Talk:Criticism of atheism

Couple of details, might be worth adding

I'm not quite sure how things are done on the discussion pages so I hope I don't have the ettiquette wrong, but anyway in wikipedia browsing today I stumbled upon a couple of points that might be worth including (preferably, by someone who can put them into coherent arguments/sentences) about the 'Atheism as religion' idea. On one of the evolution pages, I found an interesting quote by Dawkins, "There's got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can't think of one, then that's your problem not natural selection's problem..." not really something that can be just shoved into the article, but if someone wants to take the time to fit it in (maybe find some quotes from others, more directly addressing it as an example of 'faith') (Personal view; I agree with the statement to a point. I think you can make a somewhat educated guess that a feather evolved, based on the evolutionary explanations elsewhere. But that type of 'somewhat educated guess' is precisely what I mean when I talk about faith.)

Later in this article is a comment about Atheists seperating faith into 2 types (the one usually being attributed to Atheists and the latter being attributed to Christians) What really struck me about that comment was how much the the first (the 'Atheist' type) sounds like a famous description of faith (in a Christian context) from C.S. Lewis (the quote is, I think, something like 'Faith is the faculty of maintaining what I have reasoned to be true, in the face of changing emotions and fancies') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.5.120 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One other interesting detail, but needs outside sources if anyone cares to find one. Not sure this even qualifies as 'Criticism of Atheism,' but it seems to me that one of the fascinating characteristics of Atheism versus other religions is that one can denounce, say, an evil 'Christian' as acting in a way that clearly goes against the Bible, but one cannot denounce an evil Atheist as acting in a way that goes against Atheism. (Unless, to be pedantic, we're talking about someone like the Maquis de Sade who's hatred of God clearly runs contrary the Atheist belief in the absence of God. But, even then, it's only the hatred of God that can be deemed "contrary to Atheism," there's nothing else about him that can be termed 'un-Atheistic,' in the same way that, say, pedophile priests can be termed 'un-Christian')

I just figured, if I've thought about this peculiarity (flaw?) in Atheism, there must be others who have thought likewise (more notable & quotable people) and they might have a quote or two we can add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.5.120 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheism and the Communist regimes.

Theres a common arguement against Atheism being good for society by pointing to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ect. Maybe we could put a section on this plus the Atheists' responses. Bobisbob (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone knowledgeable can extend the article by describing the role of atheism in communist societies, that would be great. However, I hope that this isn't read as an invitation to "put in that atheism isn't good for society and see what they say about that" (and I'm sure that this isn't what Bobisbob intends): every contribution should WP:NPOV in its own right. It's true that the adversarial approach to achieving NPOV is common in very many many articles about writers on atheism and their books, but that doesn't make it the right approach. It engenders hostility rather than co-operation and wastes huge amounts of everybody's time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I wasn't talking about the athiests on wiki responses to the arguement. I meant to put the rebuttals Harris, Dennett ect have make to the arguement. I myself do not think this arguement holds water but it is used alot. Bobisbob (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification: your suggested addition would be an improvement to the article. I don't really feel qualified, but if there are no other takers (and this wouldn't be any time soon)... --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' argument (if it deserves to be called such), referred to in the main article, that "Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists but did not kill people because of their atheism" is so breathtakingly false and beside the point that the only thing even more breathtaking is how little it has been met with criticism. Millions of people were killed or brought into camps both in the Soviet Union and in China precisely because of their religious views (millions of others for other reasons, but so what?), and during the whole Soviet era religious people were systematically discriminated against both in their working career (no promotions for openly religious, many other disadvantages too) and studies (no scholarships etc.), schoolchildren were asked at school whether they and their parents practised religion at home, and so on (and this is still going on in China). And all this allegedly because Stalin, Mao and other leaders "happened to be atheists"! As George Orwell (no religious man) put it: one has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that - no ordinary man could be such a fool. - - Voice from Finland, January 21th 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.197.173 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has deep flaws. The % of Chinese killed in Mao's anti-counterrevolutionary campaigns and Great Leap Foward as well as in Stalin's purges compare favorably to Nehru's India, Japanese Imperialism, The Revolutionary War, Spanish Civil War, the French Revolution, and is far exceeded by the European Imperialism (where going to Christianize these inferior heathens)Crusades(Please), the spread of Islam, the Spanish Conquistadors(God, King and Gold), US anti-communism cold war policy(fighting the godless atheistic heathens), Christopher Columbus(he tortured innocent civilians for a stated religious purpose), the genocide of the Native Americans(close to 100%, there was overt religious justification for that), the Inquisition. In addition, there is the establishment of theocracies, 9/11, Al-Qaeda and the Islamofascists are very obviously faith based, as was rampant anti-semitism in Europe prior to V-E day, Francisco Franco was a devout catholic, in addition, the Church supported fascist regimes, Hitler and Mussolini manipulated christianity for his own purposes, and all of this is irrelevant to whether or not atheism or religion or any political ideology is moral/immoral. For example how can one be a "communist", meaning belief in creating an egalitarian classless stateless society where all property is owned by everyone and society is organized in independent communes, and order an execution? You believe in a stateless society but you think it is okay for the state to kill someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense and rubbish. It didn't matter what religion a person was: Stalin was a psychotic, mass-murdering megalomaniac, and Mao wasn't far behind with the cult-of-personality. Religion had nothing to do with it. Trying to poison the well with such garbage is laughably pathetic. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

True of Stalin, but his claim of no-one being murdered or imprisoned for the sake of atheism is also utter nonsense and rubbish. Or at least misleading. Enver Hoxha at least did imprison people for not being atheism. There's also been violently atheistic anti-clerical groups in the history of Latin America. You could say all these were simply atheist philosophies, but you could also religions are theist philosophies and not theism itself.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalin killed people to maintain his own power, and for no other reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the claim isn't nonsense and rubbish at all. Being anti-clerical and atheist doesn't mean you imprison people for not being atheists. Talk about a flagrant non sequitur! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right so when a regime like Hoxha's declares itself an "atheist state" and says it's imprisoning people simply for religion it's still not persecution that favors atheism to theism. Likewise the actions of the Society of the Godless had nothing to do with a group of atheists hostile to religious types. Granted in a way that theory works. An Islamic state that declares disbelief in God to be the only religious outlook that will be punished is arguably still not persecuting in the name of God or theism. The same with an Islamic terror group that devotes itself to killing apostate atheists. Those cases are simply about an Islamic group or groups persecuting atheists, theism or religion as a concept is uninvolved. I'm just skeptical atheists would feel quite the same way.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So one instance means it's that way in all instances? Fallacy of composition/non sequitur/poisoning the well. Please PLEASE learn to not use fallacies. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And maybe you could learn to you know read what's actually been said in a discussion. The original proposition was no one was murdered or imprisoned for the sake of atheism. A few instances is enough to dispute that claim. Considering you call yourself "Knight of BAAWA" can I ask if you're 14 or 15?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. Looking at the original proposition, you're not being honest as to what the original proposition was.

I'll take the high road and not bother with your childish question. If you want to be uncivil, you can be. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That was probably a tad mean. You've been kind of snide in your own way, but I can get too condescending.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You confuse being blunt and pulling no punches with being snide. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm sorry for bothering you.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also this article should plausibly be called "Defense of atheism from criticism" as this has pretty much always been the purpose and focus.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so. See WP:CFORK - "… the "Criticism of …" article should contain rebuttals if available". -- Jmc (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, withdrawn--T. Anthony (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good man! You're clearly one of a breed too rare around these parts. -- Jmc (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Dawkins comment. The second qoute by Dinesh was a response to Dawkin's claim that they didn't kill in the name of athiesm. (see the source) Besides Sam Harris' response is a good enough rebuttal on it's own. Bobisbob (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Dawkins's comment is still a rebuttal to Dinesh's first quote, about "The crimes of atheism...". If his second quote is a response to Dawkins, then that's all the more reason to include it - we can't just put in one side of the argument, and leave the other side out. Mdwh (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So now we have someone (CyberGhostFace) who doesn't understand what a strawman is, and that you don't need a source to say that it is. Fallacies do not need some external source to identify them, CyberGhostFace. It's neither POV or OR to say that "evolution says we come from monkeys" is a strawman. Similarly, it's neither POV or OR to point out that it's a strawman of what atheism is to imply that atheism = communism. Do you understand now? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the arguments listed in the criticism section even say "communism = atheism". Obviously there are atheists who are not communists and communists who aren't atheists. But pointing out that a lot of totalitarian regimes were atheistic in nature isn't a strawman's argument, so your disclaimer is unneccessary.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh's argument does imply that communism is atheism, and vice-versa, and it even discusses that the atrocities were done in the name of atheism. And if you agree that obviously there are atheists who are not communists, and communists who aren't atheists: I need you to cite your source. After all: that's what you expect of me. So cite your source. It should be easy, right?

If you don't cite your source, then I'll just put the paragraph back. The paragraph criticizes Dinesh's argument by showing that atheism isn't communism, and communism isn' atheism. Further, since atheism has already been defined in the main article, it must be clear that Dinesh's attempt at smuggling something into atheism which isn't there qualifies as a strawman. Do you NOW understand? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I'm not the one throwing in my opinions onto the article. As it is now we have one person's argument and another's rebuttal. Both are cited. That's enough.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And mine was cited, too. The explanation of the fallacies were there, as well as showing that the fallacies were used. What do you think the wikilinks were? Did you just not see them? Further: you have the burden of proof. You're the one saying here that "obviously there are atheists who are not communists, and communists who aren't atheists". I expect proof, since that's precisely what I was saying! If you're agreeing with me, and I need to provide proof of it: so do you! Even on the talk page, you have to provide proof. After all: I wouldn't want you to be inconsistent.

It's also not enough to just have a "rebuttal"; a short-but-clear examination of the argument itself is helpful to show precisely the reasons that the argument holds no weight. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously not aware of Wikipedia's policies, are you?

You should see Wikipedia's rules on Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Wikilinks in itself aren't reliable sources. You need a reliable source of someone stating your opinion. "[Insert random atheist apologist here] states that so and so's argument is a strawman, because...." followed up a source that verifies your information. Obviously to you the argument holds no weight but not everyone shares your opinion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite aware of them; they simply aren't applicable in this cause because it's not a synthesis or original research. Identifying fallacies is like that, you know. Fallacies are fallacies are fallacies, no matter what. And wikilinks are a reliable source in this case. Look: I really have no idea what your problem is here. But I'll let you have your POV edit, since it's clear from your "atheist apologist" comment that your removal of the text was just from your POV. No problem. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that I disagree with it, but I wouldn't have removed it had been sourced (if I were to remove everything on my personal views alone there'd be little left. I will also point out that I have removed POV comments in the past even though I may have personally agreed with them.). I don't see the "fallacy" either, because I never got the impression that he was accusing all atheists of being communists, just that atheism was prevalent in that particular situation(s). If you want, you can bring it up to a noticeboard and see if you'll get a different opinion but I doubt it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Will this help you see the source? Dinesh's own words are the source. Thus: the source IS THERE. "Further, this criticism is simply a poisoning the well fallacy variant, as well as a strawman of atheism, viz: "the crimes of atheism…", rather than "the crimes of communism…". It is clear that not all communists are atheists (see Christian Communism), not all atheists are communists (see Ayn Rand), and attacking atheism via communism attempts to paint atheists in a negative light initially so as to discredit anything they may say, thus poisoning the well." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight of BAAWA (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because again, thats your personal viewpoint. You're making your own conclusions based on the quotes. Again, see WP:SYN. Who says its a strawman? You do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's not my personal viewpoint. I don't think you grasp how fallacies work; they are independent of someone's viewpoint! Have you ever had a course in logic or philosophy (I ask that seriously, and not with any malintent)? If you have, you'd know that fallacies aren't subjective. Thus, synthesis does not apply. I fail to see why you think it does. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. I know what a fallacy is. I just don't see how its any more of fallacy than the atheists pointing out the stuff done in the name of a religion. Because he's not saying "Therefore, all atheists are like Stalin" or "All atheists are communists", he's just pointing out that horrible stuff has been done in the name of atheism. --CyberGhostface (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See, now you're confusing what's going on, and you're trying a tu quoque fallacy in your attempt. Dinesh IS saying that all atheists are like Stalin and that all atheists are communists because he said "the crimes of ATHEISM". Did you miss that? And since what was done wasn't in the name of atheism (Dinesh never proves that it was; he merely asserts), you too are guilty of creating a strawman. So clearly: you do not know what fallacies are, and you honestly don't grasp what Dinesh wrote. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that any different from saying "the crimes of religion" when talking about religious terrorism or whatnot? I mean, surely when an atheist says that he doesn't mean all Christians are crazy bigots? He's not saying all atheists are communists. Even after reading your comments, I still don't see your logic when rereading the quote. If you still have a problem with it, bring it up on an admin noticeboard. --CyberGhostface (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again: tu quoque fallacy. Further: you didn't see me saying anything about the crimes of religion. So you've--strawmanned my position! This is a criticism of atheism page, and what you're bringing up about "the crimes of religion" has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING here. Further, Dinesh IS saying all atheists are communists: " The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. That means he says all atheists are communists. If you don't see it in the quote, I suggest you read it over and over. It's there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said you said anything. I'm just pointing out that there are lots of quotes like that on the anti-religion articles. And again, he's not saying all atheists are communists. I still don't see it. Either way, its not up for us to throw what we think it means on the article unless we have a source to back the opinion. I just took a look at a handful of articles which "straw man" is linked from. None of them presented "This is a straw man argument" as fact. They had "So and so says that this is a straw man argument [insert source here]".--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He says "the crimes of atheism", not "the crimes of communism". That necessarily means he's saying that all atheists are communists, since he further goes on with the "perpetrated through..." section, equating atheism and communism. I don't get how you can't grasp that, and I won't hazard to guess why (out of politeness). And Dinesh's own statement is the source! I don't get why you can't grasp that, either. Further, you can point out quotes from "anti-religion" articles, but those are red herrings. They mean nothing here. They have no standing here. They have no merit here. All that needs to be pointed out is that since atheism and communism are separate entities, implying that atheism and communism are the same is to create a strawman of atheism (that is, to create a different position than what atheism is). But you have it your way, ok. Your bias is showing again. Why else do you keep bringing up things from "anti-religion" articles when they have no bearing here? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* You're jumping from Point 2 to Point 10. Yes, he's saying its crimes of atheism. Because he's making an argument against atheism, not communism. That doesn't mean he's saying ALL atheists are communists. You're seriously grasping at straws here. JMC pretty much summed up the argument below.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't resist leaping into the cauldron to make a couple of points (and then leap out again).

1) Knight of BAAWA: "That necessarily means [D'Souza]'s saying that all atheists are communists".

I believe that's a conclusion too far. D'Souza's claim that the "crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology" seeking to "create a secular utopia" applies equally to atheistic fascist regimes, as Harris recognises in his response: "The problem with fascism and communism ...".

2) Knight of BAAWA: "I don't think you grasp how fallacies work; they are independent of someone's viewpoint! ... fallacies aren't subjective."

Granted, but the identification of fallacies is subjective, and I think that's what's happening here. Knight of BAAWA's contention that "Dinesh's attempt at smuggling something into atheism which isn't there qualifies as a strawman" is Knight of BAAWA's subjective identification of the strawman fallacy. However, CyberGhostface doesn't accept that D'Souza is in fact smuggling something into atheism which isn't there (nor, FWIW, do I) and so doesn't believe that the straw man fallacy is in play here.

-- Jmc (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It's a proper conclusion, since Dinesh SOLELY listed communists for examples, as well as wrote: "…all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist" IOW: atheism = communism/communism = atheism.

2. The identification of fallacies isn't subjective. Any logic or philosophy prof will tell you that.

- Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's simply answer both your responses, Knight of BAAWA, by pointing out that you're committing the straw man fallacy yourself by positing that D'Souza has said something that he hasn't. -- Jmc (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens suggests in "God is Not Great" that certain supposedly atheist people creating officially atheist states have done nothing of the sort. He provides an interesting argument for religiosity and the cult of personality in the case of Stalin, Mao and the Kim family of North Korea. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to read what the religious zealots are writing here w.r.t. atheism and communism. These dumbass Christian evangelicals (if I may presume) should get their heads out of their own asses and think with their brains: "there's a difference in KILLING in the NAME of atheism than KILLING people while you happen to be an atheist. And if you think being religious gives you morality that's just bullshit - statistically there are way more Christian evangelicals that commit adultery in the US than any other religious group, just take Ted Haggard as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Children of the dragon (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Many people actually consider communism to be a religion. Also certain commonly recognized religions such as Buddhism have no deities and therefore atheistic religions, that's to prove the point that religion can be Atheistic. But even Atheistic religion is still a religion. With Communist regimes non adherence to communist believes is punishable, while religious people is clearly do not adhere to Communism, Atheists may or may not adhere to it and if they not adhere they also prosecuted by Communists but with the formal reason of treason. Atheism itself is only a concept of non-existence of God which is a basis of many different ideologies and religions; it is comparable to concept of existence of god that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Zoroastrians and many others share. So blaming all Atheists for crimes of Communism is like blaming all God believers for crimes of Osama ben Laden or Inquisition.

OK, lets discuss stuff

I have made edits to this article but Pariah suggested that changes like the ones I did should be discussed on the talk page. I took out parts that are not related to criticism of atheism, and sections that do not belong to this article. Take a look at the edits I had made via history. Tell me what you think. --Volcano00 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain with more detail why you feel they should removed?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's true that you removed things which weren't criticisms of atheism, however the point is that they are rebuttals to criticisms that have been made of atheism, and so still belong in this article. For WP:NPOV, it is fair to present referenced views both for and against each criticism. Mdwh (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wanting to use this source to rebut the criticism that Atheism leads to more immoral behaviors and social issues. Is this an acceptable source? http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html Ukvilly (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to check out. Go ahead an use it. Artichoker^[talk] 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal

To take one passage from Pensées on "boredom" and to link it with a passage about dissatisfaction four pages later, in a chapter on the "supreme good", in an attempt to develop a point is original research, specifically synthesis, and not allowed. This edit reinstates material twice deleted for these reasons. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, once again. Thanks User:Artichoker. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis is combining different sources. Only one source is used - so naturally the points are linked. Pascal clearly makes one point (man is bored and hollow) and later makes another point (abyss is filled by God). Stating that he makes both points in the same book is not synthesis. It is stating what he says in the book.

In addition, the first quote discusses the condition of man himself (ie without God) as being bored/miserable: "9 Diversion.'If man were happy the less diverted the happier he would be, like the Saints and God'-'Yes but is not happiness the ability to be amused by diversion?'-'No because that comes from elsewhere and from outside...'". Both points are relevant alone or together and are clearly related which is why they are in the same book.

Since the introduction to the first quote was evidently confusing, i propose we change it to something like 'pascal... discusses the human condition in itself without God in saying'. Let me know what you think. Also, this section needs a rebuttal to meet the neutrality standards of wikipedia, like all sections of all articles. Perhaps something related to the purpose of life from non-deistic philosophies/religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Morality section - add Kant & Voltaire

I think that it would be relevant to add both Kant and Voltaire's views for the practical necessity of the existence of God (for morality). Let me know what you think (and if someone else can type this up cause I can't be bothered :P).

Rejection of Theistic Argument Section needs work

My comments will be in bold.

The primary criticism of atheism is that it rejects belief in any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods. In the view of theist and deist critics Are these critics of theists and deists? Poor choice of wording. How about In the view of theists and deists critical of Atheism,[38] there is a variety of long-established arguments confirming the existence of God. Too POV. How about long-established arguments believed by deists and theists to confirm the existence of God. However, atheists regard these as unconvincing or flawed.[39] An early example of such criticism is found in the Bible: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God' ",[40] while a more recent example is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion".[2]Ukvilly (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, please be BOLD and go ahead and fix the article. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Ukvilly's changes serve to obscure, rather than clarify. More importantly, I can't see that the reasons offered have any vaildity:

1) To call someone 'a theist critic' is to say "This person is a theist and a critic". Cf 'Marxist critic' - a critic who is a Marxist. There is no ambiguity. "theists and deists critical of Atheism" is both awkward and unnecessary.

2) "In the view of theist and deist critics, there is a variety of long-established arguments confirming the existence of God." Too POV? I can't see it. "In the view of theist and deist critics" surely makes it plain that the reference is to the view of theist and deist critics rather than the view of WP.

If more convincing justifications of Ukvilly's changes can't be offered, I propose to (boldly) revert.

-- Jmc (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1) If someone is called a movie critic, it means they offer a critical viewpoint of movies. Hence, calling someone a theist critic makes it sound as if they are critical of theism.

2) Perhaps a complete rewording of that sentence is in order. Ukvilly (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1) "If someone is called a movie critic, it means they offer a critical viewpoint of movies" - 'movie' is a noun, and hence the phrase means 'critic of movie(s)', while 'theist' (likewise 'deist') is an adjective and hence the phrase means 'critic who is theist'. Cf 'a fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist critic of the régime'. Ukvilly needs to produce a counter-example with a qualifying adjective.

2) "Perhaps a complete rewording of that sentence is in order." Why?

--Jmc (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See your new 1) and change it to the format of the example you gave. "'a fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist critic of the régime. Or since theist and deist are also nouns as well as adjectives, how about theistic and deistic critics?"

2)Because perhaps a complete rewording would eliminate any confusion? Ukvilly (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The qualifiers in 'a theist/deist/fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist critic' are functionally different from the qualifiers in 'a movie/book/website critic'. The meaning of the former is plainly 'a critic who is a theist/deist/fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist'. If the qualifiers in the latter were functionally identical, then that phrase would mean 'a critic who is a movie/book/website'! No comparison, no confusion.

2) Where is the confusion?

--Jmc (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1)If it were plainly, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

2)In the wording. I suggest we allow a neutral party to make a rewrite. This article is High-Importance, yet has been start class for three and a half years. I think some redoing is in order. Ukvilly (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This section was rewritten over two years ago, following exhaustive discussion amongst a number of editors, and no such objection has been raised since then. I suggest that indicates that its meaning is plain and requires no rewording. -- Jmc (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Or one can take it to suggest that it needs work because this article is still start-class. I stand by my opinion that a third party should present an alternative rewriting of the section, and we can go from there. Ukvilly (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Start class? Granted the article still has weaknesses, but the "start class" rating was assigned in January of 2007 (diff). I don't know why it hasn't been more recently re-rated, but it has been significantly expanded and improved since the version current at that time. In particular, the sourcing has been massively improved. Wherever we may stand on the particular issue at hand, I don't think it's valid any longer to argue on the basis of the start class rating. EastTN (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to say that this article most likely still start-class. It contains numerous clean-up tags, citation needed tags, the lead is woefully inadequate, the article lacks comprehensiveness (i.e. history of criticism section) This article is still in need of drastic improvement. Artichoker^[talk] 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] It might be good to get a couple of experienced editors who haven't been working with the article in here to rate it. I'd have said that it easily meets the criteria for a "C class" article. There's a "weasel word" tag at the top, which prompted a good bit of clean up by several editors. There's also an "undue weight" tag at the top which, given the nature of the article, may well be there forever - someone's always going to think it leans too much to one side or the other. Beyond that, there are currently two "citation needed" tags.

Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager.

A number of religions also suggest that atheism has highly negative effects on the individuals after death: a point taken up by Pascal in Pascal's Wager (see picture and caption).

Neither statement is all that central to the article, and in my opinion both could be deleted without our losing too much.

A history section would be nice, and I'd certainly support working on it if we can find appropriate sources, but I'm not sure it's essential given the nature of the article. For instance, while the Criticism of Religion and Criticism of Islam articles both include history sections, the Criticism of Marxism and Criticism of Christianity articles do not. We may find that one would help organize the article or provide useful context, but if the article can cover the most common criticisms leveled at atheism without a history section that strikes me as fine too.

The criteria for a C class article are:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

More detailed criteria

The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.

It seems to me that we're there. There may still be some stuff that's missing - such as a history section - but the article is substantial and certainly has "some references to reliable sources" at this point. The question of balance is still something we need to work on, but it has been greatly improved in style, structure and quality over the last year or so. EastTN (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)