Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 5

Argument from inconsistent revelations
Just to add, you can see Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan briefly discussing the point here. This is pretty common, enough that I'm not sure you can attribute it to someone. Mackan79 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding my other edits, I don't mean to just undo a group of tags that were just added, but looking through I see that some of the passages are supported by numerous references. Isn't it reasonable to provide the sources for these statements, and then assume the reader can look themselves?  These aren't extremely specific arguments, and with so many I can't exactly see listing proponents for every argument in the article.  I will probably remove most of the tags, but if there are problems I am not seeing I would suggest raising them more specifically here, or perhaps making corrections. Mackan79 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I can't speak for the editor who placed the tags, but I've been watching this article for some time. I've noticed (and have been meaning to edit, but haven't gotten around to it) that the current version of the page has a tendency to say "critics say" in a somewhat weasel-wordy way that could be addressed by placing a citation closer to the critics-say sentence, and I think this is what you have now been starting to do. I think that many of the new tags can be deleted, personally. I also have noticed that the page is written in a way that is just criticisms, without at least a brief acknowledgment of the opposing view for NPOV, and without acknowledging that many criticisms apply to only some adherents of religion (for example, not all believers condone blood sacrifice, to name an obvious example that recently attracted attention). I would imagine that some editors, understandably, could be reacting to that as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish's initial observation is correct. There are far too many weasel words in the article; if a statement is based on the writings of one or two authors, then those authors should be named. If it's a half dozen, then one can actually write "Critics say" and the footnote should say something like Alternatively, if the source actually says "Critics say..." then you can use similar terminology. For that matter, the article relies far too heavily on Hitchens and Dawkins, who are good writers, but also non-expert polemicists. There are plenty of good authors on this topic (e.g. philosophers, theologians, historians of religion); there's little need to rely on popular polemics. It also relies far too much on essentially primary sources and OR; arguments are constructed based on newspaper articles or similar media. For example, this:
 * "An example of this would be the idea that women and men must be kept separate, or that women who do not cover themselves up modestly have tendencies for immorality, or are in some way responsible for sexual assault."
 * Were the authors of those newspaper articles writing a defense of Ebadi's argument? No, of course not. Rather, a Wikipedia author has constructed one. There's lots more I could go into, but I think that's enough for now. Rather than simply removing tags, it would make more sense to address the issues they highlight. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at it more carefully, I think that Jayjg's points are entirely correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was Consensus is not to rename. Marokwitz (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of religion → Critique of Religion — This article should be renamed per rules in Criticism in order to allow positive as well as negative critique to balance each other. See also POV_FORK --Marokwitz (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's merely an essay and the article is long enough already just covering criticism and responses, much less praise. --Cyber cobra (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename I think this article can be shortened by splitting the critique of specific religions to "main articles" referenced by this article. Instead this article should focus on the positive and negative critique of religion in general, not specific religions. This article is very one sided, and gives undue weight to negative criticism over positive appraisal of religion. --Marokwitz (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no one stopping anyone from creating, nor would I for one object to, a Praise of religion or similar article. --Cyber cobra (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Indeed, criticism of religion is a big topic and deserves its own page. Any attempt to combine criticism of religion with some other topic is only going to end up in a split again. On the other hand, the article that offers critiques of religion can be found at Religion. Ben (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:POVFORK is inapplicable. Read the 'Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles' section of WP:POVFORK. This article is a neutrally-toned spin-out article of Religion in keeping with summary style. --Cyber cobra (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. This kind of argument shows up regularly at any page that includes any sort of criticism of religion, and it always boils down to a POV content dispute disguised as something else, in this case as a fork. Criticism of religion is a very large, reliably-sourced, and notable topic that unquestionably is worth a page on its own. Renaming it to "Critique" would accomplish nothing. There would be no difference between the two page titles in terms of the ability to present balancing POV. If the concern here is that the page, in its present form, does not adequately present arguments that seek to refute the criticisms, then that is a reasonable concern, as discussed above in this talk. The solution to the problem is to add to the existing page the appropriate balancing material. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It is just an essay, and a very poorly written and poorly thought out one at that. It even directly contradicted policy at WP:NOT! (I removed that part.)  It has innumerable sentence fragments and run-ons (I fixed two paragraphs of them), like it was a first draft. I'm not sure why it is not in userspace. "Criticism" sections are extremely common in WP articles (and are usually well-balanced). It is perfectly natural for them to eventually become full articles when there is sufficient material, per WP:SUMMARY. PS: Even if the page were renamed, it would have to be to Critiques of religion, since there is more than one critique. "Critique" is always a count noun; "criticism" is both a mass and count noun, depending upon context, so it can be used in singular form here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Number one: WP:CRIT is not "rules" but an "essay". I quote: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Number two: as a native speaker of English I agree fully with (ironically, quoted by WP:CRIT), which comments "a criticism is an evaluation or judgment of something, while critique is a somewhat elevated term for the same thing".  Jan 1 naD  (talk • contrib) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed Madison Quote
The quote that was previously at the top of the 'Criticism of the concept' section is frequently misinterpreted to mean that Madison was an opponent of any form of religion. In fact, Madison was a staunch supporter of religious freedom. The full paragraph the quote was taken from:
 * You are happy in dwelling in a Land where those inestimable privileges are fully enjoyed, and public has long felt the good effects of their religious as well as Civil Liberty. Foreigners have been encouraged to settle amg. you. Industry and Virtue have been promoted by mutual emulation and mutual Inspection, Commerce and the Arts have flourished and I can not help attributing those continual exertions of Genius which appear among you to the inspiration of Liberty, and that love of Fame and Knowledge which always accompany it. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. How far this is the Case with Virginia will more clearly appear when the ensuing Trial is made.

By 'religious bondage', Madison here meant any sort of limitation on an individual's religious preferences or observances. The way it was used here made it seem that he was referring to any religious belief as 'bondage.'  -- Vary | Talk 15:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for recognizing and removing the misuse of a source.--C.Logan (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job. Madison was not an atheist or agnostic. Quote of Madison should not be used in this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly I think that Madison's quote was highly appropriate for the article and it's a loss that it is gone. It is completely irrelevant if Madison was or was not a theist, deist, agnostic or atheist, he certainly was critical of religion. And furthermore criticism does not mean one necessarily is an opposition either, even though the article is biased to largely give the impression that criticism and opposition are the same. It's pretty clear that Madison was for religious freedom and critical of religion and otherwise a non-preferential deist with outspoken criticism for religious establishments and revealed religions. For detailed arguments about Madison's view on established religions see Thomas Lindsay "James Madison on Religion and Politics: Rhetoric and Reality" The American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 1321-1337. I personally think the quote should be reinstated.141.212.202.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

Edits asap
This wiki page needs extensive editing. Check the following:

Critics[who?] claim that some religions[which?] destroy important artistic works and cultural artifacts. Islam, especially, is criticized for dynamiting the Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001.

First of all, the Taliban is associated with an Islamic sect which emerged in the 18th century and is known as Wahhabism /Salifsm. There interpretation of religious texts is radically different from the beliefs of the majority of Muslims. Islam does not go around dynamiting ancient statues and artifacts, this was the act of a backward radical extremist group known as the Taliban, who promote a radical brand of Islam known as Wahhabism.

And one more thing, cartoons and depictions of Prophets being mocked are not "artistic works". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cartoons and depictions of Prophets being mocked are "artistic works" in a perverted sense, though I think that they should generally make way for more important images, such as portraits of serious critics, expounding their views. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:01, 3 June 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)


 * (FYI: result was keep) Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Inferior example
In Irrational and unreasonable there is an argument
 * *Religions often require behaviors that are not sensible (e.g. Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or )

In fact the Old Testament very clearly forbids punishing children of guilty parents, which is an ethic, not a behavior, and in my opinion it is a very sensible ethic. Better example needed! (There are multitudes of them). Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What about not being allowed to eat this and that? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 10:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem syndrome
Weirdest section in the article. First of all: it is not a criticism; secondly it propounds a heavily disputed psychiatric classification that has no official medical recognition; thirdly it uses religious sources for its definition... I think that section could safely be deleted, but I prefer if an anti-religious person does it, not a Christian like me. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrational and unreasonable unsourced claim
The "irrational and unreasonable" section includes this line "many religious beliefs have been disproven by science, for instance the belief that Adam and Eve were the first life on Earth." "Many" is vague. Where is the source that supports this argument? The claim science has proven the belief Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth is false. The Abrahamic religions state they were the first human life not life. Even if you were to revise the claim to read "science has proven wrong the idea Adam & Eve were the first people," this would be wrong as that claim is not yet supported by the science. Further, it would also depend on how you read the story of Adam and Eve. John Polkinghorne, for example, reads it symbolically. The same goes for the other "many religious beliefs" which have supposedly been disproven by science; at this point, science is irrelevant and would be like using science to prove false Aesop's Fables, for example. The scientific accuracy of what's before you is irrelevant, it is its meaning that is what matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.13.137 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes the statement (that a user fixed) gives the impression that most Abrahamintes interpret the statement literally, which is untrue. To support that I refer to Augustine and Theistic evolution. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Almost all"
Right on top there is a text that says that almost all religions have som irrational ideas at the core. It would be interesting to list one or two examples to the contrary. First of all, such religions might be exempt from any criticism in the article. Secondly, perhaps not all agree about how free from irrationality they are, and this detail could be ironed out here. DanielDemaret 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel and everyone. I have taken a stab at rewriting this ‘Criticism of concept’ section. I will return to this section shortly to add references to each statement. I also intend to expand it. Anyone is welcome to beat me to it and provide as many references as you like before I do. Nuloy 13:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request, Nuloy. It is coherent and I am sure I have no serious argument with the content per se. However, this was not exactly what I was hoping to find out. I do not think that the idea that religion is irrational needs any argument. Arguing that religion is irrational may be braking in open doors.

What I thought was interesting was the "almost all" wording, and now that section is deleted. I was instead hoping that someone could expand on the *exceptions* inherent in the statement "almost all". To take an example, we have one of the many new relions that are popping up every day, like Unitarian Universalism. UU does not base their religion on any god, nor on any fantastic story of creation, but on religous ideas like "freedom of speech", "respect for others beliefs"

To copy verbatim from UU central system of belief.


 * The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
 * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
 * Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
 * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
 * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
 * The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
 * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."[4]

There are other religions that do not have specific gods or creation stories, with other sets of religous view like these, and which many readers of wikipedia would think were "rational", just because they share them. They are definitely religous beliefs, but are they irrational? This, I thought, was more the kind of information that I wanted expanded on. DanielDemaret 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What I wrote here may be labeled "criticism of criticism of religion", but if so, it still belongs here. Not all criticism of religion is rational nor humane. DanielDemaret 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel and everyone. Okay, perhaps I didn't quite understand your original message, or I just went on one of my occasional flights of inspiration. Sorry about removing the statement that caught your eye. Perhaps what is needed here is yet another section, speaking to the new ‘religions’ (I have a long association with Unitarians and know well enough each one will respond differently to this term - and just about everything else!) and ancient non-theistic traditions, i.e. Janism, Confucianism and the original branches of Buddhism. Finding exceptions is another way of pointing out the limits of those traditions saying they are the ‘only way.’ The fact there are so many different answers religions give would further suggest none of them hold a monopoly on any abstract truth. I am an open-minded atheist with many theist friends and associates, that said, I think the focus of this article should remain the criticism of religion. I realize there is a wide spectrum of definitions of this term and think we should include all we can, but if we lose this focus, we are in danger of losing the focus of this particular page. I will look forward to your or anyone elses response on this and again promise I will set aside time to find references for my expansion of this seciton. I again welcome anyone else getting to this before me too. Nuloy 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, we must not lose focus. But it is equally important that the article is correct. If we blaim all religions for a particular error, and it then turns out some religions do not have this error, then the critique is suddenly false, and the entire critique will at best flop, at worst cause antagonism or even make people believe in errors since this is an encyclopedia. The person issuing the critique would obviously be telling a lie. That can not be very conducive to atheism, can it?


 * "Conducive to atheism"? Is that the purpose of this article - to be conducive to atheism? That is no the function of Wikipedia. Indeed this sounds to me like a brazen (and most unwikilike) admission of POV. The entire article is about a POV. Shouldn't it be merged into atheism and/or religion? How exactly is "criticism of religion" or "criticism of [anything]" an encyclopaedic subject unto itself? If "criticism" in this article had a meaning akin to "literary criticism" it might be subject worthy. But it does not and, I submit, is not. Just reading this discussion page one gets the vibe of people plotting to best make a case for themselves. Again, not what Wiki is about, and as these discussions are publicly accessible, hardly "conducive to atheism" from a credibility standpoint. All in all pretty weak, and transparently so. I would submit that articles like this one are precisely why Wikipedia is considered an unreliable and unusable source by academic institutions. Maalox 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is why I suggested, in the section below, that one make the criticisms narrower, to target as broad a spectrum of religions as possible, but not as broad as to make the critique invalid. There is plenty of gunpowder to use on each set of religions. It is interesting that you know Unitarians that will respond differently to the term. Perhaps you could persuade them to write on the article on Unitarians? If they feel that article is wrong, they will hardly respond well to criticism of a term based on wikipedias error-filled view on them, will they?


 * On a side note, and I may well be climbing out on a limb here, but the idea of any particular religion being ‘only way.’, isn't that also limited to the Abrahamic religions? Perhaps not, but I think I recall taoism and shinto and and in some matters tibetan buddhism to be less ego-centric, being open to other ways.


 * Please go ahead, and write away. Be bold, and all that. I don't think I shall be writing anything until I have citations, or at least until I think I am certain of what would be appropriate.

My main focus now in this article is not more content, but rather to see if some rewrite or perhaps restructuring would make it more legible, more comprehensive, and above all, more factually correct.


 * Oh, and my view? Well, aspects of God correspond best to the deeply religous views of Descartes, Spinoza and Einstein. Some would claim that those people were not religous at all, but since they claim to be this themselves, why can't I? On aspects of the soul, I divide things into the four categories of what I can see with my senses, what I trust others have told me, what are mere inventions and what are pure confabulations, in order of lessened plausability. One might quote Terry Pratchett here where he writes "Oh, Gods exist allright, but I don't have to BELIVE in them." I love his writings so much.

DanielDemaret 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And just who has the right to decide what is "rational" and what is not? To me, the idea that something can come from nothing without a god is irrational. So is the idea that organisms without the ability to see or hear adapted to living without these senses, and then just suddenly "decided" to evolve to have them. I also think it is irrational to believe humans evolved from apes based on barely enough fossil evidence to fill a gym bag. Or to think that just because the warped, corrupted version of Christianity called Catholicism committed atrocities to humanity, then all religions must be wrong and thus, there must be no God. The way I look at it, religion can not be judged through the eyes of science as being rational or not, because science is merely the current incarnation of the same arrogant, power-hungry man-made wisdom that has failed humanity for thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the last user needs to brush up on - frankly - any scientific and empirical study he/she can get their hands on. Making grossly inaccurate and ignorant statements such as "people evolved from apes", "barely enough fossil evidence to fill a gym bag" and "animals decided to evolve" either indicate that this person is devoid of any scientific knowledge (and in particular biochemistry, archaeology and evolutionary biology), which is what, at it's core, this article is mostly about. Or this person meant to fabricate a ghastly parody of biased religious thought (who else would spout such nonsense?) - which I assume they didn't intend to do. Either way, these kinds of comments should be construed as trolling or in more WP-appropriate terms, vandalism, and have no place on a mature and neutral discussion page. Nissaxx (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Nissaxx

"Atheism" sidebar good for this article?
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism. Im not 100% sure if the Atheism template is appropriate for this article or not. I do think it, or something like it, will help users/readers navigate the encyclopedia. Much "criticism of religion" does not come from atheism/atheists. I put the template in the article mostly to get people thinking about what we could do to help readers navigate. If editors think this template is not appropriate, we can remove it, of course. But maybe it would be better if we could improve it somehow. Could the sidebar template be expanded to be "Atheism and anti-religion" or something similar? My only goal is to help readers quickly and easily find other articles that may be more in-line with what they are looking for. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be a good fit. While many atheists do criticize religion, many do not; and there is nothing inherent to atheism that mandates criticism of religion. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 13:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition

 * Most religions assert the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe, but current scientific evidence from such diverse fields as evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, and cosmology indicates that this "God Hypothesis" does not fit reality, as the universe behaves just as science would expect it to behave if there were no creator.

Although I'm sure this source's arguments can be used somewhere in this article, I have some problems with this.
 * 1) This claims to disprove the Gods of most religions, Stenger however focuses solely on Judaism/Christianity/Islam in this book.
 * 2) Saying "scientific evidence... indicates that this... does not fit reality" is an obvious violation of WP:PEACOCK. One man's opinions does not equate "scientific evidence". Maybe "some scientific evidence seems to go against certain types of Gods", but as it's phrased it's a bit much.
 * 3) Most of the criticisms here are one's that are commonly made, saying that scientific evidence refutes the existence of God by far isn't something that a consensus of scientists would agree on.
 * 4) "geology, paleontology". How are exactly are these used to disprove God? I would understand sub atomic particle physics being used to attack the existence of God, comologists, biologists, and theoretical physicists, but geology and paleontology are a little out of the scope of the debate.

Instead of using this person to characterize a common criticism of religion, I would present some of the stronger arguments he makes within the text of the article itself to back up and support other arguments, or if they are good enough to stand by itself. I don't think this is appropriate for the section per WP:UNDUE as claiming scientific knowledge disproves God is not a commonly held view, or at the very least claiming that someone is irrational for not believing science disproves God is not a common view. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Adams?
Why is Douglas Adams included in the Notable critics of Religion, he was no doubt an Atheist and wrote alot of good satire but I would not nessecarily call him a critic of religion any more than Jon Stewart  The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point. I suppose "notable" has several dimensions to it, one being renown in the academic world; another being renown in the popular world.   I think Adams has become quasi-famous in the "criticism of religion" realm because Dawkins and Hitchens have cited him and/or quoted him prominently in their best-selling books.  I don't see any problem with having one or two popular-culture figures in the list of Notables; but if it really bothers you, I wouldn't object to removing him.  --Noleander (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does bother me quite a bit. I feel while he did poke fun and was atheist not nearly at the level of some of the others on below him like Carlin or Maher. Good jibes at various world religions are not quite the same as "Critic" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Criticism of religion" articles from atheism project?
Discussion on-going at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism about whether or not "Criticism of [some]religion" articles should be in the atheism project. --Noleander (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Input needed re new sidebar template
Please see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_27. --Noleander (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

no "Religious Debate" page
Wikipedia does not have a page for "religious debate". For instance where would you put ideas like this: "The absence of proof is not the proof of absence" and related arguments. The main criticism of religion is that people think its not true. Shouldn't there be a page that outlines the major arguments for and against religion? myclob (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article seems to be what you are looking for. That being said, you will need reliable and notable sources which contains the arguments you want to insert. This article should not be a turned into a coatrack of various random arguments. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

-There are thorough articles for debates on specific arguments concerning the existence of a supernatural realm. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 August 2011

Article title
User:Marcus Qwertyus tagged the article due to its title including the word "Criticism" here. I'm not sure this tag is appropriate, as the title of the page seems to summarize a fairly broad topic, all of which falls under a clear "Criticism" heading. Expanding the scope further would be inappropriate due to the page's current size, and I can think of no other concise title which properly reflects the article's content besides "Criticism", which doesn't also butt heads with other concepts. (i.e. "Discussion of Religion", "Rejection of Religion", Theology, etc). As long as the article content poses a neutral view on the topic by representing what criticisms have been launched in the public forum, I don't think this is an issue for NPOV. Can anyone think of any reason the title should be discussed or changed which I've missed? Jess talk&#124;edits 21:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the tag for now. If anyone feels this is an issue, please feel free to re-add it. Jess talk&#124;edits 21:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It explicitly say on NPOV that criticism titles are undesirable. If you want it changed then discuss it at Wikipedia talk:NPOV. Marcus Qwertyus   21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. It says that in some cases, these sorts of examples are problematic. An example is used of a "criticism" title which could be better phrased in a different way. At the top of the section, it says "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." Again, I'm not sure how this could be changed without causing a problem. Expanding the scope would cause the article to be too broad, for instance. Do you have a specific proposal in mind? Jess talk&#124;edits 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper have non-neutral titles at least the scope allows us to cover the topic neutrally. Having a title that confines us to only covering the negatives of a topic is not in the spirit of NPOV. If you think that expanding the scope would make make it to broad then maybe we shouldn't have an article on this. My suggestion is for you to AfD the template and attempt to repeal the policy. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jess. NPOV discusses it in terms of potential problems, not absolute prohibition. And this complaint has been a perennial at all of the criticism of religion articles—just look up Criticism of (name a religion), and look at the past AfD debates—where it usually is a manifestation of concern that such articles should not exist (ie, that criticizing religion is controversial, and some editors want to see it removed from Wikipedia), not simply that they should be renamed. These articles get brought up for deletion, but there isn't consensus to do so. I don't dispute that this page needs to be improved, to be better sourced, but I see no value in renaming it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that simply tagging the article without saying what it should be renamed to is pointless. O Fenian (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcus: if I look specifically at the three examples that you offer, the Boston Massacre and the Tea Pot Dome Scandal were specific events in time, while Jack the Ripper was a specific person. Here, we are instead dealing with a topic where reliable secondary sources have addressed multiple incidents and traditions over long periods of time, with these sources treating these multiple incidents and traditions as a unified subject. So I don't think you have really given us a useful suggestion for change. At WP:NPOV, you attempted to change the section that discussed pages that are "Criticisms" of something to be "Criticism" of something, and another editor has agreed with me that you should not have done so. That attempted change is actually a tacit admission that NPOV was discussing something slightly different that what we have here: a potential WP:COATRACK of multiple criticisms, as distinguished from what we have here, a subject established by sources to be a distinct field of intellectual criticism. With three editors in this talk now objecting to what you suggested, and no one agreeing with you, please consider that you do not have consensus for this now. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Major Edit Proposal
My proposal is to merge the Religion and Criticism of Religion articles.

As it stands, the Religion article is biased; that is, the article does not follow the fundamental Wikipedia principle of neutrality—see Balance.

Please refer to Evaluations in a "Criticism" section to evaluate whether the Religion page should have a distinct "Criticism" section or whether we should attempt to incorporate the opposing views directly into the text.

In my opinion, it would be easier to initially include a "Criticism" section directly in the Religion page. It would be a much more neutral article if the criticisms and differing points of views were directly incorporated into the text, but this task would be much more difficult to perform. In light of this, I propose to temporarily include a "Criticism" section in the Religion page while we prepare the completely merged article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.92.181 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I have low enthusiasm for doing that. It would make for an awfully long article. It's a perennial issue at Wikipedia what to do with pages critical of religion, and it seems like there is really never a solution that makes everyone happy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The content is of more than sufficient length to justify a separate spin-out sub-article (the essay you reference specifically mentions this as a legitimate reason for dedicated Criticism articles), and the topic of criticism of religion is probably independently notable to boot. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please quote the part of the essay that specifically mentions this as a legitimate reason for a separate Criticism article. The essay should be interpreted as specifically mentioning a case like this as reason to have a separate Criticism "Section" not "Article". I quote from the essay, "A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition." Furthermore, the splitting out of the Criticism Section and making a separate Criticism Article is a direct violation of the neutral point of view policy. Specifically, refer to Breaking out trivial or controversial sections. Also see WP:CFORK, from which I quote "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacoLink (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Both WP:Article size and WP:CFORK are actually guidelines (neither essays nor policies), and so they are subject to interpretation for the individual page under discussion, not hard and fast rules that must always be followed exactly. And, as I alluded to above, whether or not religion criticism pages should be treated as content forks has been a perennial discussion topic, with little likelihood that this page will be considered to be one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because they are guidelines and not policies does not mean that they can simply be ignored. This article violates wiki's policy of neutrality and the merging of this article with the religion page will represent a landmark in wikipedia enforcing principles.  I did not even know this page existed and was shocked to find it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.95.18 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone said that they should be ignored, just interpreted with good judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the entire criticism of religion article should be merged with the religion article. This will take a long time, but in the mean time, there should at least be links from the religion page to the criticism pages.  These links would make it clear that there are indeed criticisms to religion.  Many people who search religion on wiki do not even know the criticism pages exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.95.187 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the religion article has a link to this criticism article. Please see: Religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A few comments: I therefore oppose the current merger proposal as simplistic and impractical (as well as disapproving of its procedurally malformed nature). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:MERGE proposals should have appropriate tags placed upon the articles for which a merger is proposed, and a more accurate thread title, to draw people's attention to the proposal. This is perhaps why this proposal has languished for 6 months.
 * 2) Although I agree in principle that 'Criticism of' articles are generally a bad idea and against policy, this article, at 130k, is really too large to merge into Religion, both for article-size (210k total) and balance ('criticism of' being larger than 'religion').
 * 3) I would therefore suggest that integration of this material would probably require a split-and-merge, into various of the large number of articles on religion.

oppose byelf2007 (talk) 27 August 2011

Jonestown image
User:Damiens.rf has repeatedly been removing the image of the Jonestown massacre (in the Harm to individuals section of the page), claiming that the image, which is non-free and being used under a fair-use rationale, is purely "decorative". I object to these deletions, because the image is clearly not decorative. Rather, it illustrates in an informative way the content in that section of the page. That editor previously nominated the image for deletion based on the same argument, and the consensus was to reject that argument (see also comments by the closing administrator). The editor then attempted to delete the fair-use rationale from the file page, and has now been repeatedly trying to remove the image from this page , , ,. For these reasons, I think that it is appropriate to restore the image. Do any other editors think that the image is simply decorative? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

See also, now,. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the point, It seems We could find better Free image to communicate the same thing. I am I willing to leave it in I think User:Damiens.rf would have to find a Comparable image under free license to really make the argument to remove it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Since we can convey the idea without this specif image, we can't use it. We don't need a "comparable image", whatever that may mean on this case. There a thousand of books written about "criticism of religion" and most of them deal without this specific image. Why would the Free Encyclopedia be the only one that can't do that without non-free material? --Damiens .rf 17:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are specious. You are claiming that Wikipedia must not use files that are not Creative Commons 3 or the equivalent. That's not the policy here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are also claiming that the image is "decorative". The only thing that you have said that even comes close to being an attempt to explain why it is "decorative" is that there are other sources on the subject of Criticism of religion that do not use the image. I can go through every image on this page, and find sources about Criticism of religion that do not use that particular image, and I could do likewise for most other pages on Wikipedia. By your reasoning, we would end up with a text-only website. I'm not going to edit war with you, but you do not have the right to enforce your personal misreading of policy on the rest of us. I urge you to self-revert your most recent deletion of the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Were the other images on this page non-free, yes, they would be deleted. Since they are free, they can be used to decorate the page. I would ask what did you try do says with that "Creative Commons 3" non-sense, but I'm afraid your lack of understanding about free licenses would prevent you from giving me any meaningful explanation. --Damiens .rf 17:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I remembered something, San Diego State University's Jonestown Institute Has all the images on their site under Public Domain. I think We probably can find a Free image there. I am starting to look through it now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Free Image for The article, Its not as graphic and is a free alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Free Image of the WAco Fire believed to be another mass Suicide The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See? And still, we could have done with no image at all. --Damiens .rf 19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See what? That the constructive editing by ResidentAnthropologist, whom I thank for doing that, justifies your disruptive editing? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the constructive editing by ResidentAnthropologist, whom I also thank for doing that, shows that my editing was not disruptive. --Damiens .rf 19:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I read something above about a lack of understanding policy... --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No It does not excuse your disruptive editing. RAther than Edit War about material start with page discussion then remove such Imagery. You're reverting and arguing with Edit summaries is an unacceptable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And it actually seems to be the case that conducting this talk page discussion is what led to RA looking for and finding those images. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then, it makes sense to me to use the Jonestown image from S.D. State U. Are there any objections to uploading it to Commons and using it here? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection Free use images are always good. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, please see the. It now appears that Britannica does not, in fact, own the copyright, and the fair-use objection (commercial infringement) may not be applicable at all. Perhaps the original image should be restored. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some photo agency owns the copyright, what makes it even worse. Brittanica paid for using the image, and use it for free. That's not a fair use. --Damiens .rf 04:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In the time since I logged out yesterday, it has come to light at the deletion review that the image is still being sold, and that has made me change my mind completely. So, in fact, I think that we should upload and use the S.D. State image. But I want to make it absolutely clear that nothing about this justifies the disruptive manner in which the issue was raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC) The use of the image at all is irrelevant, Jonestown suicide was not related to religion in any way. The "Peoples Temple" were communists and they killed themselves as a statement on communism. To use Jonestown as an example is simply incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.132.26 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't The Peoples Temple part of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The section on Donations is flawed.
It relies mostly on US data and isn't backed up by the global statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries Atheistic countries tend to give more money to charity. Most of the donation related statistics are based on self-reporting and are based on the republican vs democratic donators.

IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but should be remedied by providing better sourcing. I reverted you where you removed one of the sources, because I think that the page does report accurately what the source says, whether or not one agrees that the information was interpreted correctly by the source. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens appear to be used in the overview section as specific and prominent examples of a widely made claim. I do not see this usage as inappropriate, so am restoring it. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should appear on the page. I don't feel particularly strongly about where they appear on the page. Please note that, after they were deleted from the lead, I put the exact same material back on the page, farther down on the page, under "Social construct". Now you have put it back in the lead, so the exact same material appears twice. Please delete it from one or the other of those places; I don't care which. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry -- I didn't notice that. I've self-reverted. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cruelty to Animals
The reference given to PETA does not support what is stated in the text. It was a specific abbatoir being criticised by PETA. I have not been able to find any criticism of the Jewish method of slaughter att PETA other than the campaign they have to see that no one eats animals at all. Editors are not reading the sources they provide and are using references about specific complaints of slaughter done badly to support article text that there is a general criticism of Jewish slaughter. This criticism does indeed exist, and is contested. I have provided one such reference myself to the secular society.

One should not need to make the point that articles have to be true and facts supported by references. It does require that editors read material in references, and understand it and not make claims the references do not support. RPSM (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that one can do a lot better than to source it to PETA. There was recently an extensive discussion about better sourcing for exactly this issue, at Criticism of Judaism, where better (albeit still disagreed about among editors) sourcing can be found. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pages 22 and 24 of the DIALREL report []] ] question the objectivity and scientific basis of the recommendations made by European scientists. When there are active campaigners for a popular campaign, although it may be erroneous, editing to reflect every available mainstream view gets tough. RPSM (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Kosher slaughter is intended to minimize animals' suffering" This is a quote from PETAs website. Far from criticizing kosher slaughter, PETA or rather the numbers of sources quoted by PETA on their website emphasize the Jewish religion's stated aims for a compassion towards animals, and to heal the world. There is no reasoned argument against kosher slaughter as such. RPSM (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC) conttd


 * I've replaced the section with the corresponding section of Criticism of Judaism. It may need to be shortened for this page, which I haven't done at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Suppression of art and literature
The first paragraph on the section "Suppression of art and literature" goes completely unsourced. This should be fixed. Besides that, it's important that the examples given on that section are not things Wikipedian criticize about religion, but actually cases of published third party criticism about religion suppressing art and literature.

I am specially curious about the existence of such criticism. All the first examples, (1) the destruction of the Buddhas by the Taliban, (2) the destruction of Maya religious text by a Bishop, and (3) the destruction of Catholic relics by protestants, are examples of religion destroying religion itself. Why should one that is critical to religion care about destruction of religious things? --Damiens .rf 20:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is also the destruction of religious artefacts and places of worship by atheists, which happened on a vast, vast, scale. Ion Zone (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of pointing out the obvious, that would belong in an article on criticism of atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Change the name of the article
I propose someone change the name of the article to have the plural "religions" because as it stands, this article is really showing poor anthropological understanding of the diversity of religions all over the world and it simply narrows it down as if it one template or type. This is absurd. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename. Many of the criticisms are of religion in and of itself, rather than of one religion or another. It doesn't matter whether individual editors disagree with the positions taken by the sources cited. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this is a late response, but I see your point. But it is indeed awkward to hear people of abstracting "religion" in a generic fashion as is if it has congruent features through cultures, which of course do not. Western conceptions of "religion" are diverse from culture to culture especially those that do not use have Latin roots (which is where the word "religion" comes from) as part of their language. For example, in Islam, "Dīn" is is roughly translated as religion, and in some eastern religions "dharma" is roughly translated as religion. Most cultures do not have a concept of "religion",at least not the way Westerners generally conceive it as - with gods, buildings, priesthood, and with sacred texts. This is partly why the abstracting of "religion" to be all encompassing from culture to culture is incorrect. It is too broad and is as problematic as saying "criticism of culture" or "criticism of government" or "criticism of family" -  which ones and what things exactly are being criticized? When westerners speak of "religion" they are usually only criticizing very few religions like religions of the theism category not religions of the atheism category. Most religions have been religions without gods through time (See anthropologist David Eller's comments in "Atheism Advanced" Ch. 1 and Ch. 1 in "Atheism and Secularity" Volume 1). The fact that most of this article literally focuses on Western religions the vast majority of the time kind of shows how this probably needs to be renamed something else to reflect the narrow scope of a small handful of religions that are being criticized. Obviously this does not look like a "criticism of religion" article, but more like a "criticism of some (or major?) religions" article. There isn't much criticism on Eastern religions or indigenous religions form multiple regions for example. Just a few thoughts. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I, in turn, see your points. However another problem with using the plural is that it could take us down the following road: an editor adds a criticism of a particular religion, then another editor reverts it on the grounds that it's only about one religion, and then we have a big dispute over it. We do have separate pages about criticisms of individual religions. But how about this idea: where a criticism is really about only a subset of religions as a whole, how about revising the wording to make that fact clearer? For example, one could change something like "One criticism of religion is... " to "One criticism of monotheistic religions is... ", and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your latest point. But, I don't think that if the title was pluralized to "religions" that editors would revert on the grounds noted because usually a criticism on say treatment on women or "indoctrination" of children (which includes sometimes secular national/cultural patriotism) are and can be compounded to include multiple traditions that have some writings on the issue in the first place like Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. One big difficulty is the fact that most editors here do not read on other religions as much as they do on the 3 popular monotheistic ones - which limits this article's cultural and geographical scope inevitably. This is due to the lack of materials for most other religions. However, a possible solution could be what you suggested - adding "to" to clarify to what the criticism is being aimed at. I really like that idea since it would clarify that the criticisms for one religion, or one category of religion, are not universal and do not apply to all religions, or all categories of religion, just like criticism of one culture does not translate to being applicable to another culture, let alone all cultures. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! I like the edit you made in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of religious concepts section problems
I am chiming in on the problems in this section. There are a few bullet points and other points which "need citation" from 1-2 years ago and no one has provided any. I will delete these bullet points in 3 days if no one provides citations for these points. Clearly an early editor who wrote much of this section was simply making assertions based on biases and intuitions, not neutrality and references. I have already tried to, broaden the anthropological reality of religions, reduce redundancy, reduce biased terminology, and add reliable references to give adequate contexts in this section and other parts of the article, but I am giving the editors one final chance to provide references for these old points. It seems no one has cared to defend certain points in 1-2 years which means its time to remove many uncited claims not just in this section but in other parts of this article. This is in hopes of reducing bias, and increasing neutrality and citations to make this article better. I will also begin to clean up other sections of this article in a similar manner in 3 days since it is in need of significant revision. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting in talk so as to give others an opportunity to respond. Although I don't feel very strongly about those particular points, I have a feeling they might indeed be sourceable. I'll try to find sources, but it might take a bit more time than the deadline you are suggesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, if you can find some citations in say about a week or two then that would be good. Is that a good timeline? I really appreciate your interest in trying to make this article better. I am attempting to make this article more accurate and neutral little by little as it seems much of it was neglected by previous editors who simply stuck in their points of views without cleaning up some of their mess (lack of clarity, redundancy, uncited claims, irrelevant entries, hasty generalizations, etc.) perhaps due to negative bias on the contents. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! WP:There is no deadline. I'll do what I can, and, if worse comes to worse, please just make whatever edits you think best, with the understanding that (of course) I or others may modify them subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Tryptofish, I saw your latest edit. I originally reorganized what you moved to be under the counterarguments to Point 1 on science. Since Point 2 mentioned the garment example, it seemed more relevant to be put under the counterarguments to point 1.  That is this is how it looked : Point 1, Point 2, Point 3, then right after it Counter Point 1, Counter Point 2 (what you moved), Counter Point 3 (not available). I think what you moved is more relevant where it was before. Maybe counter point 3 will be added in the future. What do you think of this structure? Without Counter Point 2, this section looks really asymmetrical. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about the Jewish issues of child punishment and garment fabrics (is that it? I'm not sure), I'd almost be tempted to delete the whole thing, as being a kind of POV-pushing for a very specific pair of examples within just one religion, or at least as being UNDUE. I figured I'd compromise by editing out the worst parts and putting it down lower, instead of getting rid of it completely. I don't feel that it really rebuts anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only citation given for point 2 - "Religions often require behaviors that are not sensible" is from Hitchens examples on Jewish garments and child punishment presumably. Hitchens examples were already specific. This is why the counterargument was brought up by someone else and it was put in that same sentence originally - to counter those points about garments and child punishment. Because of this I moved the counterargument lower to leave the critisim points stand independently again. Since this counter argument was aimed at Hitchen's points then that is why I left it within the proximity of this section, just not on the same sentence. Any thoughts?Ramos1990 (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't see that until now. I can partly agree that it's reasonable to bring those back together, then. But, if I didn't see the connection, neither will a lot of our readers. The section would need to be rewritten (probably a good idea) to move the Hitchens etc material out of the bullet list and into paragraph text, with the rebuttal coming directly after what it rebuts, not coming a couple of paragraphs later. In addition, the rebuttal should not be longer than the original statement. This page is about criticisms of religion, not responses to criticisms of religions, except to the extent that WP:NPOV requires giving both sides. So either the rebuttal should be shortened, or Hitchens should be quoted more extensively. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I started to make some minor revisions to it, but then I realized a problem. WP:SYNTH says that we cannot make connections based upon editor opinion, as opposed to based on reliable sources. Seeing the material put back next to what Hitchens said made me realize that an early commentary on the Old Testament could not possibly be responding to Hitchens' writings. (I'm leaving out considerations of prophecy, of course!) Therefore, it is SYNTH to say that those commentaries were a rebuttal of Hitchens' criticisms. I've deleted it entirely, for that reason, although I'd be willing to consider adding something like it back in a more appropriate context. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... That is true. Good catch. Maybe it would be better to reword as Historical commentaries have explained the reasoning behind certain norms or customs, which are seen as non-sensible behaviors by some modern critics. For example, prohibition of mixed fabrics and punishment of the children is explained in Rashi, an early commentary on Jewish literature. Children are punished only if they also commit the same sins as the parents and the mixed fabric prohibition does not apply to all fabrics, but rather refers to a concept called Shatnez, which reserves one specific type of fiber blend for ceremonial purposes.   - what do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But that still ends up being SYNTH. The criticisms belong on this page (and the early analyses belong on other pages, dealing with theological discussions), but for editors to present the early analyses as being counterpoints to the criticisms is original research, unless we have a modern secondary source that points to those early analyses explicitly as a rebuttal to modern criticisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Tryptofish, I think the two sections should be combined since they are related to each other. Both essentially are about dynamics, not rigidity of people's affiliations. In terms of the quote, explicit atheism (dismissal of all gods) is the context of the quote - The way one rejects all other gods one could also reject this one too. But the previous sentence notes that the criticism is "claims of all but one of those religions must be wrong." That would mean that the more adequate quote would have to say something like "I dismiss all gods except this one" to match the claim in the previous sentence, not dismissal of all. Also since not all religions have gods, I don't think this captures the criticism adequately. I think the criticism is good without the quote and is self explanatory. I hope to consolidate other parts in the article and compound some of the quotes (if they are consistent) in this article since they take up more space than is needed. What do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, I agree to the extent that the quote only captures one part of the criticism, but I don't think that's a reason to delete it. And I reverted your combination of the two sections because I think the sources tend to treat the two kinds of criticism as distinct. I don't see a need to do a lot of consolidation along these lines, so I guess I have low enthusiasm for what you propose, sort of a solution in search of a problem. You'll need to convince me, case by case, that there is superfluous material. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear your thoughts on this. How about we do this: we can keep the quote (even though I don't think it is needed or reflects the criticism appropriately), but I don't think it requires the big quotes it has. I think it can be integrated into the section with better flow and so can other "big quotes". Also, too many quotes and section titles makes the whole article too spread out. I think some of this can be reduced/consolidated. Feel free to revert or re-add things.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look through Template:Quote, where there's a list of ways to format quotations. I agree with you that the big quote marks are kind of over-the-top. There are a couple of ways that give smaller quotes, without having to simply put the quote into plain paragraph text, and they may be good alternatives to consider. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the link! I'll use it. The some quotes are good. They just need to be tucked away or highlighted differently. Just by dealing with quotes alone I think this article will at least look better. The other stuff, I'll work on later. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a few sections. I removed some unnecessary info to make it more neutral. People don't always need to be introduced in articles over and over - the links to their pages should suffice. I tried doing repeated reference i.e. but I couldn't introduce a quote in there for some quotes. There were a grip of quotes so far. Only major quotes should be put in a box and minor quotes integrated in the article or tucked with the respective references. Working my way down. I tried |quote= and other combinations, but it didn't work. Do you know how to do it? I looked at some templates, but no success. Anyways, I'll continue on this tomorrow. If you see anything that needs to change feel free to change. At the moment, I am simply trying to make the article more neutral and structure less bumpy. Too many small paragraphs for example. I think we can combine some.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination, Persecution
In the negative effects of religion on both individuals and on society I am surprised at the avoidance of discussion about the generation of, and the consequences of, religion-generated discrimination and persecution. The negative aspects on both perpetrators and victims, physical and psychological, are not effectively addressed at all. For example, anti-Semetic passages in the New Testament remain intact in great quantities of Bibles distributed by non-Jewish organizations and individuals, in spite of numerous apologies, denials and objections from both religious and secular sources. These passages are clearly contributors to continuation of bigotry, particularly among people who are poorly informed, and cause severe trauma to Jewish people who feel themselves stigmatized. Jewish children are often bewildered at negative treatment from their peers, often from other children who have primarily vague intolerance fostered by biblical references. Particularly confusing is to hear Christian evangelists declare the Bible inerrant while at the same time apologizing for undeserved archaic intolerance. 99.127.138.224 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you raise some good points. To add this material to the article, however, we need to be able to cite sources for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Confucianism - religion
The lead writes:

"With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions."

Confucianism, although lived by like many religions, is a philosophy, and not a religion. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on Confucianism, which you linked, makes it clear that debate over whether it is a religion or not is ongoing. Part of the discussion is over the defintion of "religion" itself, and the article indicates that Confucianism does contain several elements taken directly from non-Confucian religious beliefs including ancestor worship and the notion of makling offerings to non-corporial beings. There seems to be little question that, however it is classified, Confucianism holds a place equivalent to religion in the lives of adherents. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 13:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The historical sources I have studied have often included Confucianism as a "religion" when writing an essay, for example, but have made clear that in reality it is a philosophy and not a real religion, regardless of whether they borrowed stuff from other religions. Indeed, many Chinese people who were Confucianists did have varying religions.  If the discussion is ongoing, shouldn't that mean we lean towards the safer side, and remove it for now from that sentence?  Look, I'm not a Confucianist, I just saw the lead and noticed it and wanted to bring it up. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Define "real religion," please, without relying on the No true Scotsman fallacy. My point is that regardless of whether or not Confucianism is a "real" religion, it has a place in social and personal life akin to religion. I would assert that this is sufficient grounds for including Confucianism in this sidebar. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the Scottsman fallacy is, but I'd like to reiterate I don't find this as a controversial hot pressing boilerplate topic that needs to be immediatelly addressed, with many inputs, and heated arguments. I just want to discuss this in a friendly and polite way, that is all.  The Confuciniasm article does have a nice interesting section on Classification, but it's more accepted, and therefore how the lead is structured, as an ethical and philosophical way to live life.  And using stricter definitions of religion, it certainly isn't one.  Why should we lean towards the more lenient one, rather than the stricter one, or lean towards the fact being there isn't any consensus about it and therefore doesn't deserve our personal opinion in the lead to say that it definitely is a religion?  That's what the sentence says. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings to both editors. I have been watching the exchanges on this and though I agree with TechBear on much of what he says (general anthropology of religion shows that many religions are not like we generally think of them i.e. Hua, Church of Satan, or Raelianism, Unitarian Universalism, and sociologists have spoken of "civil religion") it is probably best to just take "Confucianism" out of the intro since the intro is just citing examples of "specific" religions and is not meant to be exhaustive. Removing it or not does not really affect the article in any significant way. I will make a bold removal, but if someone thinks it should be re-added, then please go for it.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Theodore Beale - Counterarguments to religion as harmful to individuals
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals. '''PZ Myers has suggested more than once that Beale is extremely unreasonable. Myers also linked to Mark C. Chu-Carroll who criticised Beale similarly. These two are the relevant links to PZ Myers.'''

The section I emboldened was taken out of the article. I don't think it was an Ad hominem. Biologist and academic, PZ Myers believes Beale is unreasonable and if Myers is right this is a sound reason to reject Beale's arguments. Can the above text be put back into the article, perhaps with different wording? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Proxima Centauri, I see what you are saying, but the blog citations you entered are mainly focusing about criticism of Vox Day, not criticism of religion. They also do personal attacks on him (ad hominem). Overall, the focus is clearly personal on the citations you put in the article. Therefore, these citations don't belong here, they belong where they already were - in Theodore Beale's biography page. If I found a blog cite saying that PZ Meyers is very unreasonable too, I would say that would not be appropriate here also as none of these would be criticisms religion - they would only be criticisms of PZ Meyers. The reason why personal criticisms are not appropriate here is because it could lead to WP:coatracking and going off topic.


 * I thought maybe the women blog post could be included, but Vox's claim was more of an opinion and Mark Chu-Carroll's rebuttal was merely anecdotal and was clearly focused on Vox as a person and certainly not criticisms of religion or his arguments. That being said, it would actually be appropriate to add a source that focused *mainly* on some criticism of religion or countering Vox Day's arguments, but not Vox himself. The focus of a source here has to be clearly on a topic, argument, or counter, but not on personal distaste. The emphasis and scope given by any source is the key to these criticism pages. Just be careful with blogs since sometimes they are too personal. I hope you are not taking this in a bad way as I mean no harm. You have done some very good entries here. Keep up the good work. Just a few thoughts. --Ramos1990 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very busy elsewhere at the moment, I'll come back when I have time. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Indoctrination of Children sexual abuse paragraph
The Indoctrination of Children section was dominated by the final paragraph referencing Dawkins's analogy comparing indoctrination to child sexual abuse. There is a brief mention of the comparison followed by a long paragraph of "rebuttal." I don't think the initial analogy actually adds anything to this article as the previous part of this section explains his position quite well, but more importantly the way it's presented here makes it look like a strawman argument that would be more at home on a Defense of Religion page. That isn't to say responses to criticisms don't belong here, but that criticisms shouldn't be included merely to defend against them. Removed. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

POV on this article
I realise this is an article on 'criticism of religion', however it is important that opposing cases of equal strength need to be made throughout. There are also a number of rather disturbing statements that pass without comment, for example, "Hitchens also argues that virginity is unhealthy, and can lead to emotional problems" Is Hitchens arguing for child sex? The implications of his statement are severe. Ion Zone (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would see nothing wrong with adding a source of a credible critic who is actually responding to Hitchens' point. But Hitchens, who just recently died, was clearly not talking about pedophilia, and I think that you know it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ion, are you serious? Christopher Hitchens makes an argument that religious taboos against sex are harmful, specifically in the context of consensual sex... and you got Hitchens = Pedophile? This is equivalent to you claiming that the recent cultural aversion to nuclear power is irrational and environmentally harmful compared to the alternatives, and me accusing you of wanting to expose babies to lethal radiation for personal entertainment. -- <font color="#AF7817"><font face ="Impact">Alyas Grey   : talk 13:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)