Talk:Criticism of atheism

Rejection of theistic arguments

In the Rejection of theistic arguments section, this line was not worded well:

The primary criticism of atheism is that it rejects belief in any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods.

That wording implies that "gods" (plural) belongs to "supreme being" (singular). Atheism doesn't distinguish between a belief in a single god and the belief in plural gods. It is the absence of belief in supernatural beings of any kind.

I've changed the sentence to:

The primary criticism of atheism is that it rejects belief in a supernatural being or beings, commonly known as God or gods.

If you don't like it, let's talk about it here, but please don't revert back to the former line because it does not accurately represent atheism. Rndm85 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about this. I added back the blue link. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Rndm85 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Morality - combining sources

Hi, the "however" was placed to combine two sources [1] to "indicate that this study calls the other one into question". Please quote the source where it calls the other one into question. --windyhead (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious. The first source in the paragraph is the Barna one. The second is the Paul one, which draws a conclusion roughly opposite to that of the Barna one. Are you asking for a direct quote from Paul saying the Barna study was incorrect? That's not necessary for what the text of the paragraph says; if you want to quibble about the wording of my edit summary, I think that's not going to accomplish anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So it's not clear now what the "however" is for? which draws a conclusion roughly opposite - thats not exactly true. --windyhead (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's very clear to me. What's not clear to me is what you are concerned about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It starts to become unconstructive. If you aren't going to elaborate what the "however" is for please don't put it there. --windyhead (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What?? What is there to elaborate on? It's absolutely obvious! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to be prepared to explain what is the reason for a word you insist to keep. I'm going to mark it as a synthesis for this time. --windyhead (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I already did explain it. I think that, for whatever reason, you and I are just not understanding each other. Perhaps if another editor looks in on this, they can help clear things up. In the mean time, your tag is a reasonable compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well your first explanation was "to indicate that this study calls the other one into question", which you rejected to provide a quote for, and the second explanation (while still unclear) is based on which draws a conclusion roughly opposite to that of the Barna one which is not exactly true. --windyhead (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong: the Barna study concludes that a list of putative moral shortcomings are associated demographically with atheism, whereas the Paul study concludes that a similar list, similar enough for discussion in the same paragraph of this page, is negatively correlated demographically with atheism. Doesn't that make the paragraph one that follows an "on the one hand, on the other hand" arrangement? If so, ie if I do understand it correctly, then doesn't it help the reader to make clear the contrast between the two studies? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Per article, the Barna study researched the population within US, while Paul compared US to some mix of results from different nations. --windyhead (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that what's going on here is that you are seeing the two studies as examining different things, because they are making different kinds of demographic comparisons, whereas I am seeing the two studies as concluding different things, because they come to differing conclusions? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

They do examine different things, and come to different conclusions. --windyhead (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we agree on that much. So, the question at hand becomes whether the clarity associated with making clear that these are different conclusions is overridden by the imprecision of implicitly not acknowledging the different methodologies. I think the answer to that question comes down to whether it is reasonable, or unreasonable, to consider the different conclusions as being different, even though the methods were different. I would argue that it is reasonable, and not synth. They really are different conclusions, conclusions that the sources regard as different, so it is not simply a difference in the opinions of editors here. (If it were synth, then it might, instead, be misleading to present the two studies as they are now, together in that paragraph.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll correct you once more: the Barna study concludes that a list of putative moral shortcomings are associated demographically with atheism within US, whereas the Paul study concludes that compared to less atheistic US, the mix of Western nations is more atheistic and have less moral problems --windyhead (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Then this is where we are not really understanding one another. My reaction to that is "so what?". What I mean by that is: unless people are not all the same species in different parts of the world, then each of these conclusions applies to people, and they are drawing contrasting conclusions. As I said, they really are different conclusions. The methodological difference does not negate that difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So your reasoning "draws a conclusion roughly opposite to that of the Barna one" is not true --windyhead (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I still feel like we are honestly not understanding one another, and I do not know why. "Roughly opposite", "different", whatever. It's still "on the one hand, on the other hand". Let's see if another editor joins the discussion, and see what they say. If not, perhaps we can ask for a third opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice you just changed it from "however" to "on the other hand". That's fully satisfactory to me, just as good as far as I'm concerned. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This Article is Awful

I hate to pass such a harsh judgment on it, but it's truly scatterbrained and completely lacking rational criticism based on fact. As it stands, it's just a bunch of outlandish claims made by blatantly biased people. A good example (emphasis added):

Speaking for the Catholic Church in 2009, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, outgoing Archbishop of Westminster, expressed this position by describing a lack of faith as “the greatest of evils” and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a "greater evil even than sin itself."

That statement is about as valid a judgment of atheism as a claim by Joseph Goebbels' that Judaism is responsible for histories most significant crimes against humanity. In other words, there's no need to include fallacies of projection in this article.

The only valid information an article such as this could support would be largely based upon Voltaire's oft-quoted statement 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create him' and the reasoning behind that claim. Yes, it would be a short article, but the reality is (and the article couldn't make it more clear), there are no factually-based criticisms of atheism - it's just a bunch of complaints and propoganda from sources who are completely lacking in neutrality.
--K10wnsta (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny that this page needs work. But I would just like to point out that criticisms do not have to be correct to be encylopedic, per WP:V. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

An anon IP just removed the section quoted above, and I replaced it (although in a different place where I thought it flowed better). The sentiments expressed by a notable religious person are relevant to the article (ie a criticism of atheism), and well-sourced. Individual editors may think they are utter bollocks, but that isn't a reason to remove - it illustrates a viewpoint held by certain prominent critics of atheism. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory.