Talk:Criticism of atheism

Atheism and Totalitarian Regimes correction from The God Delusion

This is what the article use to say:

"Richard Dawkins has stated that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[52] and opines that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[85] On other occasions, Dawkins has replied to the argument that Hitler and Stalin were atheists with the response that Hitler and Stalin also grew moustaches in an effort to show the argument as fallacious.[86]

This is what someone else added it later:

Dawkins also replied that Hitler was not atheist, or at least did not declare himself as so, and that he didn't directly execute most of the atrocities of the Nazi regime, that were executed by German soldiers or civilians, most of whom were Christian at that time.[87]

The link provided below "[87]" doesn't say that. Infact, the link doesn't mention Richard Dawkins at all and that link isn't in the notes section of The God Delusion either. ^ http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005206

The relevant passages that ARE mentioned by Richard Dawkins in his book are as follows:

"Even if we accept that Hitler shared atheism in common, they both also had moustaches, as does Saddam Hussein....What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. The is not the smallest evidenc that it does." Page 309.

I removed that last added passage as being irrelevant and added in an excert using Richard Dawkins own words since that would make more sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.168.211 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 May 2010

Minor emphasis in Atheism and the individual section

Hey Mann Jess, to follow up on this, I think that as the last sentence currently stands, it could be confused that atheism is the cause. Since the quote in the reference mentions that atheism is not the cause of social health, but that social health may facilitate people to have less theistic beliefs as it would not be seen "necessary". This should be clarified in the article to prevent incorrect attribution. Correlation may be confused with causation. What can we do here? Perhaps different wording that represents the quote in the reference more adequately. I plan on revising other sections on this article since it looks too choppy. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been following those edits, and my take when I saw the revert was that I agreed with Mann Jess that the sentence Ramos added sounded like it had been unsourced editorializing – but now that I see Ramos' rationale here, I think this is a good point, about cause and effect. I haven't yet gone back to read what the cited source says about it, but I think that we may well be dealing with the remnants of some WP:SYNTH on the part of whoever added the material originally. Instead of approaching it as a statement, then rebuttal format, I'd rather see a single statement that correctly reflects what the source really says (or leave the whole thing out if the source decided that the relationship to atheism was inconclusive). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Trypofish, glad to hear your thoughts. The added information was meant to be statement, then context, not statement, then rebuttal, but I guess it didn't come out that way. I will re-word that last phrase to reflect the contents of the reference quote (click the ref to see the whole quote) more appropriately instead of adding on. I think it was a remnant also since it looks awkward (the section is about individuals not societies). Usually sociologists offer warnings that correlations are not causations necessarily since many factors come to play (race, population, culture, government structure, resources, economic habits, etc.), not just one. Obviously unhealthy societies with low theistic belief exist too and have existed and so have healthy ones. The same could be said of societies that have lots of theistic belief - they vary. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Ramos

I reverted a set of edits by Ramos because they appear to misrepresent the tone of the source or are otherwise problematic. I have a copy of the relevant pages if necessary.

"...there are positive correlations, among some developed countries that have a noticeable number of people who lack theistic belief, on measures like health,[11][12] life expectancy, and other factors of well being"

— Ramos1990

This makes it sound as though the source is discussing negative implications of atheism on social health, but let me quote from the source:

In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy.

and

Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God, as has been demonstrated by Norris and Inglehart (2004)

These edits are cherry picked to justify the addition of certain viewpoints while ignoring the greater context of the source. SÆdon^talk 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how the edit you noted is cherry picked by me. My amendment does not sound like it is mentioning the negative. I was building up on the statement that was already there and rewording it to reflect more of the contents. It originally noted only that countries with more atheists have better social health. The cherry picking was done by someone else, not me. I was trying to rectify something that could give readers the wrong impression of the contents of the reference. As it stands it still has the same problem!!! I was just trying to add context that correlations are not causes, as the reference quote noted. Just as is noted in the actual reference quote, atheism is not necessarily the cause of social health and theism is not necessarily the cause of social ills, rather the reference states ** social health facilitates individuals to depend less on gods and social insecurity facilitates individuals to depend more on gods **. This is an important point to understand. People see correlations and they equate to causes, that is why I noted this before to make sure that people who read this article do not think that atheism CAUSES social health. I own this reference myself and others on sociology and know that this distinction is important. On another thing, I wanted to ask why was the paper "Atheism" by William Bainbridge removed? Since there are social issues on individuals mentioned already I think this is viable data on the topic. I noted that there is correlation among atheists and weak social obligations, but not a cause. I was being careful here too. The paper notes this. I think this can be included as a criticism of atheists. There are studies also on happiness, charity, and atheists which I think are relevant to this article also. What are your thoughts on this. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, the source characterizes countries that have a higher proportion of atheists overwhelmingly positively and therefore it is not cherry picking to represent the conclusions of the source. Your edit removed the positive aspects of atheism and used the source to focus on the minor negative aspects when you deleted the sentence regarding wealth. That entire chapter is dealing with the fact that social health in almost all respects in higher in atheistic countries. Further, how can an atheist be "religiously ethnocentric?" SÆdon^talk 20:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Correlation and causation are by no means the same thing. There may be a high correlation among prosperous countries and atheism, however, that is not to say that atheism is the driving force or cause, rather, that accelerates prosperity. In turn, one should not say that prosperity causes atheism. There may be numerous reasons for why a country is prosperous. To say that it is prosperous as a result of atheism is simply jumping the gun. It is perfectly valid to note the correlation, but that should not justify any sort of causation of the matter. [User:Goatsy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.225.214 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I am confused. How is my amendment diminishing the reference quote? How did it remove the positive aspects? The relevant material is in Zuckerman's conclusion in the reference quote - which you did not quote in full when you addressed my amendment. You ignored the critical part when you addressed me. Here is the WHOLE quote In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy. Of course, none of the above correlations demonstrate that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills. Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God, as has been demonstrated by Norris and Inglehart (2004), mentioned above. p.59 The relevant points should be reflected in the article. My amendment does not diminish the positives, nor is it cherry picking at all, especially since I mention "well being" which includes social benefits and the structure of the sentence is still the same as it was before. You can add "wealth" back if you want, but it seems ridiculous not to mention what the reference also mentions - ** Of course, none of the above correlations demonstrate that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills. Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God **.

In fact if you read Zuckerman's whole paper you will notice that he uses Norris and Inglehart's resource-security interpretation throughout to interpret possible reasons for why some countries have low god belief and notes that conditions like economic security, low infant mortality, etc may contribute to lower need to appeal to gods(p. 55-59). Nowhere does he assert that atheism causes these things, but he frequently implies that these things may facilitate lower appeals to divinities. He also notes that there are exceptions from both sides - e.g. Vietnam and Ireland (p. 57). He also notes that "healthy" countries are also very few and mainly concentrated in a very small region of the world with a decreasing population. Also, since the reference for most of the sentence is Phil Zuckerman, not Gregory Paul or Michael Martin, this needs to be corrected. I may actually delete this sentence if this keeps up since it looks to be out of place, its incorrectly attributed, incorrectly represented, and its causing unnecessary misunderstanding between us. In terms of "religious ethnocentrism" in the study by Altemeyer, "active" atheists, not to be mistaken to mean "ordinary" atheists, did indeed show very high in-group and out-group discrimination. This is was one of the measures in the study along with dogmatism, charity, and a few others. The empirical finds are intriguing. My edits were not meant to offend you or anyone, but to make the article better with good sources and better reflection of the contents of the refernces. I am trying to make this article better since it has many issues and no one seems to be wanting to fix them. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, can you re-factor your comment so it's not a gigantic wall of text and is somewhat more readable (break it into paragraphs for example)? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I will wait to see if anyone responds. Today seems slow. I am more inclined to remove the information for the reasons mentioned above and also since the section re-title of including "societies" was not desired by the other editors there should be no information on societies - only information on individuals. As Tryptofish noted in the section above, this looks out of place and is a remnant. Probably was a "rebuttal" to something before. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have been holding back from commenting until now, because I wanted to see what others might say, but I think I can now offer this. Some of the most recent discussion seems to me to have come from different editors looking at different parts of the recent editing history. I think that what Saedon was concerned about was not the same thing that IRWolfie reverted.

Saedon reacted to Ramos' language about "The correlation implies that social health may facilitate atheism, not vice versa." and so forth, and I think now that Saedon is correct that saying it that way, in Wikipedia's voice, sounds like we are contradicting the source, which does indeed say that atheism correlates with these things.

On the other hand, Ramos' most recent edit was simply to remove the fragmented material entirely, which actually was not unreasonable, nor particularly contrary to the discussion here. What I think is a bit weak with the language that now remains is that it makes it sound like atheism causes the various good things in society, whereas the source says instead that the various good things are what help atheism take hold. Rather than add clarifying statements, though, we would do better to get the existing statement right, assuming we keep it at all.

I tend to think that we would be better off not deleting the passage, but rewriting the main text to make it better conform to the source. I'm going to make a bold/BRD edit like that now, so everyone please see what you think, and feel free to revert me if I get it wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Trypofish, good edit. I think this is a step forward in a reasonable direction if we keep it. A few issues need more addressing. I will remove Gregory Paul and Michael Martin and replace with "some studies" since there are two separate sources one by Paul and one by Zuckerman. Also I will remove one of the redundant references since the same sentence has the same reference a few times. This simple editing was all I was tying to do so that it reflects the actual reference. No need to go alarmist over one phrase. Another issue is, considering that both references attempt a simplified assessment (no multivariate analysis, no cultural or political considerations to asses the individual nations and their correlations, strange generalizing over what is "religious" and what is "secular" ) on societies , not individuals, should it be kept in the end? I added "societies" a few days ago to the section title and it was reverted. Assessing individuals is different than assessing individual societies and assessing individual societies is different than assessing cross national data on multiple topics (particularly because there are methodological problems which compound and do lead to incorrect conclusions and gross generalizations (Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health: A Research Note - Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Mark Caleb Smith, and Thomas Mach (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.pdf)) FYI. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm good with the further edit you made. I'd like to hear what other editors think about individual/society. Maybe it's a problem, but I'm not really convinced that it's that big a deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear thoughts on it also. But if info on societies will be included, then the section title should be expanded. Anyways I am going to be bold and re-add the data on social obligations since no one has mentioned anything contrary to it. Feel free to amend.Ramos1990 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just noting that the recent removal justification of Willam Bainbridge's citation by IRWolfie is a bit awkward and unsubstantiated considering that the source author is National Science Foundation staff and is an extensive researcher as a sociologist who has authored many sociological articles and books before. One can find his resume here [1] to see his credentials. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of New Atheism

Is adding material specifically targeting criticism of the New Atheism, due in this article?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Absolutely. The New Atheists, though they use old arguments and ideas, are a recent social phenomenon which has received considerable criticism for their propagation of "secular" atheism and even more broadly on anti-supernaturalism. This information is indeed relevant as it deals with atheism and criticism of this worldview. Therefore, if you wish, you may contribute on this topic. Just make sure to provide citations. I hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

New Atheism - Criticisms might be a starting point. -- Jmc (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jmc, thanks for the enthusiasm and starting point. Here are some articles on criticisms that may be of use [2], [3], and [4]. I have a few more scholarly sources which I may enter in at some point, but this should provide materials for the moment. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I recently found a book named Religion and the New Atheism and I am planning to use it here.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Ramos1990 - there're interesting viewpoints in those articles.

24.94.18.234, I take it that you're referring to Amarasingam's collection - there's good material there, too. -- Jmc (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I added a New Atheists section since there seems to be some good ideas floating around. Go ahead and contribute to make this article better. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ramos. While I (obviously) don't object to adding sourced content to the article within this scope, we have to be careful to adhere to WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYN. The opinions of any old commentator may not themselves warrant coverage on wikipedia, so it's important to see if their views have gained traction elsewhere, rather than simply being presented once in a blog. Similarly, we have to take care to represent only what the sources are saying, and not interpret them broadly to make connections which may be tenuous. For instance, the last source that was added about Humanism mainly talked about the subject's concern about Humanism, not any criticism of Atheism. Indeed, his only direct characterization of New Atheism was overtly positive; he ventured as far as to criticize "militant atheists", but that's a different subject altogether. In the same vein, criticism of Dawkins or Harris is not criticism of Atheism. I've cleaned up the section a bit. The remaining paragraph is iffy as well, but I've left it in for now because I'm not sure what to make of it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Jess, I have been watching this article for a while and have been noticing that much of the reasons to remove content is generally awkward. I agree with some of your observations, though this was just to start off the section in the first place. I don't think that the additions were stretching the articles, rather they were including things that were being criticized about the New Atheists which is what the section title was called.

The Humanist piece does indeed say that the author does find some usefulness in New Atheists , but it also says the core concern of the positive humanist image as being threatened by them: "Concerned that his positive vision of humanism is being threatened and perhaps eclipsed with a new brand of acerbic atheism, Paul Kurtz has drafted and released just this week a new "Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Values and Principles." and "Now with the emergence of "the new atheism" Kurtz finds himself in the uncomfortable position of being the elder statesman and founder of a movement tempted by tactics he has warned against before." and "Writing in the December 2009/January 2010 issue of Free Inquiry, the magazine he founded, Kurtz declared "militant atheism is often truncated and narrow-minded...it is not concerned with the humanist values that ought to accompany the rejection of theism. The New Atheists, in my view, have made an important contribution to the contemporary cultural scene because they have opened religious claims to public examination...What I object to are the militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons and will have nothing to do with agnostics, skeptics, or those who are indifferent to religion, dismissing them as cowardly."

Does this not offer some criticism of the New Atheists? Its all in the quote from the article. Its threatening the positive image that humanists have struggled to build due to the narrow minded thinking and tactics that have been used. Clearly the balance of the article is on what the New Atheism has been doing to Humanism. Why would this not be relevant in this section?

Also the other piece that you removed included criticism of the view the New Atheists in that they have a very narrow understanding of religions. Even you noticed it since your recent edit summary said "Cleanup. First article is criticism of 4 horsemen (and misunderstanding of religion generally), not atheism.)". Isn't this the point? Its focus is the New Atheists - not atheism in general. It was arguing against the conceptions of the New Atheists as being to narrow minded when it comes to how they see religions. The focus of the article is NOT how general people conceive "religion", its how the New Atheists conceive it.

Finally the other remaining article, I am not sure why you stated "The remaining paragraph is iffy as well, but I've left it in for now because I'm not sure what to make of it." How can you not make anything of it? Clearly this one is a definite criticism of how the "root of all evil" mentality, which they have, is being criticized. I would like to know how you imagine a criticism to look like and what you think should be criticized? Obviously criticisms come in different ways from partial disagreement to total disagreements with different parts and ideas. But I would like to know your perspective on this as this lack of clarity will bring about issues later on.

I don't think the citations need to be removed, they only need to be reworded, if anything, since they were all criticizing different aspects of the New Atheists. What do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems I might not have been entirely clear. Let me try rewording my comment above with your response in mind. Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Similarly, New Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Criticizing 4 atheists is not the same as criticizing Atheism, and after all, this article is not "Criticism of Richard Dawkins". When a source criticizes 4 atheists in particular for their specific actions, we can't extrapolate and say it is a criticism of Atheism generally.

The author of that first article doesn't just criticize those 2 to 4 atheists, of course. He also goes on to criticize public awareness about religion generally (which seems to be his main point). But of course, that doesn't belong in this article either. We have to be careful. Wording like "These new atheists" or "This new atheist" are not criticisms of New Atheism any more than saying "That man..." is a criticism of men. The author criticizes a few individuals within the "New Atheist movement", and goes on to criticize the public at large, but that belongs in their bios, or something like Religious education perhaps, but not this (general) article.

In the same vein, "militant atheism" is not Atheism (or even New Atheism). The author in the 3rd article specifically contrasts New Atheism and "militant atheists", so again, using his wording to suggest a criticism of Atheism generally would be unfounded. You'll notice that, in that article, Kurtz himself never says anything critical of New Atheists; he only expresses concern over Humanism with respect to recent trends (including New Atheism). Imagine that I said "I'm concerned my friends might think I'm poor because my neighbors are poor." Is that a criticism of poor people? No, it's an expression of concern over my appearance. Kurtz noticed a trend in New Atheism that was different than his goals for Humanism, and he drafted a statement to distinguish the two. We can't be more direct, or usge stronger lanuage than our sources, and this article in particular doesn't give us much of use here.

I'd rather not get into the remaining article, since it's not being removed by anyone. If I have more time and formulate an opinion on it more clearly, I'll post some comments then. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Jess, thank you for clarifying your points. However, I am not convinced by your reasoning. The author for the first article focuses on the views of religion espoused by the New Atheists. The intro talks about the New Atheists, not the public perceptions at large, and the end does too - its the focus and the point of the article.

The Kurtz piece does provide criticisms of the New atheists by noting how they have affected the Humanist image. Your example : "I'm concerned my friends might think I'm poor because my neighbors are poor." is not reflecting what Kurtz piece shows - narrow mindedness by the New Atheists is damaging the Humanists image. Not sure why you think that this is not relevant as a criticism. But whatever. You can find the Kurtz original piece here [5]. Its better and I probably will add it since it offers more direct criticisms.

I agree that we should all be careful, but it appears the problem is in paraphrasing the sources, not the sources themselves. You have to provide better justifications for removing them since they are all indeed relevant to this article and the subsection.

I find that some editors made pointless errors about what should and should not be included in this article. I appears hypocritical even (seems like strange versions of the No True Scotsman Fallacy). Your ideas on atheism, atheists, and the New Atheists also apply to the "criticism of religion" for example. I will amend your statement: "Each religion is a thing, not a person or a few people. Criticizing some "religious" people is not the same as criticizing religions. When a source criticizes certain "religious" people in particular for their specific actions, we can't extrapolate and say it is a criticism of religion generally." No doubt this is true. Just because some Muslims have done certain things does not mean that this is reflective of Islam or most Muslims. But I doubt you would argue that because of this it is not relevant to include any issues, that some people have raised, in that article. Especially if it a citation is provided.

The fact that the article intro notes: "Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications." renders all of this as relevant material. Atheism just like Islam has many dimensions (abstract and social) and this should be reflected in the article. The New Atheists though they appear to be a few, they have some significant impact in society. Just as the Pope is one man, and does not reflect the personal views of most Christians, but he has social significance. The section at hand is about criticism of the New Atheists so we should keep that focus in mind unless the source notes more. In that case rewording would be fine. I made it clear in the recent edits that these articles were about the New Atheists. If you extrapolated from this to atheism in general then that is not my issue. Criticism comes from different angles and in different intensities. I hope this clarifies a few things. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that criticism of suicide bombers, for instance, is broadly and commonly linked to Islam in the literature. It is a criticism of Islam (religion), because the sources say it is. If my neighbor murders his wife, and a blogger comments that his religion played a role in the murder, that content doesn't belong in Criticism of religion. The blogger's comment can be noted in my neighbor's article, but we would need a source explicitly saying "look, here's a problem with religion!" to put it in the general religion article. So too here: we cannot present individual criticisms of individual atheists as criticisms of Atheism.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings once more Jess, the difference you note is not correctly differentiated. You said "So too here: we cannot present individual criticisms of individual atheists as criticisms of Atheism." I never said that a criticism of individual atheists automatically transfers over to a criticism of atheism (which you are using as a concept only). Its just like criticisms of religions, criticisms of individuals do not transfer over as criticisms of religions automatically either. However, you are ignoring that atheists do actions, have beliefs, and make organizations like other groups. Most criticisms have to do with actions and behaviors, not merely concepts. Explicit atheism is a social phenomenon, not just a concept and it does not exist in vacuum.

Much of the criticisms of religions are based on actions people have taken, not the concepts. You have offered suicide bombers and Islam as an example of criticism of one religion. Obviously, Islam does not teach about suicide bombing, but the associations to actions and behaviors are relevant as criticisms, according to you. I would say that there is some social weight, even thought the foundations for such actions are not fueled by Islamic beliefs (Robert Pape's research). In the same way, in order to not be hypocritical, when groups such as the New Atheists or other atheists are criticized for their beliefs, behaviors, and approaches to others; these criticisms become relevant and indeed are part of the whole social phenomenon of explicit Atheism just as you associate suicide attacks with the broad phenomenon of Islam and even the more broader phenomenon of religions. Things like this should be expected in any "criticism of" page. I am sure you notice that criticisms are diverse and usually are not holistic like "I'm going to criticize everything about big concepts like religion (or atheism) now." Criticisms are generally more subtle and they are not holistic. Usually they are done by small parts here and there, not in a "complete" fashion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ramos, the only thing that matters is sourcing. That's it. Whether an event is "a part of a social phenomenon" is irrelevant to our sourcing criteria. Asma criticizes Dawkins, which is not the same as criticizing Atheism. Kurtz criticizes "militant atheists", a different group altogether. To include content (especially which falls under WP:BLP), we need a source that says it directly, without interpretation.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Jess, sourcing is clearly not the issue since there already were sources provided and none of it was original research. Literally these were sources that critiqued the New Atheist as a group and that is what was noted. Clearly the sources were diverse and did include critiques of multiple members, not any one single person. Please read the articles over again, as it seems you did not notice what they were focusing on. Asma's commentary (not a blog) criticizes the New Atheists narrow views of religion and you noted in your edit summary that it was on the 4 horsemen, not any one individual, too: "Cleanup. First article is criticism of 4 horsemen (and misunderstanding of religion generally), not atheism.)". Plus, why are you saying its only on Dawkins all of a sudden? He's not even emphasized in the article! He is only mentioned in there because he is one of them. Also Kurtz original piece is talking about the New Atheists [6]. Clearly he uses Dawkins as an example of the narrow mindedness of the New Atheists, which has also been displayed by other atheists in the past and the present. Please read the article. If its not about them, then why does he refer to them quite a bit? I have been emphasizing the whole time in this discussion about the New Atheists and sources relating to criticisms of the group, not as individuals, though this should also be perfectly valid.

The real issue is your interpretations of how criticisms work and relevance of materials for the article. Your understanding of atheism is too narrow since you are just looking at this as just a concept. What do you expect a criticism of the New Atheists to look like? Should it be about arguments about theism only? I really would like to know. Perhaps one can look at a reliable dictionary to see what constitutes a criticism. Criticism of atheism includes critiques of groups and even people for their behaviors, beliefs, and actions towards others. This is really simple to understand. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of 4 atheists is not criticism of Atheism. You're welcome to seek a third opinion (via WP:3O, WP:RfC or WP:DR), but the sources in question do not directly criticize "Atheism", the topic, and should therefore not be included. I feel like your wording is beginning to get confrontational, and I'm not sure how to respond but to repeat what I've already said, so instead I'll back out for now. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you got the impression that I was getting confrontational. It was not my intent. I really wanted to know how you calibrated criticism as it seemed you were misinterpreting the sources and using that to dismiss them. This article sure has had some awkward opinions from other editors before (usually arbitrary reasons that were not sound for removal of certain well cited contents) and this is why I was making sure to post the ideas on the talk page first to see if others cared about the suggestions. I proceeded with caution.

I think a third opinion on the matter is a good idea. Trypofish usually provides very reasonable insights on disputes. Well see if others want to put in their input. I know criticisms can be tricky since just like with criticisms of religions, most are not really criticisms of religions at all, but about specific people, specific events, and specific observations for minor aspects of specific religions - not religions in general. The same could be said of the criticism of atheism. Most critiques are about specific people, specific events, and specific observations on specific groups of atheists. All criticisms are very limited by default as they do not apply to all people at all times for any given group. But nonetheless they are relevant to any "Criticism of" pages due to social influence and impact of groups that "speak out" and "represent" for certain groups of any society. The views held by the New Atheists are not exclusively held by them since ordinary atheists and agnostics do show similar beliefs and propensities of expressions, but not all of course. And this is what make the criticisms of them relevant to this article. Hope there are no hard feelings. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've actually been following this discussion without commenting, but thanks Ramos for mentioning me here. It's a tough question, which is why I didn't step in until now. I've read the New Atheism section on the page, and I'm not bothered by it, the way it reads now. At the same time, I agree in principle with Jess that it's UNDUE to include criticisms of specific individuals, as though those individuals somehow speak for all of atheism. I guess the test I would use is the following: if it's a criticism of one individual New Atheist, it does not belong here, but if it's a criticism of a view held in common amongst most of the New Atheists, then it's fair to include it (so long as it's a criticism of their view of atheism, as opposed to criticism of something they said incidentally to it). I realize that there are borderline cases, and I guess it's best to address those as specific examples, rather than to try to discuss them in generalities. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish, I appreciate your input. By the way, excellent observations as usual. I also like you recent edits. Good job since rephrasing to better reflect the relevant contents of the source, as you see it, is always good. I agree with you and Jess that sources that focus only on criticism one individual do not belong in this section since the section is on a group (New Atheists). Those on one individual would belong to biographies. The sources on groups should note them as a group or at least note more than just one individual in that group and mention the group. The sources that I originally posted did clearly focus on the New Atheists as a group, not one individual: links are here [7] (I think this one is quite relevant) and [8] though the better source for this last one is the original which I found at a later time [9]. I am glad you note the fuzziness of criticisms since no individual really speaks for everyone on anything (Atheism, Islam, America, Asia, Hispanics, Men, and well.. anything). But none the less, criticisms do arise on different dimensions (actions, beliefs, behaviors, belonging). Ramos1990 (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to hear what Jess thinks about what I said, and I also think it best to look at specifics. I've just looked at the three sources you provide above, and I guess it comes down, very much, to what one says in summarizing them. I note that Kurtz is somewhat conflating New Atheism with the disputed label of "militant atheism", and I think we have to be careful about distinguishing criticism of the atheistic views of New Atheists (appropriate) from criticism of the attitudes or debating styles that they might have (not really appropriate). I'd also be careful not to focus on one brief "appropriate" comment in a source, if the great majority of what the source says is "not appropriate", because it could get us into cherry-picking. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to comment, mainly because I agree with your reply. I agree that specifics matter. As a point of comparison, I went to Criticism of religion and picked a completely random source ([10]). There is no ambiguity in that source. He talks directly about "religion" and "organized religion", so no interpretation is needed to conclude that's what he's criticizing. That's what I'd like to see in a source for this section: "New atheism tends to be...", or similar. Instead, I see "This new atheist...", which is quite different. I think it is dangerous for us to try to determine trends in the New Atheism community on our own (or with the help of a separate source) in order to determine if these are germain to the subject as a whole. WP:SYN comes to mind. New atheism (like any other topic within theology) gets plenty of criticism, so it should not be hard to find comments which are direct.

As an aside, I don't think Kurtz is using "militant atheists" and "new atheism" interchangeably. I read the sentence in a similar way to "Goths, in my view, dress very well...What I object to are the people who dye their hair." The latter may intersect on some level with the former, but it is a different group, and choosing to use the unfavorable interpretation of that sentence to include unfavorable content here is more interpretation than I'm comfortable with.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then, it actually sounds to me like we are all in agreement about the general principles here. Is there still a specific disagreement about a particular edit to the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish and Jess. Good talks. Just a quick comment to Jess, I don't think I wrote anything like what you inferred: "This new atheist..." anywhere nor do I see evidence for this assertion on my initial posts for this section. See what I originally posted before the removal of the start up content [11]. I think this is where the confusion was emerging from - misinterpretation. What was written sure was not WP:SYN. Good thing you looked at the "Criticism of Religion" page. It has been extensively cleaned up by me which is why you were more likely to find more appropriate sources in it than before. I have also reworded a few things to better reflect the sources contents and to try to keep somethings intact though there definitely was and is lots of WP:SYN in it. For instance some sources that talk about Christianity and Islam do not mention religion in general. They are religion-specific, not religion-general which is what that article is about. Anyways, I think and hope this matter is settled. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you said "This new atheist". I was saying the source said that, which is why I'm uncomfortable using that source. If we all agree to leave those sources out, then yes, it does appear that we all agree. I'm sure we can find plenty more to flesh out as much content as we need. BTW, the Criticism of religion article has been on my watchlist for some time, so I'm somewhat familiar with it. I did skim through your changes when you made them, and they seemed helpful. My only point in bringing it up was to show that sources can be direct about this topic, and that's what we need here too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you clarification Jess. I agree with you, now that all this has been clarified. Thanks for you positive comments of my edits in the other article. Hope we can work together to make some of these articles better. And yes, the goal should be to get direct sources on these diverse topics. You have a good night.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick question. IRWolfie says this ref [12] is Undue. What do you guys think?Ramos1990 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie. And, eek, I feel like I need to take a bath after reading that source! It's a perfect example of what fails my suggested test, above. It's partly praise of some New Atheists (Dennett), so it isn't really a criticism of the ideas as a whole. Instead it's personal criticisms of Dawkins and Hitchens, dislikes of their websites and their personal habits. One can probably hold one's nose and poke through the source, and come out with a cherry-picked fragment that, in isolation, could fit on this page, but I'd oppose doing that. (OK, Tryptofish, tell us what you really think!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Appreciate your input. I will keep your ideas in mind on other articles.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm weighing in here, belately (I've been offline for the last ten days), at the invitation of Ramos1990 to contribute a third opinion (and noting that in the interim Tryptofish has already done that, so that mine is a fourth opinion, FWIW) (and also noting that a consensus seems to have been arrived at, so my comments are perhaps superfluous at this stage).

However, I do want to say that it seems to me that there's a category difference between (traditional) Atheism and the New Atheism, and that this is crucial to the wording of this section. I would dispute the point that Jess is making in saying "Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Similarly, New Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Criticizing 4 atheists is not the same as criticizing Atheism". I would contend that New Atheism is categorically different in that it does refer primarily to "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" and their particular advocacy of Atheism. For evidence, refer to the article on New Atheism; throughout it refers to the "New Atheists" rather than the "New Atheism": "The New Atheists write mainly from a scientific perspective", "The New Atheists assert that many religious or supernatural claims ...", et passim.

Therefore a section headed "New Atheism" must necessarily focus on "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" and their fellow-travellers, and on the criticisms that are made of them and the (militant!) manner in which they promote Atheism - as it currently (and correctly IMO) does. -- Jmc (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we're all pretty much on the same page here, but I'd like to clarify a few things in relation to what you said. Although New Atheism, in contrast to atheism broadly, is associated specifically with four authors, it still would not be appropriate to put criticism of individual persons on this page. In addition, this page is Criticism of atheism, not Criticism of the New Atheism, so criticisms that do not apply to atheism broadly risk being WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitler and the German Christian movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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