Talk:Criticism of atheism

Contributors needed!

I would love to see individuals with time and knowledge to contribute to this article!

This is already covered at Atheism#Criticisms_of_atheism -- Astrokey44|talk 10:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section Atheism#Criticisms_of_atheism links back here. I would like to see more references and a little more coherent presentation as well as a little less POV perspective and an expansion of the article. That might keep it from being deleted. As it is, it's barely a coherent essay and omits many criticisms and seems somehwat intent on rebutting them. Correcting this would help the article to become more encyclopaedic. Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When reading this article, I got the distinct sense it was written by an atheist, and the article it self was biased. Please correct.

Most of this article (in its current form) cames from the article on Atheism. ChaTo 15:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found in HTML comment

This summary of Plantinga's argument is incoherent. What, exactly, about philosophical naturalism contradicts with the belief that our systems of gaining knowledge are designed to help us survive, rather than to help us find truth? The two seem to have nothing to do with each other from what the paragraph below said, so obviously a lot of elaboration is needed. I'm also seriously considering moving this section to the "Naturalism (philosophy)", since it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with atheism directly. Instead, it argues that a straw-man of evolution and a straw-man of naturalism can't be reconciled; numerous atheists do not believe in evolution, and an even (much) great number do not believe in naturalism. (unsigned comment)

Biased article

Does this article truly need to be here? Many points that are mentioned in this article seem to be backed up by few if any evidence. There also seem to be many weasle words in here and this article contradicts itself by criticizing atheism and then saying that true athiesm does not exist. Finally, this article is obviously biased as it is created solely by religious people who denounce anyone that does not believe in God.

It is commonly known that the PRC declares itself officially athiest, and there are reportedly many athiests in countries like North Korea. Though it may be argued that North Koreans see their leader as "god-like," it is known presently that many North Koreans do not have faith in their leader. I don't see how these "athiests" are immoral in any way and different from Christians or other people of faith.--141.213.196.250 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a criticism of Atheism but a defence of Atheism

This article appears to be written by an advocate of atheism which is fine. I would expect an atheist to have an understanding of criticisms of their beliefs. However, the article does not deal with the title which is criticisms of atheism. In my opinion, points of argument here should be along the lines of criticism from other viewpoints. As as example, one could argue that there are inconsitencies in a basis for ethics to an atheist. The claim that ethics can exist beyond a deity is what should be presented in this article. It is simply not good enough to make the statement that some people disagree with the basis for atheistic ethics and then spend the rest of the article defending the atheistic belief. This article should at least be moved to a category on a defence of atheism if not be deleted altogether.

As mentioned in the first posts here, everyone is well aware of that and asking for contributors to make it more NPOV.--Kugamazog 16:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small note. Why should atheism (or agnosticism for that matter) be defended at all? The theists are conjecturing something, the proof is their burden. I'd say don't bother defending atheism here, just list the common-heared criticisms and leave it at that. Albester 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

objective existence of the supernatural

I tried to find discussion of the "objective existence of the supernatural" within Wikipedia, but failed. The section heading about "objective existence of the supernatural" strikes me as oxymoronic. Can anyone provide sources that describe objective evidence for the supernatural? --JWSchmidt 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is none — which is probably why some people are atheists.  JEREMY 02:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]