![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
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)
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 [1] there is a good summary of Marx on religion. Madridrealy ( talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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#Persecution by Christians. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
Hi, the "however" was placed to combine two sources [6] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [7]</ref>, but athiesm did not make them do these atrocities but it can also be added that not all atheists think this way.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
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)
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 [1] there is a good summary of Marx on religion. Madridrealy ( talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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#Persecution by Christians. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
Hi, the "however" was placed to combine two sources [6] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [7]</ref>, but athiesm did not make them do these atrocities but it can also be added that not all atheists think this way.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)