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

Reversion of my edits

Somebody hasn't been on wikipedia long enough to know how these articles work. I made several edits individually, and commented each edit, so that all can see the reasoning behind each one, and revert them individually if there were issues. Instead, I see that the whole lot were reverted, with a message to come here to the talk page and discuss them. What crap. "Be bold" is the wikipedia motto. Each of my edits were thought out. I even reverted one of my own edits! User:Jmc, please take the time to address each one of my edits. This article uses way too many weasel words (see the template), and most of my edits removed those weasel words. A blanket revert shows you favor one side of the content of this article more than the other, and also shows that your focus is NOT on achieving a good article, just to press home your side. I am going to revert the reversion, and you can begin addressing the edits individually. Don't start an edit war, edit the article so it is reasonable and fits to Wiki standards that all the other articles use. I will accept individual reversions but not a bulk reversion; you clearly overstepped there and I ask for you to take some time and review each one on it's own merit. Overuse of weasel words is a flagrant violation and must be fixed. Mark Renier (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. "Somebody hasn't been on wikipedia long enough to know how these articles work." I'm not sure whom Mark Renier is addressing here - it certainly doesn't apply to me, who's been editing WP much longer than he, if he'd care to check my user page. I've definitely been here long enough to know that his failure to participate in ongoing discussion before making major edits and the unpleasant tone of his first appearance on this talk page are happily not typical of the considerate approach of other editora. -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Major edits consist of removing/adding entire sections. None of my individual edits did that. They were all modifications of existing text. I don't care what your timestamp you have on your page, address the edits individually and I will bring my tone back in line as if I was addressing a proper wikipedia editor, and not a mass roll-backer, which is borderline vandalism. Time in service does not equal quality of product. Mark Renier (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed exactly what got reverted and what didn't, but I'm OK with the net effect of the edits so far. If there are issues that are still unresolved, please let me suggest that we treat the situation as WP:BRD, and also step back from personalizing the intent of any edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, it still needs help. For example, I can't make heads or tails of that first paragraph under morality. Does it make sense to anyone else or am i just really tired?Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Someone recently reverted an edit (here) with the edit summary "Undo. Removals like this require discussion first.". Edits like that do not require discussion first; indeed, almost no edits ever require discussion first. Please see WP:BOLD. I've seen a few reverts like this recently. Keep in mind that reverting content fuels contention, not collaboration, and it should be reserved only for edits which clearly detract from the article. Reverting is not a useful tool for discussion; the talk page is. If anyone has an actual objection to the removal of content I noted in the previous diff, feel free to revert it again with that objection listed in the edit summary. I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, and have no problem with either version. I'd also be happy to discuss the matter further with anyone who's interested. However, please just make sure to specify reasons for reverts, or start discussion yourself; don't simply revert and ask for the editor to discuss... that sort of thing isn't often helpful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mann jess. By "discussion first" I was referring to the WP:BRD cycle, by which an edit would be reverted and then discussed. I restored the paragraph Jason deleted because it contained substantive material on the issue of atheism and morality. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I have no problem with the revert now. Thanks for the edit summary (and paragraph) explaining. BTW, WP:BRD mentions that you shouldn't invoke BRD as a reason for a revert, but should provide a separate reason. That's essentially what I was trying to get across above. You've done that now, so no issues on my end. :) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that paragraph doesn't deal with atheism at all. This relates to a previous discussion above with tryptofish. The paragraph as written is about what morality is with respect to God (the God of the Bible). This is not a criticism of atheism (see full discussion above). It's a paragraph about Pascal's belief that morality comes from God - it isn't a direct criticism of atheism. In other words, Pascal's words are vague enough to mean that one would lack morality if he/she had a connection with Buddah, so long as it isn't with God. Therefore, this isn't a criticism of atheism. Again, trypto and I had a lengthy discussion about this above.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Said another way, it's a criticism of non-Christian beliefs (everything outside Christianity), not specifically atheism. There is a difference, and it's an important one.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The passage reads:

"The German idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view". The French philosophe Voltaire stated "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.""

As I read it, it sets up a dichotomy between theism and its opposite, atheism. Its not referring to other religions, just to a belief in God versus a lack thereof. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The material is original research. Reading up primary sources like Kant and quoting him and interpreting it as related to criticism of atheism is original research. Quoting Voltaire and saying that this related to criticism of atheism, also original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is original research. If you look back at the Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position link and the discussion between tryptofish and I, that's what we were talking about as well. This paragraph is about Kant's belief in God and what happens without God. As I said, that is not a criticism of atheism, and to conclude that it is, is original research.Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, please do not revert others with an edit summary like "Undo per BRD". WP:BRD itself specifically says not to use BRD as a rational for a revert. If there is a problem with an edit, please specify that problem within the edit summary. Something like "I don't see the synthesis here. Care to discuss?" or "Source X seems to back this up. Could you elaborate on the problem?" would be ideal. Without having specified a problem with the edits, there is nothing for the editor to discuss. He's then forced to come on to the talk page and say "what was wrong?" Reverting without a rationale often leads to frustration and battlefield behavior. We have enough of that on the page already. Please don't do that. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I just said something similar below. This is getting exhausting. I make edits, explain rationale and then edits are reverted with seemingly no explanation.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious Groups Section

Since everything seems to be challenged on this page, I'll just bring things up for discussion before deleting (in spite of the "be bold" mantra).

I just did some digging on the "religious groups" section. It is essentially a quote from the Catholic catechism. Which is of course a perfectly fine source. Problem is, I went to the section referenced, and it denounces polytheism and idolotry, not atheism. Unless anyone can point to the section that has to do with atheism, this section needs to go.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a working link to that site? The link in the section appears to not be working, it just redirects to the Vatican main page. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not my link. The citation did not back up the information in the article as stated above and in the comments when I removed. Why did you revert?Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The link is here. I scanned it over, and it does appear to support the content. The section on atheism starts at 2123 (about midway down). Perhaps it was missed in all the noise of the rest of the page. Let me know if there's something I've missed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is clearly a section specific to atheism. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So in summary, Jason removed an entire section from the article claiming that the passage wasn't supported by the source - that the source was talking about polytheism not atheism. On closer inspection, the source in fact does have a passage about atheism, and the quotes in the removed section both come from the atheism section. !

Is it more clear now why I reject Jason's newbie tendencies towards deleting material rather than constructively correcting it or amending it? With that said, I note that Jason for the most part has conducted himself properly - he has brought most of his issues to the talk page, and sought the counsel of other editors, and where hes attempted to remove material from the article he has left edit summaries, though these could be improved upon. In no way am I suggesting Jason is conducting himself improperly, rather as the above case shows, he needs to be a bit more judicious with how he treats the hard work of other editors. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does support the content. The way the link is written in the link (at the bottom of the page) it seems to reference section 2113, which references idolotry (polytheism is right above it). But you are correct. Atheism is criticized in section 2123. That was the question I posed on June 7th at the start of the thread. Sorry I missed it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve, everyone makes mistakes. You didn't know the source supported the content when you reverted. You did it "per BRD". Had you looked everything over and provided a rationale "the source seems to support this, care to discuss it?", this would have been a lot easier. This is not an inclusionist vs deletionist issue. Please stop framing it that way. We don't need to discuss this further, just please start discussing article content (not editors, or deletionism), and provide rationales if you need to revert. Thanks. I'm glad we got this particular content issue sorted out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. Jason deleted an entire section, and his rationale seemed flimsy. I reverted because it was the right thing to do - to discuss the merits of a substantial deletion one way or another. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed Issues

What do you do when you have a bunch of "citation needed" annotations? If no citation is provided within a given period of time are those statements removed?Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We generally try to find citations for those passages, if we are inclined. That would be a constructive way of dealing with it. We do however have a mode of editorial thought that's called "m:deletionism" which tends to make destructive edits rather than constructive ones. The deletionists were largely defeated around the end of the great wiki wars of 2005, but they still show up every once in a while. The thing we learned from all of that was that deletionism is typically a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Its easy to just delete stuff, hence its not considered as noble as actually writing stuff. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think going on an anti-deletionist spiel doesn't answer the question. If no citation is given and a reasonable amount of time is given then it can be removed. This can be reverted but note that the burden is on the restorer and not the remover per WP:BURDEN. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What speil? I was giving an editor with only 200 edits a sense of perspective and history regarding the idea of making constructive edits versus nonconstructive ones. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, but a little off topic (perhaps at his user talk page?); you didn't actually answer the question he asked. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I did answer his question. Note that Jason has been in the mode of making deletions rather than additions or citations to existing text. Id like to encourage him to think outside of the deletionism mold and get on with being a constructive editor, one who writes as much or more than he chops. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The number of additions or deletions an editor makes has no bearing on the individual edits. You seem to have singled my edits out for reverting over and over with no real explanation. The edits I've made are careful and thought through with rationale on each edit. I feel this is starting to be edit warring.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. Focus should be placed on discussion of the issues, not on forcing a particular version into the page prior to discussion. There is nothing wrong with improving an article by removing inappropriate content, and we should absolutely not be reverting an editor just because his edits have largely been to remove material (with justification in edit summaries and on talk). Again, I have no current view on the content itself, but this battleground stuff should really stop. This is not an inclusionist vs deletionist issue. Please start discussing instead of reverting. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue Jason brought up was the removal of material with a cn tag. I suggested alternatives to deletion, and there are some good reasons for that. For one, the cn tag may be relatively fresh, and not enough time had passed for someone to cite it. One of the main ideas with the cn tag has always been that people be given enough time to add a citation. This may be a matter or weeks or months, though sometimes they stick around for longer. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't always have to wait to remove cn-tagged material, and there is no specified time period if we do. A cn tag is not a part of the "removal of material" process; it's a part of the "addition of sources" process. If you see material which is unsourced and you think it would be unlikely to find a supporting source, then it should be removed, not cn tagged. If you find material which is unsourced and you think it's likely there's a source out there somewhere, but you don't have it now, then cn-tag it. The more time something sits around with a cn tag, the less likely a source exists to back the statement up. At any point (a day, week, or year later), anyone is welcome to say "this is unsourced and I can't find one, it's time to be removed."   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

New Reference

Does anyone think it is worthwhile to add a "see also" link to the "atheism and religion" page? It speaks to a lot of the confusion that folks have had on the talk page regarding atheism's connection to religion and how some people identify as atheist while still having spiritual beliefs. I don't know how to add those types of links, so if anyone else agrees can you add it or tell me how to do it? Thanks.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Although as I look more closely at that article, it has issues too. I could go either way.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See also sections are standard fare for any article, including disambiguations. But the article already has such a section, and you seem to be talking about something else - a see also link in the body of the article? These are less common, but the standard form is to put them in parenthesis like (see also Foo), or more formally, (cf. Foo). -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Steve, Jason is asking whether we should list Atheism and religion in our See Also section. Either way is fine with me. It seems like a good target based on its scope.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Concepts of Atheism

"Concepts of atheism" was left in the opening sentence, because there are indeed 'concepts' listed on the atheism main page. However, there are no criticisms of those concepts in this article (practical atheism, theoretical atheism, et al). Is that a misalignment? I know this may sound like nitpicking, but I'm just seeking clarity here. I'm happy to leave "concepts" as part of the header if indeed criticism of atheism includes criticism of those identified concepts. I just don't see any proof of that at this point.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Its my birthday and I've been out of the office doing things. You really need to maybe give two or three days notice, per WP:AGF. I assume good faith, I expect good faith assumed of me.

Its clear that atheism has concepts, its not just a rejection of God, because that would be inane and simplistic. Atheism's grand concept is that there is no God, and beyond that there are varied conceptual ideas for why there is no God, no proof, no evidence, etc. You are not nitpicking, but you are asking a valid question: Should there be some symmetry between this article's points and the concepts listed at atheism? I think there should be some symmetry - there should be encyclopedic coverage of the main points - but perfect symmetry is not required, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what information would fit in "criticism of concepts of atheism" that wouldn't fit in "criticism of validity of atheism"? If they're the same thing, we should just choose one, and validity seems more accurate based on the content of the article thus far IMHO. Or if you feel that strongly about keeping the word concepts in, I don't mind. Happy birthday, Steve. Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday from me too! (No particular opinion about the content.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Yeah Jason I think concepts needs to stay in there, if only because it seems impossible to criticize the validity of something without first criticizing the idea itself. We deal primarily with concepts. Articles represent individual and distinct concepts. Its a nominal and objective way to refer to most things. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Suicide Rates

The first sentence of the second paragraph under "effects of atheism on the individual" cites two studies that claim findings that atheist have higher suicide rates. Two issues:

1. Only the American Journal of Psychiatry is cited. I tried googling around for the World Health Organization information, but no dice.

2. I read the abstract from American Journal of Psychiatry, and the conclusions drawn have to do with religious affiliation, not atheism. Here are their conclusions: "CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention." This is another example of the WP:SYNTH issue identified earlier. It's not a criticism of atheism, it's a criticism of non-religious-affiliation. I'm going to remove this sentence unless anyone has a counter to this perspective.Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few sources for that piece. The Journal does actually back it up (I'll check it again later to provide a direct quote), as does the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, cited in the next sentence. The latter supports attribution of the WHO on page 58. If you search google scholar, a few other sources support this as well. As far as I'm aware, there's pretty strong evidence to suggest what Martin is saying, that is, atheists have higher rates of suicide, but also better health, higher life expectancy, higher wealth, and other factors indicating better quality of life. There are a few other sources discussing other disparate trends, but any consensus that exists seems to point to that. If you're aware of another source which discusses it which might contradict Martin, I'd be happy to read it over. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this belongs in the main article instead of this article, it doesn't seem to exactly be a criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well that's true. Originally, there was an intro sentence saying something like "Some of criticized atheism for its effects on the individual", and this content summarized the relevant issues. I removed that intro sentence because it was unsourced and weasely. This content may belong in the Atheism and health article, and if we find a source to support something like that intro sentence, we could then summarize Atheism and health here. Does that work?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

what atheism and health article are you referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops! The article was religion and health. It may belong there, or in the main Atheism article perhaps.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for double checking. I read the abstract of the AJP study (and pasted the conclusion). I don't think it's an issue of the source not backing up claims of higher suicide rates among non-religious people. It does say that. The problem is the synth issue. It doesn't talk about atheism in there anywhere (that I saw). In other words, they use "people who are unaffiliated with a religion." That's different from being an atheist. The people in that study could have all been agnostics for all we know or spiritual people who just haven't found the right religion. There's no way of knowing, and concluding that non-affiliated is the same as atheist is original research. If the conclusion said "atheists have higher suicide rates," and they knew that because the subjects were all self-identified atheists, then I'd say leave it in. But that's not the case. Unless I'm missing something, which is certainly a possibility.  :) Lemme know your thoughts.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the paper goes on later to talk about atheism specifically with respect to their participants. In particular, it discusses trends of depression within atheists relative to religious groups. I think it would be hard to read the journal and come to the conclusion that "nonreligious" was not synonymous with their usage of "atheist" in their study. I don't have access to the full paper, so I can't see how they define each group for sure. We could easily replace the journal with another cite if you feel it isn't specific enough. Here's another paper which discusses relative suicide rates by country, and supports Martin's conclusion and the WHO data. There are a few others on google scholar. Many studies are registration-only, however. I personally think the AJP paper is ok here, but maybe others feel differently. If you have another suggestion or sources, let me know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, just a minor nitpick: Synthesis is not the same as original research (though it is a subset). When one paper is being cited, but it doesn't fully support a claim, that is OR, not Syn. When two papers are cited to support a novel conclusion not found in either, that's Syn. At best, this would be a case of OR. I'm not sure it rises to that level, but I want to make sure our terms are correct :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I see their references to atheists, though those comments come up in the "discussion" section. They aren't listed in the methodology or conclusion sections. I'd feel more comfortable if they discussed the screening process for how they determined "affiliated" vs "non-affiliated." It does seem that at times in the discussion they interchange atheist and non-affiliated, but I can't tell if that was unintentional or if there was in fact enough rigor in the screening process that allowed them to draw those conclusions. They didn't include the term "atheist" in the conclusion, so my sense is that they didn't feel like they could conclude that. But hey, that's just my thought. I'll take a look at the other studies later and see if those work better. Thanks for all the work and research, Jess!Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The WHO article was cut off for some reason, and the portion in the link I could read didn't include anything re atheism. Setting that aside, I don't have access to the other articles, so I'll just leave you with my previous thoughts and this: I'm open to leaving it but in a perfect world I'd feel better if the following criteria were met: 1. We had a study that stated in its conclusions that atheists have higher suicide rates (and if that were quantified, e.g. "suicide rates for atheists are 5% higher than general pop," that'd be even better). 2. The subjects of the study weren't all from a psych ward with major depressive disorder (that doesn't seem representative of general pop or of atheists in general). AND 3. We agree that this type of information would fit within any other religious criticism article. But I'm happy to leave in if no one else agrees w/my position. Because, to restate, if the claims are truly founded, that general pop atheists have higher suicide rates than gen pop non-atheists, that seems like a criticism that falls under the currently included "effects of atheism on the individual." Cheers. Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No worries. I know what you mean, but since I don't have access to the full paper either, I can't say for sure. I think it's fair to assume they discuss the screening process and define their terms within the paper somewhere. We could ask someone at the resource exchange, or I could go to my local college/library and see if we can get access there. I'll see if I have some more time in coming weeks for a short trip. No guarantees though. I think the WHO data (cited by Martin) is strong enough on its own, personally. If you think it over and decide the AJP paper isn't explicit enough, feel free to remove its attribution; I won't object. I initially added it because it appears to be cited in a number of other places. (Search google scholar for "atheism suicide" and you'll find a fair number of cites of that paper) I figured that gave it "notability" enough to warrant mention. With that all said, IRWolfie made a good point that this isn't a criticism on its own, so the whole thing should probably be removed for now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you mean the Cambridge Companion... is cut off? The online version I have here discusses suicide on page 58, reading "Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates, of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irrelegious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism." This appears in the chapter "Contemporary Numbers and Patterns", where he discusses atheism's apparent effect on groups. How about we remove the section, per IRWolfie's input, and we can reintroduce it if we find a good source which discusses criticism of the "effects" of atheism. Does that work for you?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving it to the religion and health article makes some sense, maybe under "absence of religion" or similar. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I vote for that or for tabling this until we find a solid study with "atheists have higher suicide rates" explicitly in the findings where the subjects weren't all mental patients (like they were in the AJP study). There has to be one out there, but DONT go to your library. That's too much work, and you've already done so much. I will take a look at google scholar (a new source for me!) at some point and see what I find. But don't wait on me. Do whatever you think is best in the meantime.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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 Athesim

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)