical effect. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be fallacious reasoning but it is a common objection made by the religious to atheism, so the article should summarise the issue, and explain that Hitler, Stalin etc did what they did not because of religion or the lack thereof but because of Facism and communism, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Due to the compromise that was made, the Dawkins statement about Hitler shouldn't have been put back. Dawkins is a lead advocate for the New Atheism movement and is not a reliable third party resource at all. His accusations where misleading, as the statements he cited only related to Hitler's political maneuvering, and it is very easy to assume from a neutral point of view that he made the statement to promote his cause.50.157.103.28 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You felt that Dawkins was misleading and an unreliable as a "lead advocate" for atheism......but the pope's argument on the same subject was fit to leave in? Both paragraphs would go or neither would. I'm also suspect of the conclusion you drew in the edit summary that "we agreed to remove the Hitler quote." Granted, I like it as it stands now with both paragraphs gone but I'm not so sure that's the consensus view. --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am okay with the pope paragraph being erased, though it has been acknowledged through historical documentation that Hitler did persecute various clergymen when they spoke against him. When I stated that we agreed to remove the Dawkins quote, I was referring to what I read when I last checked the page on October 10th. The pope's comment was based more on historical documentation. These documented attacks on the church by the Nazis were even used as war propaganda in portions of the seven-part Why We Fight film series.50.157.103.28 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Though50.157.103.28 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Based more on historical documentation.... That he killed religious people because he was an atheist or that he killed people for speaking out, posing a threat, etc. including e.g. Christians? The latter obviously has no place in this article, so the "historical documentation" has to be framed so as to imply the former... but the reasoning is flawed (hence this thread to begin with). Regardless, it seems you and I agree that Hitler doesn't belong here, so no sense arguing it further unless others want to keep it in. --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've restored the text. It does not matter if the argument has a foundation or not, it is a common criticism of atheism, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• • @IRWolfie-: - The argument's merit may indeed play a relatively small role in determining whether it should be included, but you're restoring it based on it being "a common criticism" when the criticism here rests on a single primary source (the pope) making that basic associative argument. Wouldn't "common" have to be defined in terms of its presence in many reliable sources? --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Any rebuttal by Dawkins in this case is very questionable. He recently demonstrated his propaganda preaching again when he appeared on an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. He argued that Obama and Kennedy were atheists and it is easy to assume that only claimed he was "joking" in the Overtime segment because it is known to be less watched than the general programming.50.157.103.28 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@50.157.103.28: - See above. 1) anecdotal distaste for Dawkins has nothing to do with whether he is a reliable source. 2) Even if some comment/joke he made on a comedy/news program had any bearing on whether or not his works should be considered reliable, his "propaganda preaching" is somehow egregious to you while the pope's comments -- perhaps the foremost "propaganda preacher" for "the other side" -- are acceptable?? .....This is redundant to the discussion above for sure, but I'll again point out that I don't think either mention of Hitler merits being in the article, but certainly taking out one or the other is unacceptably POV. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

One more good ref

Not sure why this even needs to be discussed as the source is reliable and relevant [4]. The first paragraph is the most relevant part. If the wording is the issue, then copy edit as you see fit. I have no problem with that. How do you suggest we word it? My original wording Atheism has sometimes been presupposed to lead to more tolerance and less violence in contrast to religion, however, the history of societies like the Soviet Union has not necessarily supported such a view. [ref here] Michael Martin has noted that, like theism, suppression by atheism can also occur.[ref here] does not seem different than source. What do you think Jess?--Ramos1990 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramos, the problem is that we have multiple sources which discuss issues like this, so we cannot word things as though there is only one source on the issue. Your wording has effectively communicated that atheism leads to intolerance and violence, contrary to the "presupposition" otherwise. This isn't communicated by the source you've used, which details a more nuanced view in the rest of its writing, and this isn't communicated by other sources we have on the issue either. We can say that a criticism of atheism is that it "leads to intolerance and violence", and we can document the reception of that criticism in the reliable sources we have.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing man. No problem. I am open to reword, but the source does mention that atheism is sometimes "claimed" to lead to less intolerance and less violence - that it is better than alternatives. According to the source, this assumption is not necessarily supported in its entirety. The source does not say that atheism will lead to violence and intolerance, it says that the claim that it leads to less violence and intolerance is not necessarily true. We can reflect the nuanced understanding in the source as it does focus on atheism on these points. We can also mention that this claim is made by the Investigating Atheism project from Oxford and Cambridge researchers to attribute. I think this would be ok. What are your thoughts?--Ramos1990 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's a website run by a theology group. i.e anti-atheist religious group. The director is a Vicar in the church of England: [5] and has written works for apologetics. Their website isn't generally reliable for statements in the wikipedia tone. The website consists of trying to put atheism "in its place" so to speak. For example, instead of acknowledging challenges to religion it uses vague assertions instead, in the case of evolution, it says things like "Oxford theologian Aubrey Moore ... evolutionary theory as an opportunity for religion" and with straw men type refutations with statements like "Thus the atheist simplifies the ...". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any of this as an issue for the scope of the article or wikipedia. Of course one may not like what they say, but they certainly are a reliable and relevant source by researchers on atheism. Citing non-atheists (if such is the case about them) in this article is not a problem. Its no different than citing Ibn Warraq or other non-Muslims on criticism of Islam, for instance. Also criticisms in general are usually not exhaustive or take into account all possible objections that people can throw out, but its still criticism nonetheless. Criticisms need not be comprehensive (most are not in any sense) to our liking. Of course, all criticisms and rebuttals try to put the topic "in its place" either way so it comes with the territory. --Ramos1990 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, we can cite non-atheists. I don't think that was IRWolfie's point. He said "Their website isn't generally reliable for statements in the wikipedia tone." That last part is important. We can't say something factually in wikipedia's voice by citing their site, because their content isn't known to reliably summarize the topic. Normally, that could just be solved by attributing the content... but in this case, I think we should all insist on a more reliable secondary source for this content. There should be one. Your most recent addition addresses some of the issues I brought up earlier, but it does so by entirely removing the criticism. Your addition isn't a criticism of atheism, it's a response to a compliment of atheism. I don't think that fits into the scope of the article. This is the reason I couldn't just "fix the wording" you used initially... I think the sourcing, and content shouldn't be included in its current form, at least. Better sourcing might change that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure by what you mean by a more reliable secondary source. It already is a "secondary source". How many layers would we need? Also the source is very reliable as it has to do with researchers on the topic. An attribution would not be an issue and I did suggest it but no one answered it. The complaints on this in general seem to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything else. Also are we limiting this article to criticisms and excluding contrary claims that address specific claims made by atheists? This source specifically addresses a claim in atheism - Atheists who lay claim to the intellectual inheritance of the Enlightenment have traditionally presented religion as intolerant and the cause of much avoidable violence, and atheism as the best strategy for a maximally tolerant and violence-free world. However, the history of atheistic states (especially the ex-Soviet Union) has tended until recently to encourage a more sober assessment by atheists of the relationship between atheism and violence than was hitherto assumed. he it proceeds. How much more specific relevant claim to criticism can you get than that? Keep in mind that criticisms and rebuttals are often about noting problems in streams of thought.

The complaints to it look more arbitrary than based on solid reasoning of violating any Wikipedia protocol. The attribution should solve any issues. The reliability is not in question because they are researchers in these fields (better than Dawkins is on Hitler). Rewording is the only option, not removal. But so far you have just removed it without even trying to reword. The lack of interest in integrating and preference for removal looks too suspicious to me. Also in terms of the criticism, why have you and IRWolfie been lenient on Hitler and keeping Dawkin's remarks which are not even criticism of atheism? The reasons for keeping that stuff seems clearly sloppy, but I personally don't mind keeping such stuff because criticism and rebuttals are not always good either way and may be informative. It just looks so suspicious what is often blocked at any cost and what is often allowed to stay here. Tryptofish had raised the same issue on this page before. The double standard has to stop. Can you please clarify why such double standards? Reliability of a source and the relevance to the topic should be the main guidelines here. There is no set standard of the quality of a criticism or rebuttal that must be met because most sources will not meet every editor's standards anyway. --Mayan1990 (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you should read my position on Hitler again. I gave you solid reasons for opposing the content, and an entirely reasonable option for moving forward if you thought it deserved inclusion. Please don't diminish the contribution I made down to "IDONTLIKEIT" and accuse me of having an alternate agenda. That's not going to get us anywhere.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at the previous posts you had on Hitler, sorry. Yes you were quite balanced on it. IRWolfie wanted to keep it, but you stood your ground. I could go either way on that. However, the reasons for removing the current addition by researchers on atheism are not convincing because there are not violations on wikipdeia protocols. Attribution would solve any issues. If you would have attempted to reword as you saw it fit first before removing the addition, it would have indicated to me that you are assuming good faith, but so far it looks more like IDONTLIKEIT to me. Criticism do not satisfy all parties of course so its a bit tricky, but I know you are usually reasonable so I am hoping you will reconsider the situation. --Mayan1990 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the website in question is a reliable source within the Wikipedia meaning of that term, and therefore appropriate as a reference. -- Jmc (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saying its reliable doesn't add anything. Why do you think a self published website run by a faculty of divinity based at a Catholic institute of theology [6], headed by a Vicar and theologian is a reliable source on Atheism? I would certainly be interested to here that. I'm not sure how things are where you are, but in the UK and Ireland universities have theology departments which are effectively run by churches, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about a RS for the criticism of atheism, which is what this article is about (or was last time I checked). -- Jmc (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sidestepping that issue (which I think is still a real issue), we're left with a non-criticism. We can currently source this sentence: "Prominent atheists such as Michael Martin have traditionally claimed that atheism is more tolerant and peaceful than religion. The website Investigating Atheism claims that this may not be true." The problems with that content should be evident. It simply doesn't belong here. Even if we put it in, we'd also have to include other relevant sources to the topic afterwards, including discussion of religion and violence generally, which places us way out of scope. If we want to include a criticism about atheist intolerance and violence, we need better sourcing first. We need a clear criticism, clearly attributed or reliably summarized, and we need a proposal to incorporate that criticism without giving undue weight to a single opinion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Jmc, you are not claiming the source is reliable for its own words, you are claiming it is reliable to make statements in the wikipedia tone. Writing in the wikipedia tone implies that what is being written about is correct. Clearly this website is not reliable for claiming "however the history of societies with predominance of atheism has not supported such optimistic claim" and "There is always the possibility suppression by atheists as much as they accuse theists of doing". These are clearly strong opinions which are highly suspect (and easily refuted, but we will leave that to the side). If it was to be used at all it must be attributed since it's a self published website of a theology group with overtly religious sponsorship. Now, if you want to include their claims, then there is the issue of weight, and I simply don't think what a non-notable vicar in a theology group with overtly religious sponsorship has that sort of weight when one assumes academic works exist of a university press standard. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Note on his latest revision/reversion by Mann jess: "... IRWolfie hasn't responded yet".

I think IRWolfie- must be discounted:

1) His quotations from the the website (in his subsequent response, above) are greatly distorted.

2) His characterisation of the website, which is published under the aegis of Cambridge University and whose copyright resides with that university, is greatly distorted: "... it's a self published website of a theology group with overtly religious sponsorship ... a non-notable vicar in a theology group with overtly religious sponsorship". -- Jmc (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Distorted? Point out one thing I have said which is incorrect. Apologetics departments at universities are not inherently reliable on topics outside theology and this one is based in a Catholic Institute. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC):

IRWolfie, though I hear what you are saying, the objection you are making here is not reasonable. JMC, Jess, and I already agree that citing non-atheists, if such is the case, is not an issue for this article. Its on criticism, no matter if the ultimate source is an atheist or non-atheist. After all many criticisms do come from those who have a different worldview. The most critical are those who have polar opposite views and point out problems they see in opposing worldviews. Also, criticisms come from different degrees. Clearly the researchers in the website are providing some information on atheist claims. After all they are researching atheism and are entitled to their findings. You may disagree with them, but that is not enough to say they are unreliable sources on criticism of atheism.

Also please note that attribution would solve any issue here. I don't think JMC is saying that no attribution should be made. I made the case that an attribution would solve the issue and did not see JMC or Jess object to that. I do think that we should not make the claims of the source in the voice of wikipedia, but I wanted to see if Jess would do that before removing it. But this did not happen.

In terms of the claims of theologians thing, would you object to having Richard Dawkins being cited on the Criticism of Christianity page? Please note that Richard Dawkin's books on theism and Christianity are not published by a university press and his claims are quite suspect also. His main works on theism and religion are simply not from academic sources and some of the citations on that page are from his self published website richarddawkins.net. In comparison, the website on atheism has University of Cambridge as the copyright owner so the academic standing of the website is indisputable. The website meets the criteria of a RS. Now, what the RS says may not be to your personal liking, but that is not the issue for us as editors. As an encyclopedia, we merely provide collections of viewpoints on a topic.

In terms of what Jess' comments, the source comments on others, not just Michael Martin. It mentions some of the new atheists for instance who believe the claim that atheism reduces intolerance and violence. Perhaps we can create an atheism and violence section. This would not be a bad idea. --Mayan1990 (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramos, I think you missed the point I was making. The sentence I proposed (which is the best we can do with this source) doesn't belong in the article. It is: 1) outside of the article's scope; 2) not a criticism of atheism, at best a disagreement about a compliment of atheism; 3) not attributable, since there is no named author or well-known institution, and "the website InvestigatingAtheism.com" doesn't cut it; 4) undue weight to a single opinion, without discussing the reception of that opinion in a broader selection of the literature; 5) ultimately sourced to an opinion piece. These aren't all deal breakers. Some of these problems can be fixed, but taken together they mean that the content cannot be included in the article at this time. This will be the third time I'm saying this: We need more (and better) sources to include content about atheism and violence or atheism and intolerance. Find them, and we can formulate a better addition to the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramos, "I don't think JMC is saying that no attribution should be made" that is exactly the claim he is making and that is exactly the case I disagree with, with regards WP:RS. Attributed statements are pretty much de-facto reliable, because they state opinions. Ramos, I have no issue with taking academic works of theists, but this isn't it, and I have no issue with attributed opinions of notable theists (bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT where appropriate).

This is theology and opinion dressed up as something more. Theology is academic only in the sense that astrology research is academic; it assumes a certain world view before they begin and is filled with waffle. I have talked to theologians, I know this is not a straw man representation. Theology departments lack rigour, and are not comparable to religious studies departments. Now, taking it attributed, there is still the issue of WP:UNDUE. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Though I hear you, I don't think we as editors can simply make assumptions about the sources and underlying motivations based on their professions alone. Its not a wise thing to do because that would eventually exclude many sources by association rather than content, which is not the job of wikipedians. In contrast, I think Jess raises some good issues on atheism and violence and acknowledges that many things can be fixed. --Mayan1990 (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do judge sources by the profession of the people involved; i.e we use SPS only for experts (and obviously ones without conflicts of interest). We exclude sources by association all the time. In fact I would say it's the chief means of judging sources to be unreliable. If a source is associated with a known dodgy publisher, we don't use it. To use a source, the burden is on you to establish its reliability, or if using attribution, its weight, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A reality check would seem in order: the source in question is a website published under the aegis of Cambridge University and whose copyright resides with that university, detailing the ongoing work of "a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford" - IMO, a reliable source within the Wikipedia meaning of that term. -- Jmc (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

JMC is correct. The academic standing of the source is not in question at all because its core association with Cambridge University is pretty clear. Its says Copright © University of Cambridge 2008 unless otherwise stated - All rights reserved. Obviously the University of Cambridge is not a "dodgy publisher". After all, its not a random site by non-researchers on these topics like richarddawkins.net or samharris.org clearly are. Furthermore, the researchers in investiagtingatheism are obviously providing general information on atheism and specific topics that atheists raise in light of history. Its relevance is crystal clear. The weight on violence is a different issue, per Jess. --Mayan1990 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not published by the University of Cambridge (they have a press for that) and undergoes no review. They merely assert copyright on the contents of their subsites, even if that is the theology department. They are theologians and vicars with a point of view (or would you consider their sermons from the pulpit on youtube reliable as well?). They can have their opinion but they clearly aren't reliable for it in the wikipedia tone. If you want to play that game, I can get statements by Dawkins from his university website etc, but that would by playing a game of silly buggers. If you want to use the source, ask if it is reliable at WP:RSN, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Though I won't use the source for the violence thing, your reasoning "They are theologians and vicars with a point of view (or would you consider their sermons from the pulpit on youtube reliable as well?). They can have their opinion but they clearly aren't reliable for it in the wikipedia tone." is very suspicious. Attributions would solve any issues since attributing would not put words in wikipedia's mouth - we have been in agreement on this for a while now so not sure why this keeps on being brought up. Also the fact that they are academic researchers on these topics is enough to let them say what they say and of course the source is more academic than stuff you find on youtube or even personal websites. Unless you can show they have done misconduct in their research or that they are not academic researchers then I would agree with you. But so far you have not provided convincing reasons except that you don't like theologians and vicars when they write stuff on atheism WP:IDONTLIKEIT - which is irrelevant especially in criticism pages (the article itself already has a point of view an some sources have more to criticize than others). In terms of Dawkins, actually stuff from his university website WOULD be better, if such material exists in the first place (I could not find him saying much stuff on university websites [which would be a better source]). Just a few thoughts. As far as I can see this issue is pretty much resolved. --Mayan1990 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was a Christian.

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." - Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933

"We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, we have stamped it out." - Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922

67.239.63.86 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

His beliefs kept undergoing way too many changes, maybe the NAZI members were favorable to Christians than any other religion, but doesn't make hitler a christian anyway, he probably wasn't at the time of his death. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone clearly didn't read Hitler's Table Talk which contained quotes said by Hitler years after the Christian ones. In them he expressed hatred for Christianity and religion. He wasn't Christian but I don't how Hitler's religion or lack of religion has anything to do with the criticism of atheism. Seems like the moving of a goal post to me. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk --Suigens (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I often think we should apply Godwin's Law on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

French and English editions of Hitler's Table Talk contain fabricated quotes that do not exist in the original text, and quotations regarding Christianity which not only not faithfully translated from the original German, but drastically altered in their meaning. See Wikiquote:Adolf Hitler's religious views#Disputed. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We are straying off topic here, but if I could ask the anonymous IP to consider the following: Comments Hitler made while seeking power (ie up to 1933/4) must be measured against what he actually did with power - and what he actually said to policy makers behind closed doors. Hitler didn't support religious education, in fact the Nazis closed denominational schools. And he wasn't referring to 'atheism' per se in that October 1933 quote, he was talking about the German Communists (the Nazis specifically outlawed discrimination against atheists in the public service). An then, even if early comments like the 1922 speech you offer represent an honest (as opposed to manipulative) outlining of the younger Hitler's views, they are not "orthodox" Christian views and must at any rate be measured against the evidence of his religious policies in office (extermination of Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses and the kirchenkampf against the Christians) as well as the agreement found in the memoirs of leading Nazis like Albert Speer, the transcripts of Martin Bormann and the diaries of Joseph Goebbels that he expressed anti-Christian views to his inner circle of policy makers and confidantes. To paraphrase the others by quoting Goebells directly: "He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity" (See The Goebbels Diaries 1939-41; Hamish Hamilton Ltd; London; 1982; ISBN 0-241-10893-4; pp. 304-305). Historians such as Sir Alan Bullock, Sir Ian Kershaw, Laurence Rees, Joachim Fest, Richard J Evans, William Shirer etc etc etc are relying on multiple sources when they say that Hitler was hostile to Christianity. Ozhistory (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Rename article

This article looks like a POV fork. I suggest renaming the article Reception of atheism or Reception to atheism. By naming the article Criticism of atheism all counterarguments are unwelcome, and this violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirement. See Wikipedia:Content_forking, Wikipedia:Avoiding POV funnels, and Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate_articles_devoted_to_criticism. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a subarticle of long-standing (since February 2006). When the issue of its separate existence has been raised in the past, the justification has been found in Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy.2C_religion.2C_or_politics. -- Jmc (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Are counterarguments allowed on this article? Waters.Justin (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

'An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists have a higher suicide rate than theists.'

The referenced article by Dervic et al does not support the claim made in the article. The paper investigated the different suicide tendencies between patients at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. The patients had been commited to the hospitals and met the 'DSM-III-R criteria for a current major depressive episode.' The limited (n=371) and non-random sample means no meaningful conclusions for the whole population can be reached. Furthermore, the paper clearly states it investigated those who have a religious affiliation, and those who do not. As the term 'unaffiliated' isn't further defined, it isn't possible to conclude that the paper refers to atheists. Indeed, not even a conclusion based on religious affiliation can be reached from this. The paper itself raises another issue: 'This study has some limitations. For example, it did not assess religious upbringing, religious practice, or the level of personal devotion. Therefore, it is possible that depressed patients who stated that they were atheists or had no religion had abandoned religion as a consequence of depression or hopelessness.' Lastely the article notes that there is no difference in how depressed the interviewed people are: 'There were no differences between groups in the level of subjective depression (Beck Depression Inventory), objective depression (Hamilton depression scale), hopelessness (Beck Hopelessness Scale), life events (St. Paul-Ramsey Scale), or global functioning (GAS) (Table 2).' And: 'Individuals with a religious affiliation also reported less suicidal ideation at the time of evaluation, despite comparable severity of depression, number of adverse life events, and severity of hopelessness.' Therefor the statement 'An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists have a higher suicide rate than theists.' is not actually supported by the source. A more proper formulation would be 'Based on a limited sample, an article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 found that religiously unaffiliated people commited to a psychiatric hospital in the American Northeast while diagnosed with a major depressive episode had more suicidal tendencies than those who identified themselves as religiously affiliated.'

And even that statement is not actually supported by the paper, as the sample is limited to two psychiatric hospitals, not all psychiatric hospitals in the American Northeast.

I move to delete this statement and its reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.197.37 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support deletion of statement (assuming 145.97.197.37 is quoting correctly, and I've no reason to think otherwise). -- Jmc (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I added another source that specifies on international suicide rates. Its more to the point. The issues raised by 145.97.197.37 such as sample size is understandable, but also problematic since all studies have limited samples. None are ever exhaustive. In psychology, as in sociology, all samples are never exhaustive for any measure or population (theists, Christians, atheists, etc). Atheists and the nonreligious are difficult to measure because of their small numbers, however, this is not a warrant to say that generalizations cannot be made. Atheists, like Mulsims, have correlations and tendencies in behaviors and characteristics and these can be measured in many ways with good accuracy with even small samples such as in qualitative research (for instance, via in depth interviews). I think that rewording or deletion would be warranted for the citation at issue.Mayan1990 (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, some tweaks

Hi, fellows. I just red this article in its entirety and I found it to be a little POV, as it posits theistic arguments left unanswered, without even referring to the usual atheistic answers. So I added a couple of lines of text in each case, very shortly to comply with Balance. I hope you find them to be suitable. I also reordered some paragraphs on chronological basis. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Martin Bormann

An editor has removed reference to the atheism of Martin Bormann, rather than putting a citation request on it. His/her objection seems to be based on a line by Shirer referring to Bormann as an "outspoken pagan" rather than an "atheist". However, I suspect that Shirer might be using the term "pagan" interchangeably with "pagan". I will search the relevant texts again when I get time, - if I am not beaten to it by another editor. Ozhistory (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not an attack piece

Just to be clear on the recent changes here and here, this article is not intended to be an attack piece. Like all other articles on wikipedia, it should represent all aspects of the topic, which means discussing the criticisms presented. Removing all commentary of the criticism so the article is nothing but one criticism after another would not serve that purpose. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Jess and Ozhistory, about this edit, I think that this needs to be discussed it before be re-add it. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ozhistory This material is a big statement and needs to be discuss and reach a consensus. According with what I read in Religious views of Adolf Hitler and Positive Christianity, there is no clear consensus among the scholars about that Hitler want to "eradicate Christianity". According to Alan Bullock's Hitler: A Study in Tyranny "[Hitler] promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian churches "destroy the influence of the Christian Churches" (not Christianity). According to Shirer, William L.'s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich "Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists" Indeed, Bormann said in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconciliable." but according to Shirer "What the Hitler goverment envisoined for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the "National Reich Church" draw up during the war by Rosenber, and outspoken pagan". Replace a religion with other religion is not State atheism and has nothing to do with this article. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia does suggest that there is not a consensus about Hitler's plans to eradicate Christianity. The trouble is that I am yet to read a serious history of the period that agrees with wikipedia. I think if you read up on the period in serious literature you will find the same as me, but in the meantime, I cannot write what I have not found in reliable sources. While you ponder that though, could you please restore the rest of the edits you have reverted, and which, I assume, you do not contest? Block reversion of multiple (unrelated) edits is uncollaborative. Ozhistory (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ozhistory There are multiples sources who said that Martin Bormann was a pagan, even his son said that. And if you find sources that said that he was an atheist, still is controversial and needs consensus to stay here. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am more than a little surprised by these claims by Mr Loup. First of all, I would be glad to see a source for this claim 'Bormann was a pagan, even his son said that.' To the best of my recollection, Martin Bormann Junior (who was for a short time a Catholic priest before resigning his orders to get married) said his father was an atheist. I am also struggling off-hand to think of any scholars who confidently declare he was a pagan. If there are such sources, they should really be provided in the comment. One difficulty is of course that comparatively little is known about Bormann and as a result he has tended to attract little attention compared to the flamboyant and loquacious Goebbels. British spy Cyril Coles described him as having a 'mole-like tendency' of avoiding the limelight - indeed, we have comparatively few photographs of him, never mind writings. Such attention as there is has therefore tended to be sensationalist (focussing on his presumed postwar escapades and alleged personal correspondence with Churchill, among other total nonsense). Indeed, I'm struggling to think of an actual scholarly biography of him. Jochen Von Lang's The Secretary would be closest, but Von Lang was a journalist and in any case wrote over fifty years ago.

With regard to Bormann he was undoubtedly vehemently anti-church - any claims to the contrary do not stand up to scrutiny. He also had a definite desire - if not perhaps a well-defined plan - to eradicate Christianity. We could cite here Bormann's own writings, including, for example, his memorandum called The Relationship of National Socialism to Christianity (1941) which includes the line 'we do not need Christianity' and concludes 'the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.' In it, he talks of a scientific theology based on gravitation and the wonder of the universe that is actually remarkably - arguably uncomfortably - close to the one posited by Richard Dawkins in The Magic of Reality. I do not think Dawkins would describe himself as a pagan and I suspect he would be offended if anyone did so describe him.

So I think Mr Loup is going much too far in his criticism. If he is going to overturn these edits and say definitively that Bormann was not an atheist, he needs to bring more to the table.31.54.53.20 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Criticism of atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081220041533/http://www.christianitytoday.com:80/ct/article_print.html?id=44990 to http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=44990
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081220041655/http://www.christianitytoday.com:80/ct/article_print.html?id=45852 to http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=45852

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Criticism of atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101115042653/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6334837.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6334837.ece
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070319051840/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1089522.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1089522.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unbalanced?

I'm just tagging this article for a second opinion. I'm not a routine Wikipedia editor, and I also am agnostic which might make me too sympathetic to this cause. But I just read through this article and it seemed a bit overly one-sided. Obviously being criticism of atheism I expected it to be mostly anti-atheism, but it seems like a whole pile of arguments against atheism piled up as fact without even a reference to what the atheists would think. Maybe this is because this is so controversial it's already possibly been split off from another page, hence my asking for a second or third opinion. Looks like from above someone else has felt similarly in the past, though.

118.208.21.10 (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This page is of course about the criticism of ideas, arguments, and positions that atheists often hold. Throughout the article one is welcome to add rebuttals, if any actually exist - some are already there. Other criticism pages exist which of course seemingly look one sided Criticism of Religion face similar concerns about "unbalanced", but some editors have already provided counters in that article. In terms of "a whole pile of arguments against atheism piled up as fact without even a reference to what the atheists would think", atheists are not collective in mind or opinion so there really is no comprehensive community of atheists to answer to. Its the same as in the criticism of religion page. Most criticisms there are not really aimed at any particular religion nor is there a community of religious people to answer to. The criticisms are sporadic and the counters, if they are out there, are also sporadic by nature. I will remove the unbalanced tag since that article is on point and there could be a section for counters if there was a significant amount of counters to be found by reliable sources. One issue on this is that there really aren't that many serious counters to many of these points aside from quick remarks. Perhaps you can find some that have substance to put in this article.Mayan1990 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Mayan1990's removal of the unbalanced tag and, conversely, would oppose its reinsertion. -- Jmc (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Counters.

Shouldn't there be a responses section to the criticism of atheism? This article seems very one sided with no actual responses from the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.159.157.246 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Already addressed this in the section above this one.Mayan1990 (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)