Talk:The God Delusion
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The God Delusion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The God Delusion was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Michael Ruse[edit]
The section on the book's reception could point out that Michael Ruse has said that it is books like this that make him ashamed to be an atheist (I have a feeling that I first read this in Wikipedia). Vorbee (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Pigs could fly, but not on Wikipedia without a reliable source and care over undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Critical reception section[edit]
Apart from the first paragraph which has no details, this whole section is devoted to negative appraisals of the book. Is this a fair representation of the critical response to the book. Ashmoo (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to say. As this list shows, responding books to TGD had become something of an industry, and their mention here has grown at times until editors trimmed the section back. Barte (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Lack of objectivity when presenting information[edit]
User is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The problem with articles such as "The God Delusion" is that they fail to present information objectively. They constantly address arguments such as "Intelligent Design" as pseudoscientific but opposing arguments like The Big Bang & Evolution are presented as though they are factual (Even though these still remain theories up to today). One must observe & present this information from an unbiased standpoint so that the reader may decide how to interpret this information for themselves & trust that they are not being subliminally influenced to think in a certain way. Wikipedia is a worldwide source of information & they should not be "tricked" into believing one side of the argument more than the other. Repent.The End is Near (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
|
Derren Brown's favourite book[edit]
Should this article say that according to the blurb on the cover of the book, Derren Brown states that the book is his favourite book of all time? Vorbee (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Psychology of religion[edit]
I have a copy of this book on loan from a local public library, and I have go up to the chapter entitled "The Roots of Religion". Should this article point out that Dawkins would almost certainly fail an examination in the Psychology of Religion? This chapter never mentions the work of atheistic thinkers such as Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx and their theories as to how religion originates. Or would this be too much like inserting original research into Wikipedia? Vorbee (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It probablywould. 81.133.110.208 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- B-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Low-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles