Talk:Criticism of atheism/Archive 3

Proposed rewrite of first subheading
Though I wrote it myself, I've never been comfortable with the first subheading ('Denial of the existence of God and gods'). The problem is that it can be seen as merely tautologous - after all, that's just what atheism is. But the burden of criticism in this section is the failure of atheism to accept any of the long-standing arguments for the existence of God. So I propose to rewrite the subheading as 'Rejection of theistic arguments'.

At the same time, I'll remove the link 'Main article: Arguments for the existence of God', since it's not a main article for this section, but simply a reference for detailed exposition of the arguments. As such, it should be just that - a linked reference within the text, and oh, what do you know, it's already there.

Your feedback welcomed.

-- Jmc (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * sounds good to me. Measles (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheist ideology of Marxism caused atrocities?
I tagged "Although, this has more to do with the following of the atheistic portion of Marxist ideology" citation needed, because the claim seems very questionable to me and was not cited. The Communist Manifesto obviously had some very anti-religious passages, but it never said to carry out the change with violence. It was about changing society to end people's longing for religion. Where in Marxist philosophy does it say to kill religious people? I think |here there is a good summary of Marx on religion. Madridrealy (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it, it's obviously false. Dionyseus (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism and health
I seriously challenge the claim that life-expectancy, well-being, and social health are better in predominantly atheistic nations, because of atheism. Psychological studies have shown that religious groups have a noticeably longer life-expectancy and are least likely to develop mental disorders or other health problems. This is the most recent observation made by The American Psychologist and by the American Psychiatric Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.253.55 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not claim that such variables are better in atheistic nations because of atheism. Rather, a mere correlation is pointed out. The same type of correlation you mention is also pointed out in the article. Clearly, there are conflicting data, and the article reflects that. Nick Graves (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Faith?
The article currently has a paragraph that reads, in part:

"...Faith can mean 'complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.' Faith can also mean 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'. When a theist speaks of his faith, it is argued, he refers to the latter definitions. When he wishes to assert that 'atheists have faith, too', the only definition that fits is the first[citation needed], but his argument implies the latter definitions, nonetheless (see equivocation)."

Quite often theists have used the argument that life occurring from no life is highly improbable to the point of near impossibility. This is also the case with many of the "proofs" of God such as those by Thomas Aquinas, which would also be more in line with the latter than the former. Now while they may be wrong in their assumptions to come to the conclusion of the probability of life or the existence of God, what they are speaking about would be more in line with the latter definition that the former in their argument. The validity of what they are saying does not impact what they "wish to assert", so they may indeed be asserting both points at the same time. Perhaps a qualifier such as under a purely theological perspective would improve this paragraph. Or change to "the definition that usually fits within context(the only definition that fits) is the first".

I could be wrong, just thought I throw out this point.198.178.190.1 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Above comment posted by Jaydstats (talk), and tweaked for clarity by Nick Graves (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Response: After reading the passage in question, and skimming the whole article, I'm at a loss as to how this can be improved. Modifying the text as currently written seems to me a case of gilding a turd. There's not really much good stuff here to work with, and a ruthless hack-and-slash of the article's unsourced, original research-based, muddled portions (that is, almost all of it) seems in order. Nick Graves (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Books
are there any books wich critise atheism, execpt those of alister&Robert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.10.181 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much original research
I've been removing some of the uncited original research. I'll try not to be too heavy-handed here. Please add cites where something should be kept. There are certainly plenty of sources available. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight
This article has terrible undue weight problems. Not surprising; it's a "criticism of" article. One section in particular that shows this is the atheism/totalitarianism section. For example, the section in this article is longer than the nearest counterpart in the Christianity criticism article, Criticism of Christianity. Why is this? Unlike the Inquisitions, which are verifiably faith-based persecution campaigns (and which get a passing mention in the Christianity article), there is no link between atheism and totalitarianism. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out several times, Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, but we don't have a Criticism of moustaches article regurgitating the spurious links between moustaches and totalitarianism. Sceptre (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This whole article is in pretty bad shape and POV. However, looking at that particular section, I'd say the length is decent. If needed, the two large quotes could be summarized. But I don't see how the image or it's caption that are used in that section have much relevance.  Artichoker [ talk ] 15:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fixes that an anonymous editor dropped in simply throw the POV the other way. There has been a lot of work on this article over the last year or so by editors with a variety of points of view (atheist and non-atheist).  Why is there material in the section on totalitarianism?  Because it's a commonly expressed criticism.  Covering those criticisms does not mean that Wikipedia is taking sides. And please note, for instance, that the responses by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins get more "virtual ink" than the criticism by D'Souza.
 * NPOV means that we really do have to be neutral. Like it or not, believers of many different stripes criticize atheism (after all, if they thought atheists were right, they'd be atheists to) - and we as Wikipedia editors can't respond.  What we can do is cite reliably sourced responses by others. EastTN (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but I agree with the reverts you made of the anon editor. Everything in this article should be reliably sourced.  Artichoker [ talk ] 18:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but by covering the rebuttals we give this more coverage than if we were to ignore it altogether. Which we should, per UNDUE, because this is a right-wing fringe theory. Sceptre (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Artichoker, I was responding to the whole discussion, rather than you in particular. I do think we're pretty much on the same page, though.  As an aside, while I created a stupid typo at the same time, I left in the clause "[t]he primary criticism of atheism is that it incorrectly rejects belief in any supreme being . . ." because while I don't think it's necessary, I do think the core argument here is that the rejection is incorrect because there is adequate support for belief in a supreme being.  I don't feel strongly about this, but I was trying to be even-handed - anyway, that was my rationale for what it's worth.


 * Scepter, it's clear that you think criticism of atheism is completely wrong-headed and misguided - but like it or not, it is notable. It's also a bit difficult to dismiss a rejection of atheism as a "right-wing fringe" ideology when something on the order of 85% of the people on the planet have some form of religious belief (see Demographics of atheism, List of religious populations & Major religious groups).  Given these demographics, the only way to characterize disagreement with atheism this way would be if the "right wing" included something on the order of 5 billion people and "fringe" meant "eight out of ten people living right now."


 * Don't mistake my meaning here. All of the criticisms of atheism may still be incorrect - but they are definitely worth talking about in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.  To balance the article, it's important to include the responses atheists give to these criticisms.  But we have to source them, and present them in a neutral and unbiased fashion. EastTN (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not every Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc believes that atheism makes you a totalitarian dictator. I'm okay with discussions about morality and dogmatism and strong atheism; those are notable and interesting points of debate. But the atheism-totalitarianism "link"? That's just a rehashing of the "affirming the consequent" fallacy ("Stalin was evil. Stalin was an atheist. Therefore, atheists are evil"; compare "Stalin had a moustache. Stalin was evil. Therefore, people with moustaches are evil") and a belief that's not held by most religious people. I mean seriously, if Ann Coulter is listed as a notable proponent... Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Stalin persecute people for not having mustaches?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, I agree that a comparison between atheism and totalitarianism is silly; however it is a notable criticism that has been presented, and so should be in the article. Ideally I would like to see this article take on a form similar to the Objections to evolution article, which is currently a GA. What do you all think about that?  Artichoker [ talk ] 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point here. Notability has nothing to do with my objections. How accepted they are by the mainstream is the base of my objections. And as I said, arguments about morality and dogmatism regarding atheists is taken seriously and is debatable. The totalitarianism link is just a giant logical fallacy and a waste of database space. Sceptre (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Scepter, I took your comment . ..


 * "Yes, but by covering the rebuttals we give this more coverage than if we were to ignore it altogether. Which we should, per UNDUE, because this is a right-wing fringe theory."


 * . . . to be a general one applying to the entire article. I apologize if that was a mistake.  But that's what I was responding to.


 * Of course, not all religious people would say that atheism necessarily leads to totalitarianism. But I do think Artichoker is right - this particular criticism is notable and should be included in the article (whether we think it is logically correct or not).  We also have some very well-framed responses from well-known atheists, so I don't think there's any essential POV problem here.  I think it may help to frame the "what does NPOV mean here?" discussion to note that the Criticism_of_religion, Criticism_of_christianity and Criticism_of_islam have parallel sections where the misdeeds of the adherents are attributed to the belief system itself (and the same response is made by Christians, Muslims and members of other religions faiths - "that's not fair, you're just Affirming the consequent).  But the criticism is there, it's notable, and it's covered.


 * Artichoker, I would not be in favor of adopting the structure of the Objections to evolution whole cloth. I have two principle concerns.  First, evolution is a purely scientific theory, which defines the types of evidence considered and the structure of the debate.  Atheism is a philosophical position rather than a scientific theory, so the nature of the debate is a bit different; the criticisms and responses do not line up quite as neatly.  Second, it seems to me (thought it is undeniably a very nice article) to create more of a "debate" tone than would seem ideal.  In a perfect world, this would read like a good summary of the criticisms that have been advanced and how leading atheists have responded, without giving the reader the sense that the editors are using the article to debate with each other.


 * Having said that, I do see some things in that article that might be very helpful here. For instance, having a short "Defining atheism" section at the top might be useful, if we could do it in a good, neutral tone.  A "History of criticisms" section might be good if we had someone with the right sources and editorial temperament to draft a really good historical overview.  We could consider breaking each section into "Criticism" and "Response" subsections, but personally, I don't like that style much.  It seems to me to foster debating on the page, and doesn't leave much room for more nuanced information and discussion.EastTN (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are some good points, and I agree for the most part. So I suppose ideally the format of this article would go: "Defining atheism"; "History of criticisms"; and then it would present modern criticisms (morality, dogmatism, totalitarian regimes) and responses/rebuttals to those, but without getting into such specific headings as the Objections to evolution article. Thoughts?  Artichoker [ talk ] 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That works for me. For "Defining atheism" we should be able to raid the Atheism article (perhaps there are other relevant articles).  The "History" section is likely to prove tougher. EastTN (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. On that note, can I ask what you and others think of the State atheism article? At least here, we cover the rebuttal arguments from Dawkins and Harris, so there is NPOV by giving both sides of this argument. But on State atheism, far less space is given, with only a brief mention to Dawkins, and none of Harris. I tried fixing this ages ago, but my edits were repeatedly reverted (e.g., see  for the most recent ones), by someone who claimed that giving mention to the other side of the argument was itself a violation of NPOV, or that they are not reliable sources(!) - see Talk:State_atheism. For some reason, the anti-atheist arguments are seen as reliable and not POV. It seems especially odd given that these people don't have a problem with covering Harris and Dawkins in this article. Mdwh (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead there also concerns me, presenting it as fact. Imagine starting state religion as "State religion is the official rejection of all other forms of religion by a government in favor of one particular religion"? And nowhere in the state religion article do we similar atrocities of trying to outlaw other religions, be it the destruction of monastries by Henry VIII, or the outlaw and persecution of other religions in Islamic and African Christian countries. Mdwh (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * sigh* And again. At least on this article we present both sides. My edits are once again reverted . It seems that claims against atheism are allowed without any sources whatsoever - and any request for them is deleted without explanation. Whilst cited sources on the opposing side are deleted as being "unreliable". Mdwh (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mdwh, I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'll take a look at that article and see if I can help. Frankly, I believe that both sides are better served by a balanced article than by a hatchet job for their own point of view.EastTN (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sugget putting the Hoxha material back in
The paragraph covering the Hoxha regime has been deleted with the edit comment "removing this paragraph as I'm not sure how it has any relation with the discussion above. it appears to just be a random example."

I don't know whether the example is "random" or not, but if there's one thing this article is short of, it's concrete examples. It's sourced, and it seems to me difficult to argue that it's not relevant as an example. The official expression of state support for atheism is about as clear as we could ask ("The State recognizes no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people."). We may wonder what was really behind it, and we may question whether it was necessarily connected with the suppression of religion, but definitionaly, at least, this would seem to be the clearest example we have of "state atheism" that we have in the sense of the state promoting atheism or "establishing" atheism as the official world view. It also seems difficult to describe the Hoxha regime as anything other than totalitarian (as an aside, is this the piece that you think may be missing to show the relevance of the example?).

Of course, if we can find sources that dispute that this happened, or that argue that it was really motivated by some other considerations (political, for instance) other than atheism, we should include them. EastTN (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it back in what I believe is a more relevant location.  Artichoker [ talk ] 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - that works for me, and I agree that it's a better location.EastTN (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Barna - the Sequel
Several editors have trimmed the Barna statement because they didn't find statistics on particular issues in the source. I think what happened is that when the original link died, the replacement link I found pointed to a summary rather than the original report (though the date is the same). I'll try to chase down a permalink to the original report. I apologize for not realizing that this was a summary. In the meantime, I agree with pruning the text to agree with the version we have now. If I find a link to the full report, we can add the other issues back in. EastTN (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it may be a few days - I'm going to be out of town traveling at the end of this week. EastTN (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * O.k., I've found the original Barna material in the Internet Archive. I'll check it against the text we had, and bring back in what's supported.


 * I also found some additional material (a Psychology Today article, a paper looking at the extent to which people believe that ethics are "objective," and a Pew Survey that looks at people's views of the nature of morality - page 61 and following - and their views of political and social issues - see for instance the section on "culture war" issues beginning on page 88). It looks like there may be more information out there on how our beliefs affect the judgments and decisions we make.


 * It also appears that we really do see things differently based on our world view. Without taking sides about who's right, I do think we should cover these differences, because ultimately they underlie the arguments people have about morality.  I don't think that describing the differences promotes a particular POV - for every believer who challenges the sexual ethics of an atheist, there's an atheist challenging the sexual ethos of believers.  But those arguments don't make any sense unless you understand that the people arguing really do disagree about some issues of sexual ethics. EastTN (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's good to list this somewhere, but I think there is a possible POV issue in that this is listed as a "criticism of atheism" - it carries the implication that it is wrong to think these things. I mean, we could surely list exactly the same statements in a criticism of Christianity/religion article :) I guess the point we need to make is that it's a criticism that has been made against atheists - which I guess the Barna group are doing, with their "Morality Continues to Decay" language. Mdwh (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've tried to improve it, so that's it's presented as a criticism that's made against atheists. Mdwh (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually think it's better to not describe the survey data as "criticism." While Barna uses a snappy title - and they aren't the only polling firm to do so - the statistics themselves are not a criticism.


 * Here's the way I see this. Let's take homosexuality for an example.  Supporters of gay marriage see it as a moral and ethical question - that it's fundamentally unjust to treat these relationships differently from heterosexual relationships.  Opponents of gay marriage also see it as a moral and ethical question - they believe that these relationships are morally or ethically wrong ("sinful").  Without taking sides, survey research can tell us that atheists are more likely to be on one side, while regular churchgoers are more likely to be on the other side.  That fact - that the side you come down on depends on your view of religion - seems relevant if a reader wants to understand in this article why atheism and atheists would be criticized on moral grounds and to understand in the article on Criticism of Religion why believers/religion would be also criticized on moral grounds.  Both world views affect the positions adherents take on moral/ethical/social issues, which spurs criticism from people with other world views.


 * If we pitch the statistics as a "criticism," then we may (depending on the reader) spur either the response "no, that's not right - of course we should support homosexual rights" or the response "why, that's outrageous" instead of helping readers actually think about where these criticisms might come from - a very real difference in world view that makes people see certain issues in very different terms. EastTN (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but this article isn't about "What statistics show atheists think", it's about criticisms people have leveled against it. I'm not sure how you intend to keep the survey in the article if you frame it as neither criticism nor praise. --King ♣  Talk  17:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but as Kingoomieiii points out, this article is Criticism of atheism. So it's always going to be implied that this is a criticism. I think implying that this is some kind of valid criticism is far worse than clearly attributing the criticism to the group making it. If it's not a criticism, it shouldn't be in this article. I'm fine with the wording as it is now, but is there a better place for this? Mdwh (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that everything in the article literally has to be a direct criticism of atheism. To take a couple of simple examples, we spend time defining what atheism is, and we also include responses by atheism.  What the article needs to include is information that helps the reader understand the criticisms that have been leveled against atheism, and how atheists respond.  Again, I think this helps do that.  To be very simple about it, imagine if atheists and fundamentalist Christians agreed about every ethical/moral issue other than working on Sunday - they might fight like cats and dogs, but neither side would be leveling charges of "immorality."


 * Having said that, I do think we need to be very careful to write the text in a way that doesn't imply a conclusion. Can we edit the text to make it even clearer than the original version did that we're only talking about 1) survey data; 2) that suggests differences in ethical judgments based on belief systems?  Using some of the additional sources I found might make it more neutral, and it might help to pull some text from the criticism of religion article to say that atheists in turn criticize believers on moral grounds.


 * I really don't want to be difficult about this. It just seems to me that the section is going to be much stronger if we can provide more background than the he said/she said "you're immoral . . . no you're immoral" back and forth.  If nothing else, maybe the reader can come away thinking "these people really don't understand each other." EastTN (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a couple more interesting papers ("God is Watching You," and "Cooperation and Commune Longevity: A Test of the Costly Signaling Theory of Religion"). EastTN (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Misleading title
I couldn't actually find any criticism of atheism (the philosophical position) in this article apart from the rather flimsy ones under the header "Rejection of theistic arguments", all I find is appeal to consequences and criticism of the actions of particular atheists.

Deebunk (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add it yourself. Pascal's Wager is covered, right? If you can find anything beyond that, I'd love to see it. --King ♣  Talk  13:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is anything to find (and I wouldn't agree that Pascal's Wager is a criticism, it's one of those appeals to consequences in my opinion). It's difficult to criticise a philosophical position that, in it's broadest meaning, is the absence of the belief that deities exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deebunk (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Atheism and the Communist regimes.
Theres a common arguement against Atheism being good for society by pointing to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ect. Maybe we could put a section on this plus the Atheists' responses. Bobisbob (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone knowledgeable can extend the article by describing the role of atheism in communist societies, that would be great. However, I hope that this isn't read as an invitation to "put in that atheism isn't good for society and see what they say about that" (and I'm sure that this isn't what Bobisbob intends): every contribution should WP:NPOV in its own right. It's true that the adversarial approach to achieving NPOV is common in very many many articles about writers on atheism and their books, but that doesn't make it the right approach. It engenders hostility rather than co-operation and wastes huge amounts of everybody's time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I wasn't talking about the athiests on wiki responses to the arguement. I meant to put the rebuttals Harris, Dennett ect have make to the arguement. I myself do not think this arguement holds water but it is used alot. Bobisbob (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification: your suggested addition would be an improvement to the article. I don't really feel qualified, but if there are no other takers (and this wouldn't be any time soon)...  --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' argument (if it deserves to be called such), referred to in the main article, that "Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists but did not kill people because of their atheism" is so breathtakingly false and beside the point that the only thing even more breathtaking is how little it has been met with criticism. Millions of people were killed or brought into camps both in the Soviet Union and in China precisely because of their religious views (millions of others for other reasons, but so what?), and during the whole Soviet era religious people were systematically discriminated against both in their working career (no promotions for openly religious, many other disadvantages too) and studies (no scholarships etc.), schoolchildren were asked at school whether they and their parents practised religion at home, and so on (and this is still going on in China). And all this allegedly because Stalin, Mao and other leaders "happened to be atheists"! As George Orwell (no religious man) put it: one has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that - no ordinary man could be such a fool. - - Voice from Finland, January 21th 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.197.173 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has deep flaws. The % of Chinese killed in Mao's anti-counterrevolutionary campaigns and Great Leap Foward as well as in Stalin's purges compare favorably to Nehru's India, Japanese Imperialism, The Revolutionary War, Spanish Civil War, the French Revolution, and is far exceeded by the European Imperialism (where going to Christianize these inferior heathens)Crusades(Please), the spread of Islam, the Spanish Conquistadors(God, King and Gold), US anti-communism cold war policy(fighting the godless atheistic heathens), Christopher Columbus(he tortured innocent civilians for a stated religious purpose), the genocide of the Native Americans(close to 100%, there was overt religious justification for that), the Inquisition. In addition, there is the establishment of theocracies, 9/11, Al-Qaeda and the Islamofascists are very obviously faith based, as was rampant anti-semitism in Europe prior to V-E day, Francisco Franco was a devout catholic, in addition, the Church supported fascist regimes, Hitler and Mussolini manipulated christianity for his own purposes, and all of this is irrelevant to whether or not atheism or religion or any political ideology is moral/immoral. For example how can one be a "communist", meaning belief in creating an egalitarian classless stateless society where all property is owned by everyone and society is organized in independent communes, and order an execution? You believe in a stateless society but you think it is okay for the state to kill someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense and rubbish. It didn't matter what religion a person was: Stalin was a psychotic, mass-murdering megalomaniac, and Mao wasn't far behind with the cult-of-personality. Religion had nothing to do with it. Trying to poison the well with such garbage is laughably pathetic. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * True of Stalin, but his claim of no-one being murdered or imprisoned for the sake of atheism is also utter nonsense and rubbish. Or at least misleading. Enver Hoxha at least did imprison people for not being atheism. There's also been violently atheistic anti-clerical groups in the history of Latin America. You could say all these were simply atheist philosophies, but you could also religions are theist philosophies and not theism itself.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalin killed people to maintain his own power, and for no other reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the claim isn't nonsense and rubbish at all. Being anti-clerical and atheist doesn't mean you imprison people for not being atheists. Talk about a flagrant non sequitur! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right so when a regime like Hoxha's declares itself an "atheist state" and says it's imprisoning people simply for religion it's still not persecution that favors atheism to theism. Likewise the actions of the Society of the Godless had nothing to do with a group of atheists hostile to religious types. Granted in a way that theory works. An Islamic state that declares disbelief in God to be the only religious outlook that will be punished is arguably still not persecuting in the name of God or theism. The same with an Islamic terror group that devotes itself to killing apostate atheists. Those cases are simply about an Islamic group or groups persecuting atheists, theism or religion as a concept is uninvolved. I'm just skeptical atheists would feel quite the same way.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So one instance means it's that way in all instances? Fallacy of composition/non sequitur/poisoning the well. Please PLEASE learn to not use fallacies. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And maybe you could learn to you know read what's actually been said in a discussion. The original proposition was no one was murdered or imprisoned for the sake of atheism. A few instances is enough to dispute that claim. Considering you call yourself "Knight of BAAWA" can I ask if you're 14 or 15?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read it. Looking at the original proposition, you're not being honest as to what the original proposition was.


 * I'll take the high road and not bother with your childish question. If you want to be uncivil, you can be. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was probably a tad mean. You've been kind of snide in your own way, but I can get too condescending.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You confuse being blunt and pulling no punches with being snide. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I'm sorry for bothering you.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also this article should plausibly be called "Defense of atheism from criticism" as this has pretty much always been the purpose and focus.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so. See WP:CFORK - "… the "Criticism of …" article should contain rebuttals if available". -- Jmc (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okey-dokey, withdrawn--T. Anthony (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good man! You're clearly one of a breed too rare around these parts. -- Jmc (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Dawkins comment. The second qoute by Dinesh was a response to Dawkin's claim that they didn't kill in the name of athiesm. (see the source) Besides Sam Harris' response is a good enough rebuttal on it's own. Bobisbob (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Dawkins's comment is still a rebuttal to Dinesh's first quote, about "The crimes of atheism...". If his second quote is a response to Dawkins, then that's all the more reason to include it - we can't just put in one side of the argument, and leave the other side out. Mdwh (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So now we have someone (CyberGhostFace) who doesn't understand what a strawman is, and that you don't need a source to say that it is. Fallacies do not need some external source to identify them, CyberGhostFace. It's neither POV or OR to say that "evolution says we come from monkeys" is a strawman. Similarly, it's neither POV or OR to point out that it's a strawman of what atheism is to imply that atheism = communism. Do you understand now? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the arguments listed in the criticism section even say "communism = atheism". Obviously there are atheists who are not communists and communists who aren't atheists. But pointing out that a lot of totalitarian regimes were atheistic in nature isn't a strawman's argument, so your disclaimer is unneccessary.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dinesh's argument does imply that communism is atheism, and vice-versa, and it even discusses that the atrocities were done in the name of atheism. And if you agree that obviously there are atheists who are not communists, and communists who aren't atheists: I need you to cite your source. After all: that's what you expect of me. So cite your source. It should be easy, right?


 * If you don't cite your source, then I'll just put the paragraph back. The paragraph criticizes Dinesh's argument by showing that atheism isn't communism, and communism isn' atheism. Further, since atheism has already been defined in the main article, it must be clear that Dinesh's attempt at smuggling something into atheism which isn't there qualifies as a strawman. Do you NOW understand? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you, not me. I'm not the one throwing in my opinions onto the article. As it is now we have one person's argument and another's rebuttal. Both are cited. That's enough.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And mine was cited, too. The explanation of the fallacies were there, as well as showing that the fallacies were used. What do you think the wikilinks were? Did you just not see them? Further: you have the burden of proof. You're the one saying here that "obviously there are atheists who are not communists, and communists who aren't atheists". I expect proof, since that's precisely what I was saying! If you're agreeing with me, and I need to provide proof of it: so do you! Even on the talk page, you have to provide proof. After all: I wouldn't want you to be inconsistent.


 * It's also not enough to just have a "rebuttal"; a short-but-clear examination of the argument itself is helpful to show precisely the reasons that the argument holds no weight. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're obviously not aware of Wikipedia's policies, are you?
 * You should see Wikipedia's rules on Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * Wikilinks in itself aren't reliable sources. You need a reliable source of someone stating your opinion. "[Insert random atheist apologist here] states that so and so's argument is a strawman, because...." followed up a source that verifies your information. Obviously to you the argument holds no weight but not everyone shares your opinion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm quite aware of them; they simply aren't applicable in this cause because it's not a synthesis or original research. Identifying fallacies is like that, you know. Fallacies are fallacies are fallacies, no matter what. And wikilinks are a reliable source in this case. Look: I really have no idea what your problem is here. But I'll let you have your POV edit, since it's clear from your "atheist apologist" comment that your removal of the text was just from your POV. No problem. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right in that I disagree with it, but I wouldn't have removed it had been sourced (if I were to remove everything on my personal views alone there'd be little left. I will also point out that I have removed POV comments in the past even though I may have personally agreed with them.). I don't see the "fallacy" either, because I never got the impression that he was accusing all atheists of being communists, just that atheism was prevalent in that particular situation(s). If you want, you can bring it up to a noticeboard and see if you'll get a different opinion but I doubt it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Will this help you see the source? Dinesh's own words are the source. Thus: the source IS THERE. "Further, this criticism is simply a poisoning the well fallacy variant, as well as a strawman of atheism, viz: "the crimes of atheism…", rather than "the crimes of communism…". It is clear that not all communists are atheists (see Christian Communism), not all atheists are communists (see Ayn Rand), and attacking atheism via communism attempts to paint atheists in a negative light initially so as to discredit anything they may say, thus poisoning the well." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight of BAAWA (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because again, thats your personal viewpoint. You're making your own conclusions based on the quotes. Again, see WP:SYN. Who says its a strawman? You do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because it's not my personal viewpoint. I don't think you grasp how fallacies work; they are independent of someone's viewpoint! Have you ever had a course in logic or philosophy (I ask that seriously, and not with any malintent)? If you have, you'd know that fallacies aren't subjective. Thus, synthesis does not apply. I fail to see why you think it does. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. I know what a fallacy is. I just don't see how its any more of fallacy than the atheists pointing out the stuff done in the name of a religion. Because he's not saying "Therefore, all atheists are like Stalin" or "All atheists are communists", he's just pointing out that horrible stuff has been done in the name of atheism. --CyberGhostface (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See, now you're confusing what's going on, and you're trying a tu quoque fallacy in your attempt. Dinesh IS saying that all atheists are like Stalin and that all atheists are communists because he said "the crimes of ATHEISM". Did you miss that? And since what was done wasn't in the name of atheism (Dinesh never proves that it was; he merely asserts), you too are guilty of creating a strawman. So clearly: you do not know what fallacies are, and you honestly don't grasp what Dinesh wrote. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How is that any different from saying "the crimes of religion" when talking about religious terrorism or whatnot? I mean, surely when an atheist says that he doesn't mean all Christians are crazy bigots? He's not saying all atheists are communists. Even after reading your comments, I still don't see your logic when rereading the quote. If you still have a problem with it, bring it up on an admin noticeboard. --CyberGhostface (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again: tu quoque fallacy. Further: you didn't see me saying anything about the crimes of religion. So you've--strawmanned my position! This is a criticism of atheism page, and what you're bringing up about "the crimes of religion" has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING here. Further, Dinesh IS saying all atheists are communists: " The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. That means he says all atheists are communists. If you don't see it in the quote, I suggest you read it over and over. It's there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said you said anything. I'm just pointing out that there are lots of quotes like that on the anti-religion articles. And again, he's not saying all atheists are communists. I still don't see it. Either way, its not up for us to throw what we think it means on the article unless we have a source to back the opinion. I just took a look at a handful of articles which "straw man" is linked from. None of them presented "This is a straw man argument" as fact. They had "So and so says that this is a straw man argument [insert source here]".--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He says "the crimes of atheism", not "the crimes of communism". That necessarily means he's saying that all atheists are communists, since he further goes on with the "perpetrated through..." section, equating atheism and communism. I don't get how you can't grasp that, and I won't hazard to guess why (out of politeness). And Dinesh's own statement is the source! I don't get why you can't grasp that, either. Further, you can point out quotes from "anti-religion" articles, but those are red herrings. They mean nothing here. They have no standing here. They have no merit here. All that needs to be pointed out is that since atheism and communism are separate entities, implying that atheism and communism are the same is to create a strawman of atheism (that is, to create a different position than what atheism is). But you have it your way, ok. Your bias is showing again. Why else do you keep bringing up things from "anti-religion" articles when they have no bearing here? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * *sighs* You're jumping from Point 2 to Point 10. Yes, he's saying its crimes of atheism. Because he's making an argument against atheism, not communism. That doesn't mean he's saying ALL atheists are communists. You're seriously grasping at straws here. JMC pretty much summed up the argument below.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't resist leaping into the cauldron to make a couple of points (and then leap out again).

1) Knight of BAAWA: "That necessarily means [D'Souza]'s saying that all atheists are communists".

I believe that's a conclusion too far. D'Souza's claim that the "crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology" seeking to "create a secular utopia" applies equally to atheistic fascist regimes, as Harris recognises in his response: "The problem with fascism and communism ...".

2) Knight of BAAWA: "I don't think you grasp how fallacies work; they are independent of someone's viewpoint! ... fallacies aren't subjective."

Granted, but the identification of fallacies is subjective, and I think that's what's happening here. Knight of BAAWA's contention that "Dinesh's attempt at smuggling something into atheism which isn't there qualifies as a strawman" is Knight of BAAWA's subjective identification of the strawman fallacy. However, CyberGhostface doesn't accept that D'Souza is in fact smuggling something into atheism which isn't there (nor, FWIW, do I) and so doesn't believe that the straw man fallacy is in play here.

-- Jmc (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. It's a proper conclusion, since Dinesh SOLELY listed communists for examples, as well as wrote: "…all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist" IOW: atheism = communism/communism = atheism.


 * 2. The identification of fallacies isn't subjective. Any logic or philosophy prof will tell you that.
 * - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's simply answer both your responses, Knight of BAAWA, by pointing out that you're committing the straw man fallacy yourself by positing that D'Souza has said something that he hasn't. -- Jmc (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Christopher Hitchens suggests in "God is Not Great" that certain supposedly atheist people creating officially atheist states have done nothing of the sort. He provides an interesting argument for religiosity and the cult of personality in the case of Stalin, Mao and the Kim family of North Korea. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to read what the religious zealots are writing here w.r.t. atheism and communism. These dumbass Christian evangelicals (if I may presume) should get their heads out of their own asses and think with their brains: "there's a difference in KILLING in the NAME of atheism than KILLING people while you happen to be an atheist. And if you think being religious gives you morality that's just bullshit - statistically there are way more Christian evangelicals that commit adultery in the US than any other religious group, just take Ted Haggard as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Children of the dragon (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Many people actually consider communism to be a religion. Also certain commonly recognized religions such as Buddhism have no deities and therefore atheistic religions, that's to prove the point that religion can be Atheistic. But even Atheistic religion is still a religion. With Communist regimes non adherence to communist believes is punishable, while religious people is clearly do not adhere to Communism, Atheists may or may not adhere to it and if they not adhere they also prosecuted by Communists but with the formal reason of treason. Atheism itself is only a concept of non-existence of God which is a basis of many different ideologies and religions; it is comparable to concept of existence of god that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Zoroastrians and many others share. So blaming all Atheists for crimes of Communism is like blaming all God believers for crimes of Osama ben Laden or Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets discuss stuff
I have made edits to this article but Pariah suggested that changes like the ones I did should be discussed on the talk page. I took out parts that are not related to criticism of atheism, and sections that do not belong to this article. Take a look at the edits I had made via history. Tell me what you think. --Volcano00 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain with more detail why you feel they should removed?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's true that you removed things which weren't criticisms of atheism, however the point is that they are rebuttals to criticisms that have been made of atheism, and so still belong in this article. For WP:NPOV, it is fair to present referenced views both for and against each criticism. Mdwh (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wanting to use this source to rebut the criticism that Atheism leads to more immoral behaviors and social issues. Is this an acceptable source? http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html Ukvilly (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to check out. Go ahead an use it.  Artichoker [ talk ] 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal
To take one passage from Pensées on "boredom" and to link it with a passage about dissatisfaction four pages later, in a chapter on the "supreme good", in an attempt to develop a point is original research, specifically synthesis, and not allowed. This edit reinstates material twice deleted for these reasons. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, once again. Thanks User:Artichoker. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Synthesis is combining different sources. Only one source is used - so naturally the points are linked. Pascal clearly makes one point (man is bored and hollow) and later makes another point (abyss is filled by God). Stating that he makes both points in the same book is not synthesis. It is stating what he says in the book.
 * In addition, the first quote discusses the condition of man himself (ie without God) as being bored/miserable: "9 Diversion.'If man were happy the less diverted the happier he would be, like the Saints and God'-'Yes but is not happiness the ability to be amused by diversion?'-'No because that comes from elsewhere and from outside...'". Both points are relevant alone or together and are clearly related which is why they are in the same book.
 * Since the introduction to the first quote was evidently confusing, i propose we change it to something like 'pascal... discusses the human condition in itself without God in saying'. Let me know what you think. Also, this section needs a rebuttal to meet the neutrality standards of wikipedia, like all sections of all articles. Perhaps something related to the purpose of life from non-deistic philosophies/religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Morality section - add Kant & Voltaire
I think that it would be relevant to add both Kant and Voltaire's views for the practical necessity of the existence of God (for morality). Let me know what you think (and if someone else can type this up cause I can't be bothered :P).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopial (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
I'm not quite sure how things are done on the discussion pages so I hope I don't have the ettiquette wrong, but anyway in wikipedia browsing today I stumbled upon a couple of points that might be worth including (preferably, by someone who can put them into coherent arguments/sentences) about the 'Atheism as religion' idea. On one of the evolution pages, I found an interesting quote by Dawkins, "There's got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can't think of one, then that's your problem not natural selection's problem..." not really something that can be just shoved into the article, but if someone wants to take the time to fit it in (maybe find some quotes from others, more directly addressing it as an example of 'faith') (Personal view; I agree with the statement to a point. I think you can make a somewhat educated guess that a feather evolved, based on the evolutionary explanations elsewhere. But that type of 'somewhat educated guess' is precisely what I mean when I talk about faith.)

Later in this article is a comment about Atheists seperating faith into 2 types (the one usually being attributed to Atheists and the latter being attributed to Christians) What really struck me about that comment was how much the the first (the 'Atheist' type) sounds like a famous description of faith (in a Christian context) from C.S. Lewis (the quote is, I think, something like 'Faith is the faculty of maintaining what I have reasoned to be true, in the face of changing emotions and fancies') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.5.120 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One other interesting detail, but needs outside sources if anyone cares to find one. Not sure this even qualifies as 'Criticism of Atheism,' but it seems to me that one of the fascinating characteristics of Atheism versus other religions is that one can denounce, say, an evil 'Christian' as acting in a way that clearly goes against the Bible, but one cannot denounce an evil Atheist as acting in a way that goes against Atheism. (Unless, to be pedantic, we're talking about someone like the Maquis de Sade who's hatred of God clearly runs contrary the Atheist belief in the absence of God. But, even then, it's only the hatred of God that can be deemed "contrary to Atheism," there's nothing else about him that can be termed 'un-Atheistic,' in the same way that, say, pedophile priests can be termed 'un-Christian')

I just figured, if I've thought about this peculiarity (flaw?) in Atheism, there must be others who have thought likewise (more notable & quotable people) and they might have a quote or two we can add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.5.120 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "one of the fascinating characteristics of Atheism versus other religions is that one can denounce, say, an evil 'Christian' as acting in a way that clearly goes against the Bible, but one cannot denounce an evil Atheist as acting in a way that goes against Atheism."

Atheism isn't a religion because it isn't a set of religious beliefs. It is the absence of belief in a divine power. That's all. So you can't act "against atheism" because there's only one way you could do that and it'd be by being religious...which would mean you were no longer an atheist. See? Whereas the paedophile priests you mention can be termed un-Christian (but technically they can't, because the Bible never specifically forbids priests from having sex with children). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.199.96 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of Theistic Argument Section needs work
My comments will be in bold.

The primary criticism of atheism is that it rejects belief in any supreme being, commonly known as God or gods. In the view of theist and deist critics '''Are these critics of theists and deists? Poor choice of wording. How about In the view of theists and deists critical of Atheism''',[38] there is a variety of long-established arguments confirming the existence of God. '''Too POV. How about long-established arguments believed by deists and theists to confirm the existence of God.''' However, atheists regard these as unconvincing or flawed.[39] An early example of such criticism is found in the Bible: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God' ",[40] while a more recent example is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion".[2]Ukvilly (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughts, please be BOLD and go ahead and fix the article. Cheers,  Artichoker [ talk ] 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that Ukvilly's changes serve to obscure, rather than clarify. More importantly, I can't see that the reasons offered have any vaildity:


 * 1) To call someone 'a theist critic' is to say "This person is a theist and a critic". Cf 'Marxist critic' - a critic who is a Marxist. There is no ambiguity. "theists and deists critical of Atheism" is both awkward and unnecessary.


 * 2) "In the view of theist and deist critics, there is a variety of long-established arguments confirming the existence of God." Too POV? I can't see it. "In the view of theist and deist critics" surely makes it plain that the reference is to the view of theist and deist critics rather than the view of WP.


 * If more convincing justifications of Ukvilly's changes can't be offered, I propose to (boldly) revert.


 * -- Jmc (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If someone is called a movie critic, it means they offer a critical viewpoint of movies. Hence, calling someone a theist critic makes it sound as if they are critical of theism.


 * 2) Perhaps a complete rewording of that sentence is in order. Ukvilly (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) "If someone is called a movie critic, it means they offer a critical viewpoint of movies" - 'movie' is a noun, and hence the phrase means 'critic of movie(s)', while 'theist' (likewise 'deist') is an adjective and hence the phrase means 'critic who is theist'. Cf 'a fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist critic of the régime'. Ukvilly needs to produce a counter-example with a qualifying adjective.


 * 2) "Perhaps a complete rewording of that sentence is in order." Why?


 * --Jmc (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See your new 1) and change it to the format of the example you gave. "'a fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist critic of the régime. Or since theist and deist are also nouns as well as adjectives, how about theistic and deistic critics?"


 * 2)Because perhaps a complete rewording would eliminate any confusion? Ukvilly (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The qualifiers in 'a theist/deist/fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist critic' are functionally different from the qualifiers in 'a movie/book/website critic'. The meaning of the former is plainly 'a critic who is a theist/deist/fundamentalist/monarchist/Maoist/Islamist'. If the qualifiers in the latter were functionally identical, then that phrase would mean 'a critic who is a movie/book/website'! No comparison, no confusion.


 * 2) Where is the confusion?
 * --Jmc (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)If it were plainly, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.


 * 2)In the wording. I suggest we allow a neutral party to make a rewrite. This article is High-Importance, yet has been start class for three and a half years. I think some redoing is in order. Ukvilly (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This section was rewritten over two years ago, following exhaustive discussion amongst a number of editors, and no such objection has been raised since then. I suggest that indicates that its meaning is plain and requires no rewording. -- Jmc (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or one can take it to suggest that it needs work because this article is still start-class. I stand by my opinion that a third party should present an alternative rewriting of the section, and we can go from there. Ukvilly (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Start class? Granted the article still has weaknesses, but the "start class" rating was assigned in January of 2007 (diff).  I don't know why it hasn't been more recently re-rated, but it has been significantly expanded and improved since the version current at that time.  In particular, the sourcing has been massively improved.  Wherever we may stand on the particular issue at hand, I don't think it's valid any longer to argue on the basis of the start class rating. EastTN (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to say that this article most likely still start-class. It contains numerous clean-up tags, citation needed tags, the lead is woefully inadequate, the article lacks comprehensiveness (i.e. history of criticism section) This article is still in need of drastic improvement.  Artichoker [ talk ] 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] It might be good to get a couple of experienced editors who haven't been working with the article in here to rate it. I'd have said that it easily meets the criteria for a "C class" article. There's a "weasel word" tag at the top, which prompted a good bit of clean up by several editors. There's also an "undue weight" tag at the top which, given the nature of the article, may well be there forever - someone's always going to think it leans too much to one side or the other. Beyond that, there are currently two "citation needed" tags.


 * Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager.


 * A number of religions also suggest that atheism has highly negative effects on the individuals after death: a point taken up by Pascal in Pascal's Wager (see picture and caption).

Neither statement is all that central to the article, and in my opinion both could be deleted without our losing too much.

A history section would be nice, and I'd certainly support working on it if we can find appropriate sources, but I'm not sure it's essential given the nature of the article. For instance, while the Criticism of Religion and Criticism of Islam articles both include history sections, the Criticism of Marxism and Criticism of Christianity articles do not. We may find that one would help organize the article or provide useful context, but if the article can cover the most common criticisms leveled at atheism without a history section that strikes me as fine too.

The criteria for a C class article are:


 * The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
 * More detailed criteria
 * The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.

It seems to me that we're there. There may still be some stuff that's missing - such as a history section - but the article is substantial and certainly has "some references to reliable sources" at this point. The question of balance is still something we need to work on, but it has been greatly improved in style, structure and quality over the last year or so. EastTN (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is really, really weak
Most of it's already been picked up, but I'd also like to add my tuppence worth. For instance, evidence has come to light casting doubt on the extent of Stalin's atheism (it's on the Stalin page). Also, there are simply too many vague points made against my fellow non-believers, too little elaboration, and an incredibly one-sided tone to the whole article. I'm aware that it is a page examining "criticisms of atheistm" but there's far too few rebuttals of the criticisms compared to assertions by religious figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.199.96 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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 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)

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

Atheism and Totalitarianism
I labeled this section as "undue weight" for a variety of reasons. Though the section is inherently a discussion about a minority viewpoint that there is a link between atheism and totalitarianism, there is far too much "expert opinion" and not enough statistical data. A criticism of this magnitude surely would warrant at least some empirical evidence as a matter of principle. The only data of which I am aware suggests the opposite, in fact. For example, the Scandinavian countries, the most atheistic societies in the world, also happen to be considered the most utopian and have the strongest predictors of societal well-being.

Additionally, I'm a bit concerned with the point-counterpoint presentation of the viewpoints of Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza. It is acceptable to see both viewpoints represented as both are relevant and important. However, the fact that D'Souza is not only being used to provide a criticism, but then also rebut Dawkins (without an equal response) gives undue weight, especially when Dawkins is the one of the most eminent scientists in the world and D'Souza is a former political rhetorician from the Reagan administration who later became a popularizer of anti-atheist sentiments. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it, and I'm not too bothered by the relative ordering of the comments by D'Souza and those by Dawkins and Harris. This page is about criticisms of atheism, and we also have Criticism of religion. Also, each person's name is blue-linked, which allows readers to see the background of each person, which is better than if we were to comment on it on this page. It does strike me as a bit of a quote farm, which gets to your first point. I think it would be a very good idea if you could find a secondary source that documents what you say here about Scandinavian and other countries. We could certainly add that, and maybe look at shortening some of the other stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look as well and think we should go for the removal of the entire section until there is some semblance of a coherent criticism here. The first two paragraphs just list off a bunch of irrelevant crap about the Bolsheviks and Albania. The section should not have started with, "A few critics believe that there is a link between Atheism and Totalitarianism." Of course, that would be obviously false -- Reductio ad Hitlerum -- and would have been deleted. I suspect that's why the author didn't include it in the first place....Then again, the entire article reads like crap.PalindromeKitty (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Gould on Darwinian Fundamentalism
The problem is that Gould is not responding to Dawkins' point as summarized here, unless I missed it. Dawkins seems to be saying that he would happily change his mind in light of evidence, whereas fundamentalist make it a virtue of remaining steadfast. This is a clear point: while some scientists may stick to their own view even in light of new evidence, it is not considered a virtue, it is as an embarrassment when people are attached to old theories. For fundamentalism "not losing the faith" is something worth praying for, steadfastness is a virtue to praise in others and cultivate in your own spiritual life. Does Gould address this point? --Vesal (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

who thinks atheism causes totalitarianism?
I've tagged the line "One criticism of atheism is that it is positively correlated with totalitarianism" as needing a citation. Frankly, the section on totalitarianism mystifies me- apart from the first line, it doesn't seem to be about atheism being positively correlated with (or leading to) totalitarianism. The assertion is immediately followed by a refutation that confuses 'totalitarianism' with 'peacefulness' (ie atheist nations are more peaceful, therefore not totalitarian). That section is about how some ideologies have expressed their atheism in terms of mass murder of theist leaders and churches. Should we rename it 'Dogmatic atheist ideologies leading to mass murder', merge it with the previous section, or is the totalitarianism hypothesis a genuine criticism of atheism I am not aware of?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of religious people do think that atheism and totalitarianism are linked. I don't particularly like the article, but felt it needed some real data.Obamafan70 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for that? I haven't read people suggesting a link, and it reads like a strawman excuse to insert the refutation. (If we can find a reliable source, we should also include it in the lede.(
 * 1) You've said above that it is a minority opinion- maybe it's such a minority view that it isn't worth mentioning here.
 * 2) The "real data" isn't about totalitarianism, it's about peacefulness (etc). The two are related, but not closely enough for it to be a refutation of that viewpoint. (It is a very good piece of data to refute an accusation that atheism always leads to warlike attitudes, if such a criticism is made at some point) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily know if this article is worth mentioning -- or encyclopaedic. (1') I don't think it's a small minority -- the Pope made a statement to this effect when he was in Britain. I don't have enough time to get any data for this, but I know a study (Univ of Minnesota - I believe) which found atheists to be the most disliked....I suspect there are similar studies about atheism & totalitarianism (attitudes towards the suggestion of a link). (2') That's not entirely clear...there are about 20-30 different variables in the study, any of which or all which could be operationally defined as totalitarian. Obamafan70 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * re 1): Thanks, I'll have a hunt around. If the pope has said it, it will be recorded somewhere, that would be as good a source as any.
 * re 2) I don't agree. I can see the variables, but can't see any that could operationally be defined as totalitarianism.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, just wanted to clarify -- in regards to the bogus straw man claim. This article had absolutely zero data before I suggested it needed some. See previous discussion and article history. Thank you Obamafan70 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, my bad- didn't mean it was a strawman, I meant that it read like it was one. I worded that poorly and apologise. I was referring to the fact that it briefly makes the claim without citation, then immediately and thoroughly attacks that claim.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point exactly. That's a common criticism of Wikipedia,....since there are multiple authors, there is often no consistent pattern of style, content, or organization.Obamafan70 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed
An editor wrote the following: ''Dawkins use that it is not atheism that influenced their atrocities, can also be used against him, in that he blames religion and not induviduals for atrocites this leads to the question, why should it be one rule for his argument and another rule against another's argument? Another argument could be used in that Hitler, Stalin and Mao,had a belief in that religion must be stamped out and this is a common atheist ideal, therefore they did their deeds in the name of atheism, but athiesm did not make them do these atrocities but it can also be added that not all atheists think this way.''


 * I have reverted this. Aside from the obvious grammar issues "atheiesm", "atrocites", etc., this needs to be sourced. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I support your deletion. It's a clear case, really. The edit was polemical and POV, in addition to all the problems that you correctly listed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I add my support. The anon editor's addition was correctly reverted, despite the fact that they claim to have "used a oxford ENGLAND ENGLISH dictionary". -- Jmc (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * obama fan 70 i spelt ATHEISM correctly and ATROCITIES correctly and did not spell them "atheiesm", "atrocites" i had also sourced the material correctly from the BBC  why do insist upon these details that were incorrect is it because of your predjudice towards Religion? and never ever criticise my GRAMMER as you of all people americans have ruined the english language and it is not just my opinion but other's all around the world especially England and other athieists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.10.177 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Spelling: "predjudice", "GRAMMER", "americans", "english", "other's", "athieists". And this is to say nothing of 91.110.10.177's GRAMMER. -- Jmc (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anonymous user, that is the fifth time you've written I am biased or implied that I am "predjudice" towards religion. This is even ignoring the (possibly offensive) claim you put into the article (that violence and murder are common atheist ideals). I have kindly on at least three occasions asked you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. I am a very patient person, but admins will not be nearly as patient with you if you do not show more respect to your fellow editors -- Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Thank you,Obamafan70 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 91.110.10.177, let me say for the record that I agree with the other editors who have cautioned you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Be civil or be gone. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

i have not implied that violence and murder are common atheist ideals AS THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT OTHERWISE I WOULD BE CALLING MYSLF VIOLENT AND MURDEROUS. I implied that to stamp out all religion was common among SOME atheist such as hitler and stalin NOT among the majority. The same can be said for religious believer's such as the crusades or jihads or the current popes cover up of the child rape scandel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.10.177 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Atheism: totalitarianism
I've revamped the intro to this section. I am aware that i have changed the focus from "atheism:totalitarianism" to "godlessness:religious persecution". i have done this because it seems to be a more accurate description of the issues raised in that section. the issue seems not so much to be about totalitarianism, as about persecution by anti christian governments (eg this could include persecution following the french revolution and perhaps others). i have also reduced the mention of the research showing the lack of connection in modern countries, because it is really only a side note to the topic at hand. I'm happy to discuss and, perhaps, to be proven wrong. if theere are no objections, a renaming of the section would also be in order- but i wanted this to be accepted/ clarified/ fixed first. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your changes make a lot of sense from an organizational standpoint -- very well written in my opinion. Not sure about the overall title -- maybe it could be more broad -- atheism:societal well-being, etc. The introduction of the pope's comments now seem to imply a broader criticism in my view. A few minor issues -- it should be "godless" not "Godless". A couple of commas -- here and there -- are needed. Also, I think the statement about research should be 1.5 sentences rather than .5 sentences. Otherwise, it's an improvement. Obamafan70 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Effects of Atheism on the Individual: Revision
In the section concerning the individual prosperity of religious people versus atheists, the counterargument (atheist) POV does not adequately defend their position. The text is as follows-

'''Christian author Alister McGrath has criticized atheism, citing studies suggesting that religion and belief in God are correlated with improved individual health, happiness, and life expectancy. However, atheists Gregory Paul and Michael Martin state that in developed countries, health, life expectancy, and other factors of wealth are generally higher in countries with a greater percentage of atheist compared to countries with higher proportions of believers.'''

The atheist counterargument to McGrath seems to be a red herring, not an rebuttal, simply because McGrath's argument concerns the individual health of religious people while the argument of Paul and Martin concerns the general health of nations with high numbers of atheists. This is not a direct correlation, as it relies on a totally different statistical data (that countries with higher numbers of atheists generally have more available health care) to assert its claim. To accurately prove or refute McGrath's argument, one would need to have a piece of data comparing the general longevity of atheists and religious individuals in the same country and with the same access to healthcare.

If one cannot find data of that nature, then the passage should be removed to avoid misconception.

Also a section concerning suicide rates of atheists versus non-atheists may be a useful contribution to this section if such data can be found.

Best Wishes, HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

rejection of theistic arguments section
This section seems to be a waste of space, and contains meaningless statements. The first statement says that atheism is criticised because it rejects a belief in deities, which is pretty much the definition of atheism. A rejection of belief in deities is criticised because it lacks a belief in deities... tautology. The following quote from the bible means nothing- "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God' "- this isn't an argument it merely states that atheists are fools, but gives no reason why saying there is no god is a foolish position. Again, the statement "Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion" has no bearing on the section since it does nothing to actually mention the virtues of religion, it just creates an assumption that there are virtues. The following paragraph is not much better, relying on one agnostic yet suggesting the view is held by plural agnostics. If anything strong atheism is a strawman anyway. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in part - the first sentence is simply wrong, in that it is not a criticism of atheism that it rejects gods, that's just a definition. The next two sentences are roughly right, but irrelevant - there are arguments for the existence of god, and atheists aren't convinced by them. These three sentences don't belong in this article, IMO, since they don't address the subject.
 * I disagree about the two quotes - 'the fool sayeth in his heart, yada yada' is a criticism of atheism (implicitly, as a position held by fools), and the source is somewhat notable. The statement from the RC catechism is also a critical view from a notable source, and is worthy of inclusion in this article. The fact that it's a pathetically weak argument is neither here nor there for our purposes.
 * Would it be possible to remove this section altogether, and maybe add the first quote to the lead - it shows that atheism has been criticised by the religious since antiquity, and the second, hmm... can't think where that might fit in. Any ideas? If another place could be found where it fitted well, we could delete the whole of the rest of that feeble section. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  12:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This might merit some more discussion about how the article is defined and/or will develop. The sentences starting with, (1) "The fool has said," and (2) Since it rejects or," are not arguments against atheism (in a logical sense). They are simply criticisms about atheism. There is no requirement for criticism to be logical. Criticism could comprise many fallacies. It could even be tautological... If the article is simply to be an encyclopedia reference that captures the criticisms of atheism, these statements could reasonably remain.
 * However, there is no argument that the article is finished and perfect. Far from it. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the opening sentence in this section is tautological. Furthermore, it doesn't address the issue introduced by the heading "Rejection of theistic arguments", which is that believers' primary criticism of atheism is its refusal to accept the "long-established arguments for the existence of" a "supernatural being or beings, commonly known as God or gods". As such a criticism, it certainly needs to be included in this article (and to have a section to itself).


 * The problem with the first two sentences, then, is one of wording, and can be easily addressed by conflating these sentences, along these lines: "The primary criticism of atheism is that it rejects acceptance of the long-established arguments for the existence of a supernatural being or beings, commonly known as God or gods." (It's superfluous (even tautological!) to add the return volley of "However, atheists regard these as unconvincing or flawed.")


 * I'm with Squiddy and Airborne84 in supporting the inclusion of the following two quotes from notable sources, as examples of such criticism, viz "It's obvious that God exists (as we can demonstrate) and only a fool or sinner would deny it."


 * -- Jmc (talk)


 * The wording of the section itself seems not to be reflected in the content- what theistic arguments are rejected? "the fool has said in his heart, there is no god"... so the theistic argument that is rejected here is that people who don't believe in gods are fools? I would have thought the section should focus on the actual arguments atheists reject, instead of casually saying there are long-established arguments for the existence of god. The title of the section specifically relates to the rejection of these arguments, so if the section exists at all it should definitely address these arguments. Ninahexan (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ninahexan: "what theistic arguments are rejected?". Follow the link. -- Jmc (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is my point entirely- the section is headed the rejection of theistic arguments, yet contains no theistic arguments or how these are specifically rejected, it merely links to another page instead of actually expanding on the title of the section. Why not just remove the entire section and contain only the link, if that is where the information lies? Is it a matter of nobody actually having bothered to flesh out this section? For example, Anselm's ontological argument relating to the use of reason in outlining the existence of god would follow quite well on the back of the atheist fools bible quote, which would then be followed by some points of how the argument has been rejected/supported, thus furnishing the section with information the title promises. Ninahexan (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)