Talk:Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Atheism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Criticism of religion is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Bahá'í Faith (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
Neutrality and verifiability issues
  • Check and recheck for POV
  • Citation, citation, citation!
Improving the flow of the article
  • Expand introductory sections.
Missing material
  • Add an historic perspective, or at least a brief overview of the prominent critics, especially the recent wave of criticism (Dawkins, Harris, Dennet).
  • The section about the harmful consequences of religion on society should discuss whether religion should be held responsible for the action of "misguided" believers. In particular, Dawkins criticism that moderate religion makes fundamentalism acceptable should be covered.
  • Add a section on the position of women under various religions, for example, bride burning, honour killing, female circumcision, superstitions about menstrual "uncleaness".
  • Add short section on shari'a law, to Homophobia section
  • Add a new section on societal resistance to criticism of religion - the 'weird privileged status of religion' phenomena (perhaps at the start?)
General Clean-up and Style
  • Fix messy citations
  • Trim the article, it's starting to get much too long. Or is it? This is a rather complex issue and requires a comprehensive discussion.
  • Copy edit,many sections don't read very well.

POV on this article[edit]

I realise this is an article on 'criticism of religion', however it is important that opposing cases of equal strength need to be made throughout. There are also a number of rather disturbing statements that pass without comment, for example, "Hitchens also argues that virginity is unhealthy, and can lead to emotional problems" Is Hitchens arguing for child sex? The implications of his statement are severe. Ion Zone (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would see nothing wrong with adding a source of a credible critic who is actually responding to Hitchens' point. But Hitchens, who just recently died, was clearly not talking about pedophilia, and I think that you know it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


Ion, are you serious? Christopher Hitchens makes an argument that religious taboos against sex are harmful, specifically in the context of consensual sex... and you got Hitchens = Pedophile? This is equivalent to you claiming that the recent cultural aversion to nuclear power is irrational and environmentally harmful compared to the alternatives, and me accusing you of wanting to expose babies to lethal radiation for personal entertainment. -- Alyas Grey : talk 13:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Confucianism - religion[edit]

The lead writes:

With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions.

Confucianism, although lived by like many religions, is a philosophy, and not a religion. --Activism1234 01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The article on Confucianism, which you linked, makes it clear that debate over whether it is a religion or not is ongoing. Part of the discussion is over the defintion of "religion" itself, and the article indicates that Confucianism does contain several elements taken directly from non-Confucian religious beliefs including ancestor worship and the notion of makling offerings to non-corporial beings. There seems to be little question that, however it is classified, Confucianism holds a place equivalent to religion in the lives of adherents. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The historical sources I have studied have often included Confucianism as a "religion" when writing an essay, for example, but have made clear that in reality it is a philosophy and not a real religion, regardless of whether they borrowed stuff from other religions. Indeed, many Chinese people who were Confucianists did have varying religions. If the discussion is ongoing, shouldn't that mean we lean towards the safer side, and remove it for now from that sentence? Look, I'm not a Confucianist, I just saw the lead and noticed it and wanted to bring it up. --Activism1234 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Define "real religion," please, without relying on the No true Scotsman fallacy. My point is that regardless of whether or not Confucianism is a "real" religion, it has a place in social and personal life akin to religion. I would assert that this is sufficient grounds for including Confucianism in this sidebar. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what the Scottsman fallacy is, but I'd like to reiterate I don't find this as a controversial hot pressing boilerplate topic that needs to be immediatelly addressed, with many inputs, and heated arguments. I just want to discuss this in a friendly and polite way, that is all. The Confuciniasm article does have a nice interesting section on Classification, but it's more accepted, and therefore how the lead is structured, as an ethical and philosophical way to live life. And using stricter definitions of religion, it certainly isn't one. Why should we lean towards the more lenient one, rather than the stricter one, or lean towards the fact being there isn't any consensus about it and therefore doesn't deserve our personal opinion in the lead to say that it definitely is a religion? That's what the sentence says. --Activism1234 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings to both editors. I have been watching the exchanges on this and though I agree with TechBear on much of what he says (general anthropology of religion shows that many religions are not like we generally think of them i.e. Hua, Church of Satan, or Raelianism, Unitarian Universalism, and sociologists have spoken of "civil religion") it is probably best to just take "Confucianism" out of the intro since the intro is just citing examples of "specific" religions and is not meant to be exhaustive. Removing it or not does not really affect the article in any significant way. I will make a bold removal, but if someone thinks it should be re-added, then please go for it.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Theodore Beale - Counterarguments to religion as harmful to individuals[edit]

Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[1] PZ Myers has suggested more than once that Beale is extremely unreasonable. [2] Myers also linked to Mark C. Chu-Carroll who criticised Beale similarly. [3] These two are the relevant links to PZ Myers.

  1. ^ Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
  2. ^ Why do we even stoop to mentioning Vox Day?;Vox Day is one sick puppy;
  3. ^ Vox Day on Women in Science

The section I emboldened was taken out of the article. I don't think it was an Ad hominem. Biologist and academic, PZ Myers believes Beale is unreasonable and if Myers is right this is a sound reason to reject Beale's arguments. Can the above text be put back into the article, perhaps with different wording? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Proxima Centauri, I see what you are saying, but the blog citations you entered are mainly focusing about criticism of Vox Day, not criticism of religion. They also do personal attacks on him (ad hominem). Overall, the focus is clearly personal on the citations you put in the article. Therefore, these citations don't belong here, they belong where they already were - in Theodore Beale's biography page. If I found a blog cite saying that PZ Meyers is very unreasonable too, I would say that would not be appropriate here also as none of these would be criticisms religion - they would only be criticisms of PZ Meyers. The reason why personal criticisms are not appropriate here is because it could lead to WP:coatracking and going off topic.
I thought maybe the women blog post could be included, but Vox's claim was more of an opinion and Mark Chu-Carroll's rebuttal was merely anecdotal and was clearly focused on Vox as a person and certainly not criticisms of religion or his arguments. That being said, it would actually be appropriate to add a source that focused *mainly* on some criticism of religion or countering Vox Day's arguments, but not Vox himself. The focus of a source here has to be clearly on a topic, argument, or counter, but not on personal distaste. The emphasis and scope given by any source is the key to these criticism pages. Just be careful with blogs since sometimes they are too personal. I hope you are not taking this in a bad way as I mean no harm. You have done some very good entries here. Keep up the good work. Just a few thoughts. --Ramos1990 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm very busy elsewhere at the moment, I'll come back when I have time. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Indoctrination of Children sexual abuse paragraph[edit]

The Indoctrination of Children section was dominated by the final paragraph referencing Dawkins's analogy comparing indoctrination to child sexual abuse. There is a brief mention of the comparison followed by a long paragraph of "rebuttal." I don't think the initial analogy actually adds anything to this article as the previous part of this section explains his position quite well, but more importantly the way it's presented here makes it look like a strawman argument that would be more at home on a Defense of Religion page. That isn't to say responses to criticisms don't belong here, but that criticisms shouldn't be included merely to defend against them. Removed. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Article clean up[edit]

Just doing my due diligence here in that I have been recently cleaning up this article from things that are WP:OR or WP:SYN including multiple uncited claims. Everything must be properly sourced here . I am just continuing to clean up this article because by looking at the sources, or lack thereof, of my removals, one can see that 1) some of the statements are clearly are not criticisms, for instance the claims that Islam permits rape when the report mentioned condemnation because of Wahabism. Many of the reports are simply reports, not criticisms. Reporting events is not the same as condemning or criticizing them so one should be careful. Most of the removals were simply due to WP:SYN. I will revert to my version and if somethings should be kept then people are free to talk if the sources clear and not WP:OR or WP:SYN. I did do some clean up on this page a while ago and its time to do a little more. I am usually lenient, but article additions have to have some clear statements about criticizing or rebutting. There is also the risk of WP:COATRACK here. I am only trying to make the article better and more reliable as many have simply dumped content here that is badly sourced or making statements that sources clearly do not make with respect to criticism. Which is why I made a clean up the first time months ago. This is just another polishing now that I have some time to do it. --Mayan1990 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If Islam permits rape and reports are saying something else, then insert better source.
  • Which report is just report not criticism?
  • The sources who you are claiming that they "do not criticize", are actually criticizing in the sense, that they are citing about the religion which is typically assumed to be bad in common world.. For Example "child marriage", you don't have to certainly say that "it is bad bad thing", because it's common sense that it's bad.
Problems is that's there's a lot of content, So Mayan1990 its better if you simply revert, since you already made 3 reverts here now. And all of them seems to be removal of Sourced content. Your removal of "Many religions, most prominently traditional Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, consider homosexuality immoral," Philosopher Auguste Comte's comment, "Indoctrination of children", "child marriages", "Issues related to sexuality", "... is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members," "Suppression of scientific progress", "morality", "Racism", "animals", "cruelty to animals", "Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society", and removal of one newly added religion/critic from bar, seem to be just horrible. Since it's obvious that you haven't provided a valid reason. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at a few of your edits:

  • This removed a sentence that simply said "beliefs sometimes conflict with scientific models or findings (i.e. evolution, origin of the universe, miracles)" claiming OR. Did you mean to cite WP:V or is it likely to be disputed?
  • Here you removed the first part of the homosexuality section, "Many religions, most prominently traditional Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, consider homosexuality immoral," awkwardly starting the section with Elton John. Again, are you disputing these?
  • Here you removed a section on Comte's view of religion in his stages of society with an edit summary of "removing unsourced content WP:OR." OR does not say "remove any content you wish if there's no citation after it." A simple click over to the Comte article would confirm the accuracy of the statements and would likely even have a source there you could grab to improve the article.
  • Here the SYN you refer to seems to be the use of the "on one hand...on the other" structure of the paragraphs, which may be seen to link the ideas in a way that makes it sound like a single subject. I agree. But why delete it rather than simply remove the "hands?"
  • Here you remove the witchcraft section saying "sources do not explicitly criticize or rebut." It's clear you're not even looking at the sources. The Eller book is available as a Google Books preview and the cited pages launch a very explicit attack on Christianity.
  • Here you removed a block of text with the edit summary "source emphasized wahabism, not rape; removed pic leave as more neutral)." The source title is "Rape victim gets 200 lashes." If it talks extensively about Wahhabism, that makes the connection even more (why would an extremist religious group not be relevant?). In what way does removing the picture make this "criticism of religion" article more "neutral?"

I'll stop there. Now, granted, the article needs/needed a lot of work (including citations, indeed), and many of the things you removed were clearly OR (criticizing based on quotes from the Bible, for example), but the abundance of "just"s and "only"s in your eventual post here downplays the mass removal of content followed by two un-reverts without use of the talk page. Per all of the above, I'm reverting again. I hope that you will continue to improve the page, but please let's talk about some of these before removing them again.--Rhododendrites (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (update: I see Bladesmulti mentioned some of the same things while I was typing -- apologies for redundancy)

Actually, not reverting yet. No time to salvage the potentially useful reorganization efforts that were carried out in the meantime. Will do so tomorrow if someone else doesn't before then. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Rhododendrites is definitely correct. I am myself counting, if Ramos1990 can provide explanation under few hours. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, thanks for your comments. I know we are all trying to improve this article and know that you have acknowledged some of the things I found. So lets go over some of the points made in your bullet point order:
  • Pretty self explanatory. The point that beliefs conflict with science must be supported by citations that make such claims. I agree that this is a common objection but everything in wikipedia needs sources.
  • Pretty self explanatory. Many religions (Judaism, Christinaity, Islam) consider homosexuality as immorral. These statements need to be supported by sources or one overlying source making such a claim. They cannot be just floating around as these are clear statements about specific religions. The specific statements about religious groups who support homosexuality also needs sources or an overlying source making such a claim also.
  • Pretty self explanatory. Comte's comments need sourcing for those specific claims. No source provided. Since Comte was only thing in section, then without it there is no section. if source exists, then we can insert it and issue is solved.
  • ABC News ref does not mention prohibitions or sodomy laws, only guilt. Guardian source made accusation on marital rape, but the Islamic channel did not make that claim in the first place. Criticism is more on the channel than on Islam since nothing linked the Quran or Islam directly to allow rape. BBC news ref, criticized Islamic cleric, but it does not talk about Islam (Quran or Islamic law something like that) actively promoting rape.
  • Witch thing can be brought back. I misread that because it cited Exodus. Exodus would need to be removed.
  • The rape source is not about Islam allowing rape. She was punished for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape" "Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public." also the increase to 200 lashes was due to "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media". Also the men got higher sentences to 9 years in prison. The article does not say that Islam authorizes punishment for being raped. The punishments were not for that at all. Per
Here are some more of my deletions to consider:
  • Here [1] it is self explanatory to be additions with primary sources. Original research.
  • Here [2] it is self explanatory to be additions with primary sources. Original research. Zina wikilink removed becuase available source is better. Wikilink leads to another extensive section which does not have proper sourcing (most of it looks like OR). Religious response to aids is OR and SYN. FDA does not make such claims.
  • Here [3] extensive claim does not have a source since 2008! The two sources that are added in the next sentence(one is forbidden and the other leads to a home page of a news source)
  • Here [4] not sure if this is even a criticism at all. Pew Center Source does not seem to make criticisms, only observations on trends. Its SYN.
  • Here [5] the section on criticism of atheism looks like it doesn't belong here. So I just removed to let criticism of religion be there first.
None of this is perfect of course. And I have had to clean this article up before (it used to be way more ugly than this), but I was trying to purge the article of things violating either wikipedia protocol or making statement that the sources did not make. Its a lot of work. Since there are so many topics and subtle distinctions involved here, it is not easy for a single editor to go and somehow replace or add sources for all the claims that are wrongly attributed or unsourced.
Also many of the criticisms in the article are religion-specific not about religion in general. When someone says Islam corrupts, it not necessarily a criticism of religion, its a criticism of one religion which odes not necessarily transfer over to all religions either. The first half of the article is probably the best and most consistent part with the scope of the article. Because of so many issues it is sometimes best to delete things. If someone does not see something maybe the lack of it will motivate people to add it back with a proper citation. The claim on religion conflicting with science, for instance, has been there for many years and no one has bothered to provide a citation for it. All claims need to be properly sourced. I hope you can see my reasoning. I am not perfect, but at least I am trying to make this article better on top of all of this. If something looks like it can be fixed properly, then please re-add.--Mayan1990 (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Getting ready for work so only a minute to respond, but I want to point out, based on your bulleted items, that I think you're missing the biggest point. Repeatedly you say e.g. "I agree that this is a common objection but everything in wikipedia needs sources." "Comte's comments need sourcing for those specific claims. No source provided." and the like. No, everything in Wikipedia does not need a source. Right there in WP:V:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

Verifiable means you can verify it elsewhere (i.e. it isn't made up); it doesn't mean everything has a citation next to it. "If the verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" is when something needs a citation. You're agreeing with these statements you removed, and can easily verify them, often with a simple click of a wikilink. --Rhododendrites (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, if i look like a critic now.
Because you believe that it needs sources(even though they are sourced), you can insert them yourself, instead of removing the whole.
If Islam, Christianity, Judaism considers homosexuality as a sin, what's wrong in adding that? May i know, how many homosexuals are killed by christians, muslims in the name of religion, compared to Hindus(probably killed none)? Thus hinduism is specifically mentioned too.
[6] is the source for comte's comment.
Islam condemns rape, but the way girls are punished for throwing the point that they were raped is religiously linked by the scholars. A lot can be added there. [7] is needed, because Masturbation has been proved in many researches that it's beneficial for health, yet it's highly forbidden in Islam, and christianity.
Yes it should be added back.
Being in car, with an unrelated male, either it was her intention or it was completely coincidence, you have to re-word that one.
[8], pope benedict rejected the use of Condom too. So?
[9] not a original search, it sites the exact verse, and it's meaning can be grasped by anyone, which is coherent to subject.
[10].......[11] will work.
[12] is indirectly talking about the defeat of this whole thing called "religion", that's why added.
[13] <<-- Agreed, "Atheism" is never proved to be ideal psychology anyway, so it can be removed.

Bladesmulti (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites and Bladesmulti. Thanks so much for your responses. Having some extra input is always appreciated. First to Rhododendrites, well if you look at the WP:V you mentioned the first paragraph clearly says In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Furthermore, in terms of the inline citations WP:IC it is always referencing a source. Here is a quote On Wikipedia, inline citation means any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion.
The issue of challenging is very important for any criticism page because criticisms are often challenged and countered. This is one main reason to include sources for all statements here. In order to avoid challenging of any sort, statements must be accompanied by a source. It locks the criticism or rebuttal into the article - after all not everyone agrees with any specific criticism in the first place. Due to the volatility of this article, if something is commonly believed by some group then there should be sources specifying that because criticisms and rebuttals are NOT universally accepted by all groups. Some see Islam as abusive to women, others see it a liberating to women, others see no difference between treatment of women in Islam and non-Islamic cultures. Not to mention that all religions seem to have liberal and conservative branches that see certain statements as criticism and others as not criticism. Criticism and rebuttals are always challenged here. If a rebuttal is offered, it should also be accompanied by a source. For every problem one person sees, others see no problems, and others see those problems as solved.
In terms of Bladesmulti, I will comment later today as I am still at work. However, please know that I will re-insert some of what I deleted that actually has sources.--Mayan1990 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I am back. Bladesmulti I have re added two things witch hunts and comte. However, I tried to find a reliable source for the Dr Shirin Ebadi on morality and Islam. We need a better source than "crystal cave". Found another source mentioning similar thing but it is was also a spotty site. If the original source can be found we can re-add. But I also looked her up in other statements and she seems to be more of a critic of governments than of Islam as she is a Muslims herself. Clearly, in her view, a "correct" understanding of Islam solves issues, not the other way around. She complains on how Islam is abused to serve the purposes of others, not that Islam is a source of moral decay. In terms of the claim on condoms and the FDA, its SYN and OR since what source is saying that this is a problem or making a criticism of the catholic church? If you can find reliable source explicitly criticizing for that, it can be added. In terms of the OR in the forced marriages and other citations from sacred texts, one must have a secondary source that makes a connection between a primary source (sacred text) and a specific claim (see WP:PRIMARY. People interpret primary sources in different ways so no primary sources speak for themselves. Seconday and teriatry sources can be used to interpret the primary sources (they have to make the connections, not us), but not us or any editor in wikipedia.
The Pew center report is not "indirectly" calling defeat since there are clear winners and losers in affiliation. By reading it you can say that it is "indrectly" supporting wins because people are always switching to better faiths as they see fit. The fact that the source does not make direct criticism or direct nice comments is enough to remove it. There is no point in trying to make the source say what it does not plus it violates Wikipedia protocol. One has to find a source that makes a clear claim. I hope I addressed some of the issues here. Any addition is welcome, but we have to make sure that we are not putting words in the mouths of sources that don't make those specific claims.--Mayan1990 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you okay with the criticism that they have made about Islamic traditions? Well, here we are citing what amount of criticism they had as per the basic nature, that prevails in so many countries, that are muslim by majority of it's population. We can add some more facts here, such as "4 witnesses"? Considering that many of the islamic countries have banned the medical tests for proving any sexual offense, and prescribes to the 4 witnesses theory.
Pewforum's stat can be removed, agreed there.
Why you removed the "cruelty to animals"? You must discuss that issue here as well. It can be easily confirmed that non-veg has been proved so many times to be harmful for health,[14], [15], 2 sources confirming the research submitted at oxford. In Islam, you are not allowed to be a vegetarian, unless there's some medical reason..
Dayanand Saraswati,(mentioned him before), writes about christianity that there god is "unjust", "a flesh-eater", and also mentions the "accounts of animal sacrifice and beef-eating", points like these are yet to be added, they are fitting with the "cruelty to animals." You didn't talked about masturbation, homosexuality too, you should really present what type of page you want. On morality, i may insert the lecture of Richard Dawkins instead, if you are interested. [16] Confirms what Pope Benedict said, he rejects the use of Condoms as best protection against AIDS.. Haven't even added the sources where muslims condemns Polio vaccination, yet.[17], [18], [19]. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bladesmulti, there should be no issue on criticism of Islamic traditionsl, but the criticism here should be linked to religion in general, not just one religion. Shirin Ebadi is herself a Muslim and is talking about abuses of Islam in countries, more than saying Islam or religion are inherently problematic. Also, if criticisms are only Islamic specific, then it probably belongs in the Criticism of Islam page. For this article, the sources should be criticizing religion in general, not focusing on one religion only. That may include mentioning specifics about one or more religions, but in such cases, the specific religions should be mentioned to attribute in context of religion in general. If a source mentions only one religion it could be considered WP:SYN for extrapolating to religion in general (which the source does not do).
In terms of the cruelty to animals, the two sources you mentioned in your latest post on vegeterianism do not mentions Kosher or Halal practices or religion at all. So they cannot be added here since you cannot put words into the mouth of the sources. That would be SYN. One of the reasons why I removed the Dutch parlament bill paragraph is because the sources are very much focused on a bill in dutch politics rather than on the benefits or dangers of Kosher or Halal practices. Also in those 4 sources there are lots of mixed opinions (good and bad) about Halal and Kosher slaughter. What is currently on the "Animals" section has more sources that specifically focus on the cruelty of animals and if you like you can elaborate more on what they say. Or add some reliable sources that focus substantially on criticizing the actual practices of Halal and Kosher slaughter. Adding things on the vanity of animal sacrifice in religious ritual would be ok as long as the source focuses on this substantially. If the criticism is just a quick remark and no elaboration, then that source should be excluded.
On homosexuality, the solution is the same. Find reliable sources that make such a claim. And for counters sources should also be cited from reliable sources. On masturbation, I will re-add Hitchens only since he is the only one that makes this point and actually critisizes religion for it. On the Pope and condoms, the Faith and Reason source you cited does not criticize the Pope at all. It details what he actually said on the issue, and it is clear that his focus for a better solution is in the "humanization of sexuality". He does not oppose the use of condoms completely (the source mentions how condoms can be seen as helping contain, but not prevent HIV which is based on human behaviors). He opposed the emphasis on condoms as if it were the only or best solution for the problem of HIV/AIDS and also mentioned that the Church has made the most effort in treating HIV victims. Also the source mentions More than 25 moral theologians have published articles claiming that without undermining church teaching, church leaders do not have to oppose but may support the distribution of prophylactics within an educational program that first underlines church teaching on sexuality. Different emphasis in solutions. Click on the link in that paragraph and you will find another article speaking about the distinction in Catholic teaching between prevention and containment - both of which are needed according to them. Dawkin's comments, may be relevant, but the article you found would be a rebuttal to it.
In terms of the Islam and polio workers article and the BBC article in Nigeria, the article does not mention any tenant of Islam prohibiting receiving vaccines. The objections are based on the their previous experiences in getting contamination, fear of agendas by foreign governments about making them sterile, and general mistrust of the motives of Western nations. This involves Muslims, but the objections clearly are not based on religious tenants of Islam or religion. The CDC source just mentions the same thing about mistrust of the agendas of Westerners.
All of this misreading and SYN is one main reason why news reports are generally not good sources on criticism. The wiki editors who use them tend to make them say things that they clearly do not say and to extrapolate their claims to where the sources clearly do not. For all additions, there has to be crystal clear connections between criticism of religion and things relating to religious teaching or texts or motivations based on those beliefs. We cannot go beyond what the sources say and the sources have to be clear. --Mayan1990 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether it is kosher or Halal, it is non-veg. Other thing would be to specifically add the Islamic point of view, that you can't be a vegetarian, without any medical reason. Christianity, Islam condemns homosexuality, it can be checked if you click on these links. Judaism condemns it too, but jews just changed by time. So you are saying that Islam actually allows Polio vaccination? Let me get this straight, [20] like this one would confirm, that for how long muslim countries have denied the polio vaccination, and today even if they buy from only Indonesia, some still buys. Pope benedict actually faced a lot of criticism for saying that condoms are less effective against Aids[21](just a idea). Bladesmulti (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Kosher or Halal is non-vegetarian, but being a meat eater is not a criticism in and of itself. Non-Muslims eat meat also and so do the non-religious. I don't think it fits in the context of criticism of religion. Cruelty to animals clearly does fit in though. In terms of the Polio vaccine the source does not say Islam or the Quran or Sharia or any religious belief is the cause of resistance. The cause of resistance is mistrust of Westerners agendas not religion at all. - Suspicion fell immediately on factions of the Pakistani Taliban that have threatened vaccinators in the past, accusing them of being American spies. and In any case, polio vaccine is now bought only from Muslim countries like Indonesia, and Muslim scholars have ruled it halal — the Islamic equivalent of kosher. Muslims in the report don't seem to object to vaccines coming from Muslim countries so where does religion and religious beliefs play a role to block anything? Its mistrust of westerners that is motivating resistance. In terms of homosexuality, the wikilinks are not sources in Wikipedia. Instead, you can go to that Wikipedia page homosexuality and religion and find a source that says something like many religions object to homosecuality and this harms people lives or something like that. Bring that source to this article and there will be no issue.
In terms of source on Pope Benedict, the source is not reliable since Family Life International is clearly a POV organization. Also the source does not really criticize the Pope and says Given this context, the Pope's comments are therefore the thoughts of a private theologian and by no means an official, still less, a dogmatic utterance or teaching to the whole Church. But even as a private theologian the Pope's thought is not without impact and so it is necessary to examine exactly what he said. and Here, the Pope is pointing out that condoms cannot be the solution to the AIDS epidemic since, despite being widely available, the rampant spread of HIV continues. This reality, he notes, is recognised even by secular sources who, agreeing that a condom-only solution is no solution at all, have proposed the ABC approach to the problem. In fact, the Pope identifies the "banalization of sexuality" as the primary culprit for the spread of AIDS. The banalization of sexuality refers to the reduction of sexuality to a casual encounter, shorn of any reference to the spiritual and moral dimensions of the human person. In the modern world, sexuality is too frequently used as an instant necessary gratification for lust rather than love, somewhat comparable to the gratification received through drug use. and Pope Benedict XVI is a remarkably skilled and courageous theologian who, I believe, wishes to engage the modern world in a positive and fruitful dialogue about human sexuality so that the world's sterile and rigid ideological misconceptions of Man as nothing more than an intelligent ape might be replaced by the view of Man as a creature, only "a little lower than the angels." Ps.8:6. It seems that this is not really criticism other than just polite disagreement. Also if the Pope is not advocating condoms, then that is not really an issue. What would be an issue is if the Pope says the condoms are prohibited from being used. Clearly he wants people to put love back in sex and not make it a quick fix. The fact that the Pope said that male prostitutes can use condoms means that there is no wholesale prohibition of condom usage. However if you do find a source stating something like "the pope is wrong and is being anti reason and anti humane for being against condoms", then that would be acceptable to add. Of course, you already provided 2 countering sources already here that I would add to contrast to such a source.
Please know that I am not trying to be hard on you. I respect you and your desire to make this page better. But I think that you have to find clear sources that link criticism to religion (beliefs based on religious teaching or scriptures). "The Quran opposes reason because of...." would be an example of a criticism directly linked religion. The criticisms have to be solid and crystal clear, not indirect or subtle or implied. --Mayan1990 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"Recent calls for the abolition of kosher (Jewish) and halal (Muslim) slaughter were made by Germany's federal chamber of veterinarians" was enough, like it was, previously. Homosexuality is forbidden, and you will "burn in hell" if you fall into the category of LGBT.... <<- This is what people are usually taught, as per almost all religions's teachings. This is how it's harmful in the sense, that they are teaching, if homosexuality is completely wrong, when scientific studies claim that homosexuality is natural. [22] may help, you can add like "the ban was lifted by pope benedict who remarked that condoms can be justified morally.".. "===Suppression of scientific progress===" has to be added back too. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Everything in this article should have reliable sources backing up claims because the claims are all challenegable. All you have to do is simply find reliable source that specifically criticizes religion. The Dutch chamber sources clearly focus more on a political bill than on actual merits of kosher of halal slaughter WP:UNDUE. The PETA source is more relevant as it addresses concerns more on topic. You can elaborate on that. In terms of Homosexuality, you have to find a source stating specifically and clearly that religion is unjust. The same goes for the claims that religion is not unjust because it supports homosexuality also. Both statements are challengable, so you need clear sources to lock either one of the claims into the article. You as an editor cannot put in your own opinions into an article. It is WP:OR. Just find a reliable source that argues clearly and substantially what you are saying and that would solve the issue. Also please keep in mind that you cannot go beyond what the source says. The Telegraph source you mentioned is not a criticism of the Pope or Catholicism as it points out that condoms are permitted. If there was an issue, it is now resolved, according to the source. The "supression of of scientific progress", are you referring to the atheism sources?--Mayan1990 (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Obviously it can be, but it's quite sensible for now, that religions(almost all) condemns homosexuality. Telegraph's report, is not a criticism? Well, it provides the pope's opinion, which was main point. Also i have few more ideas, such as "cruelty to animals", we must add that Islam forbids dog as having pet, and in Kuwait there was recently campaign to kill all dogs.[23] Also we have to put that Music is also forbidden by religions such as Islam, Christianity(instrumental music). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that everything here has to have a reliable source say specifically a criticism about religious beliefs, religious teachings, religious practices being criticized directly, not bu association or indirectly. The dog thing is quite absurd because what significance does that have for this article? If Muslims cannot have dogs, what is the problem with that? Such as criticism is not notable. Also the source for the dogs thing DOES NOT criticize Islam at all or anything to do with Islam. Doesn't even mention anything about Islam at all!!!! You cannot be bringing sources like this to the article because for you to say that it has to do with Islam clearly shows that you are reading beyond the sources and putting your own spin on what the sources say and forcing words into the sources that it did not claim at all. You cannot go beyond what any source says. If a source says " A Muslim clerk killed a woman" that is not a criticism of Islam and women or religion and women. The source has to say specifically, "A Muslim clerk killed a woman because he was following the Islamic teaching of ..... which is why religion in general goes against reason and sensibility to humanity". That is more like an appropriate criticism as it links religion (general) to a criticism. If a criticism is religion specific only (i.e focuses on Christianity only or Islam only, etc) then it does not belong in this article. You cannot interpret a source beyond what it says. If a source criticizes Islam only, it is a criticism on Islam only, not religion in general (the scope of the article). To extrapolate from one specific religion to religion in general when a source does not is WP:SYN. For criticism of specific religions, they have their own page and may belong there, but not here.
In terms of music and Christianity that is not a notable criticism at all and it is not worth mentioning since Christianity has produced massive amounts of music already. Also is the music issue relating to religion general? If not, then it should be excluded. I think you are simply finding any complaints you can think of and trying to force things that do not belong in the article. For this article the criticisms have to be notable, not any minor issues that any editor sees. Dogs and music are not notable at all. Also if the criticisms are cultural and not from a clear religious source (sacred text, specific religious teaching, specific religious practice), then it should be excluded from this article. The scope of this article is religion general, not religion specific or cultural. Please keep this in mind.
In terms of the Telgraph report is not criticism look at what it says After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms. He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids. While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage. Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.” He stressed that abstinence was the best policy in fighting the disease but in some circumstances it was better for a condom to be used if it protected human life. Can you point out where any criticism is? It clearly says that the Pope is open to use of condoms and that there is a moral solution (root of the problem) in making sexuality more humane which would be even better to solve the issue of AIDS. If a condom helps prevent others from getting infected it is a "lesser evil" argument that they use to accommodate the use of condoms.
In the near future, I will continue to clean this article up as it still has many questionable sources and lots of extrapolating. Criticism should be made clear by the sources and they should link to religion in general. If a source says "Religion is anti humane because religion persecutes homosexuals" that would be acceptable and more appropriate to include in the article. But the source has to also be reliable, not just be some random website or source. Just a few thoughts on all of this.
Christianity[Genesis 19)], Islam[Qur'an 4:16], Judaism[24], condemns homosexuality, you tell me if they allow it anywhere, or regard that it's not a sin. Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, executes if you fall into any of the LGBT. Hitchens, Dawkins, and many more have condemned such rulings.
What about this one[25]? It should be mentioned that dogs are targeted by muslims, because of the religion, how many dogs as pets you see in whole middle east/north africa anyway?
[26] this one. Music is prohibited by Islam, and there has been incidents too, when this law was regarded as inhumane, by the given soure.

Bladesmulti (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you cannot use primary sources here because interpretations are not straight forward and an interpretation of a source can be challenged by someone else interpreting those same verses as cultural, not a command from God or not binding on anyone today. See policy on WP:PRIMARY. If Dawkins or Hithcens make generalized criticism on homosexuality and religion general, then they can be added. As I have already mentioned before, the dog issue and the Music issue is not a notable criticism of religion general. This article is about religion general, not specific religions (WP:COATRACK). A source must make a link between with religion in general. Since many of your suggestions are on Islam only and since the sources mention Islam only, then those belong in the Criticism of Islam page, not here. This article is about religion general, not Islam. The only sources acceptable here are the ones that link to religion general in some significant way. Please carefully read WP:BUTITSTRUE. It should provide clear answers on how wikipedia works and why an editor cannot just put in anything they thinks is true.--Mayan1990 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Why you are not signing your comments anymore? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
He's signed it now. Mayan1990 is correct about primary sources. And we cannot say that Christianity and Judaism condemn homosexuality or consider it immoral because that simply is not true as a general statement. See Religion and homosexuality. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both Mayan1990, and Dougweller here, there would be a need to edit the religious notes as basic summary, if we tried. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, I rechecked your source on music. I think you can add it into the "Suppression of art and literature" section since it does mention vague interpretations of Sharia Law. The art and literature section only has things about Islam already so I guess you can insert it there. Its up to you. --Mayan1990 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Added about music, and added the latest event, about which I knew, took a while to get back though. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary deletion of "Violent Verses in Religious Texts" page[edit]

Recently I created a new page on violent verses in religious texts for the list of all the verses which are violent towards disbelievers, women, homosexuals etc. but the user "User:Cindamuse" unnecessarily deleted it citing it duplicate to the page "Religious Violence"! Could someone please restore that page as that page has nothing to do with for or against views towards different religious texts but is simply a list of verses from various religious texts. Could someone also please issue warning to the concerned user of handling the Wikipedia in a dictatorial manner without abiding any existing framework or guidelines and handling it as if this is his/her personal property to fulfill his/her whims and fancies. I know that this is a different page but I believe that the deleted page is strongly related to this article. So someone please restore it ASAP to restore the neutrality and encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Longlastingpeace (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like that would be hard to reference from WP:Secondary sources. Editor2020 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To: Author of "Criticism of Religion"

You have written a fine article. However, you could expand the topic effectively by reading the views of the French Philosopher, Paul Ricoeur. In the early 1960's he wrote much about religion and he is the most original and effective critic of religion of the 20th century. If you added to your article in Wikipedia Ricoeur's concept of the INTERNAL and EXTERNAL critique of religion, you would find a thorough and expansive notion of the critique of religion...way beyond the work of people like Hitchens and Dawkins. The INTERNAL critique is the most difficult, but should be explained. Check out the collection of Ricoeur's work on this subject in his FIGURING THE SACRED. Also, his best exercise of his critique can be found in his essay: "Tasks of the Ecclessial Community in the modern world" which is included in the volume: Theology of Renewal, Vol. 2, L. K. Shook, ed., Palm Publishers, Montreal, 1968. I think you will enjoy learning Ricoeur's views on this matter.

Sincerely,

R. Lauck ramus4ster@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.114.211 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)