Talk:Criticism of atheism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Proposed sub section with criticisms of the presumption of atheism

This is a proposal to create a subheading under "Arguments and Positions" entitled "The presumption of atheism" with the text at this link (or very similar text): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KSci/sandbox . The paragraph beginning "The Presumption of Atheism" is the claim.." would be replaced.

KSci (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, the presumption of atheism is not an issue that is documented in any WP article as an argument for atheism, so to include a criticusm of it in this article would seem to be tilting at a straw man. -- Jmc (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc Thank you for your thoughts. You're right in saying that the PoA isn't an argument for atheism, it's a position often taken by atheists. You've also accurately pointed out that the language of philosophers "Presumption of atheism" may not be recognized as the more commonly discussed topic of, "burden of proof".

I've revised what I propose to directly connect the "Presumption of atheism" and "burden (onus) of proof" in the sub-header and the first paragraph using Flew's words to connect the two . Does this sufficiently clarify the relevance of the topic? KSci (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"This position, which is often forwarded by atheists ..." needs substantial references to support. AFAICT, Flew was the only atheist of note to advance the PoA argument - and he didn't remain an atheist! So it hardly seems an issue to spend much time on. -- Jmc (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Jmc, if you have a question about that statement, I'd guess others may too. Will do. KSci (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@JMC Here are three sources supporting the statement "This position, which is often forwarded by atheists". As the Flew states in the beginning of the proposed text shows, the "presumption of atheism" is the same idea as "no burden of proof". Since the expert opinions of philosophers was the topic of what I wrote, it uses the language of philosophy, rather than the common vernacular.

Wikipedia Article Atheism:

Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.

Michael Antony; Philosophy now; Where’s The Evidence?; https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. ... Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls on the believer.

Randall Rauser; Systematic theologian; Atheist, meet Burden of Proof. Burden of Proof, meet Atheist. http://randalrauser.com/2012/10/atheist-meet-burden-of-proof-burden-of-proof-meet-atheist/

There are very many atheists who think they have no worldview to defend.

Wikpedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Jmc, you expressed doubt that this topic is a significant one. I can see why it would be easy to get that impression searching on the philosophical terminology (presumption of atheism). The topic is, however, widely discussed in the non-philosophical vernacular "the atheist has no burden of proof". Here are a few more examples showing the topic in discussion.

Austin Cline; Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism; Who has the Burden of Proof?; http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm

In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with those on the side of theism, not with those on the side of atheism.

Keith M. Parsons; Infidels.org Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof? http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html

The "evidentialist challenge" is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven.[1] They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist.

Which position has the burden of proof: atheists or theists? https://www.quora.com/Which-position-has-the-burden-of-proof-atheists-or-theists

The burden of proof falls on those that argue that something exists (in this case theists).

Atheism and the Burden of Proof http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=597

Rather, this question asks whether burden of proof lies with those postulating a belief system (theists) or those who do not share this belief system (atheists). Christians have the burden of proof, because they are making a positive claim. The atheist merely says, “I see no reason to accept your claim,

Is this sufficient data to resolve your concern?

KSci (talk)

@KSci "... sufficient data to resolve your concern?" I'm afraid not. These sources simply don't hold up and invite challenge by other WP editors: "Many atheists" - who? ... "often said by atheists" - who? where? ... "There are very many atheists" - who? where? These are textbook straw man assertions and weasel words. -- Jmc (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc Thank you for the feedback, which is aimed at assuring the article accuracy, which I agree is very important. I think we are making good progress since we are progressing from the general to the specific. I think what you described is addressed, as I'll describe below.

I believe the question you raised above is already addressed by the same statement in Wikipedia atheism, which is a pretty well vetted piece. Compare the statement in the proposed text and the statement made in atheism. The one in atheism is not challenged, and I believe non-controversial.

"This position [burden of proof], which is often forwarded by atheists"

Many atheists hold that ... the burden of proof lies not on the atheist

I propose that "often forwarded by atheist" with the citations I list above is better supported and more modest than the same statement in atheism. Isn't this enough to show that this statement is valid and won't be challenged? If not, so that I can address the concern you have directly, could you tell me specifically you think is lacking so we can put this question to rest?

Thanks in advance for your input.

KSci (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@KSci The statement you quote from the WP Atheism article is from the lede. See WP: Words to watch - Unsupported attributions: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Ergo, you need to supply attribution, as I've specifically indicated. -- Jmc (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, in response to your objections with the previous draft, I spent considerably time researching and reading on this topic. I have a new draft to offer that includes far more detail with many citations vice the draft I originally proposed. Please let me know if this draft addresses the topic with sufficient specificity and supporting citations.

The revised draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KSci/sandbox

Thanks in advance for giving this delicate subject the attention required. Your thoughts are most welcome and valued.

KSci ^(talk) 02:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ksci I see these issues with your draft:

• The majority of your citations don't make the grade as appropriate sources to substantiate the claim by Craig (and, by extension, other theists) that "the Presumption of Atheism [has] become 'one of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism'". You need to find such citations directly from atheist writers themselves, instead of being filtered through theists' perceptions. Obviously, Flew would be one such source; Parsons might be another, but together they hardly constitute "many atheists". In particular, the claim which Crawley, for one, makes, that "the Presumption of Atheism [is] now followed by today's new atheists" is unsupported. Dawkins, for instance, in The God Delusion, mentions Flew only in a footnote and the Presumption of Atheism not at all.

• Overall, much too much space is given to what is hardly a substantive criticism of atheism (even Flew concedes that it's "at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion"). If incorporated in the article in its proposed form, it would substantially unbalance it.

• Your introductory paragraph really belongs in the Atheism article (this would also help reduce the length!). As it stands, that article lacks anything in its body to justify the statement in its lede (which you quoted earlier) that "Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies ... on the theist ...", and it would be helpful (indeed, it's necessary) to have something within the body of that article to support this assertion.

• In your final paragraph, ".. an "ontological conclusion", that is, a conclusion about the atheist's state of being ..." doesn't make sense.

-- Jmc (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, The excess of less than ideal citations is to show you that this is a legitimately debated topic both theists and atheists agree on. For now I am keeping all the citations I find, but before putting this into the article I'd like your input on which ones you felt were the better ones and leave out the rest.

Before we go around on this topic more, I'd like to know what you think I might be inaccurate about or misrepresenting? I'm asking because I want to understand your central concern and address it directly rather than continue going in circles over what looks like a proxy, that is, a concern about content reflected in requests for citations that are going well beyond the norm on Wikipedia. William Lane Craig is a first hand source and an independent journalist is a valid source too. The others I've provided are not so good, but the show the extent to which this is an issue debated by both sides.

Thanks for sticking with this subject, I think you are providing good faith input. I want to see your objections addressed, but I think we're going to have to discuss what the objection is directly rather than asking for perfect bullet proof citations. The citations are available, but I think I've provided excellent sources for most everything. This is already getting expensive.

I want to suggest a next step, but would like to know what the core disagreement is.

By the way, the more I research this topic the more I find there is to write about. This is a major atheist-theist point of debate that many people have written about (multiple books), but which is oddly not well described on Wikipedia. It we keep at this much longer, I'll have enough content for a well-supported Wikipedia article on its own.

Thanks in advance!

KSci ^(talk) 17:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@KSci I really haven't anything to add until you've spent a lot more time carefully reading and fully considering the four issues I've raised (especially in the first one the need to provide appropriate sources that measure up to Wikipedia standards) and then responding directly and in detail to each of those four issues. -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

So it looks like JMC doesn't believe "the presumption of atheism" is a real mainstream atheistic position, and thus KSci isn't allowed to bring it into the article. One demand he's making is to see direct quotes from atheist writers themselves, before he'll allow the presumption of atheism to be criticized in the article.

I think JMC has it upside down here. The article's topic, namely *criticism of atheism* requires only that we describe the criticisms. We have no obligations to judge the internal quality of the criticisms themselves; Wikipedia is not a forum. We can simply say that several critics believe they are widespread (regardless of whether the editors do), and thus justify its inclusion in the article. The article is for describing criticisms of atheism as the critics make it, not as the editors judge it.

Also, here's another mistake to watch out for: the presumption of atheism is a formal term for a dialectical phenomena. People do it, often without realizing it. You are unlikely to see proponents refer to it by its formal name, just like you are unlikely to find the phrase "I'm a scientific realist" in a science textbook. At bottom, then, I think JMC's first demand is unrealistically high. We shouldn't hold issues hostage to a standard so high. At least not until we have too many criticisms on the page, and need to pick and choose which stay and which go. BabyJonas (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

BabyJonas completely misreads my previous remarks when he/she states that I believe that KSci "isn't allowed to bring [the Presumption of Atheism] into the article".

On the contrary, my sole objective is to see it in there (and also in the Atheism article!) in a well-supported, clearly-expressed and balanced manner. -- Jmc (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I misread you. It looked like the criticisms you were raising were disproportionately stringent given the par for the course on Wikipedia. There is a risk that we would lose out on a lot of good material if we kept out something that was very good, but imperfect and provisional.

As they say, the perfect is often the enemy of the good. So why not establish what features of the piece right now make it totally unacceptable for this article. We resolve those issues, and then fold it into the article, leaving it open for revision for the rest of us? BabyJonas (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, you asked for a citation to support a statement that is already in the Atheist article *by consensus*. Nonetheless I provided you with 2 citations, one theist and one journalist. Now you've asked me to find a quote from an atheist source. I do not believe there is a WP guideline or precedent for the additional request for an atheist confirmation. Criticisms of atheism need not have atheist agreement to be valid. I'd like to ask you to let your atheist citation objection slide.

The term "Presumption of atheism" is not a well-known term and the background for the definition change needs to be provided in clear terms to the non-philosophical reader. You may or may not known that many atheists and theist deny the validity of the other side's definition of the term 'atheism', which is why I quote Flew directly to explain the point. I've looked this part over and believe this intro can't be shorter without losing clarity on the five points that need to be established before describing the criticism: 1) Who is Flew and why should his view matter, 2) the old definition of atheism, 2) the new definition he advocates, 3) that Flew requested a change in meaning that went against the common usage at the time, and 5) how these definitions of atheism relate to agnosticism, the position of the first criticism enumerated. I think removing material from this section will make the remainder of the article less understandable. I'd like to ask you to let the objection to the intro length slide too.

Words such as ontology and epistemology are not in most people's vocabulary. Your comment saying that the last two paragraphs engaging ontology didn't make sense to you is, I believe, indicative of a legitimate problem. Some readers may not understand this point, and can discourage further reading. I'm willing to write the parts mentioning ontology out of the last two paragraphs, if you think this change and letting the other two points slide would result in an acceptable compromise addition to our criticism article.

Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, I also want to remove some of the weaker citations where there are multiples and leave only the strongest two (at most) on points with citation overkill.

Does the above work for you?

KSci ^(talk) 04:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Just my $0.50 here. By I think there is some broad agreement here among the editors. Instead of naming it the "Presumption of atheism" section why not just include a section called "Evidential claims and burdens of proof". Under this, one can make a note on the presumption atheists sometimes make on evidence and burdens of proof with respect to theism. This is the heart of the issue, it seems. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick response (maybe $0.25 worth) to Ramos1990's immediately preceding comment about what, I agree, is the heart of the issue:

Such a section (containing "a note on the presumption atheists sometimes make on evidence and burdens of proof with respect to theism") properly belongs in the Atheism article. As I said above, "As it stands, that article lacks anything in its body to justify the statement in its lede (which [KSci] quoted earlier) that "Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies ... on the theist ...", and it would be helpful (indeed, it's necessary) to have something within the body of that article to support this assertion."

If we have KSci's response to that point, we can take it from there.

-- Jmc (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: By saying such a section belongs to the Atheism article, are we implying that the issue being raised, namely a type of criticism of atheistic epistemology, doesn't belong in this article? BabyJonas (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do need to clarify. Perhaps I can best do it by referring directly to KSci's draft:

The section there headed "The Presumption of Atheism" is the one that I'm referring to when I say it properly belongs in the Atheism article. So that's the context of my remark that (apologies for the repetition but maybe now it makes better sense) "As it stands, that article [i.e the Atheism article] lacks anything in its body to justify the statement in its lede (which [KSci] quoted earlier) that "Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies ... on the theist ...", and it would be helpful (indeed, it's necessary) to have something within the body of that article to support this assertion."

Then, to return to KSci's draft:

The section there headed "Criticism of the Presumption of Atheism" can be incorporated in this article in place of the paragraph under "Arguments and Positions" headed "The Presumption of Atheism" (I would argue, in a somewhat condensed form so as not to unbalance this article).

Adopting this approach would also have the benefit of enabling the addition of a WP link (in this article) to "The Presumption of Atheism", as we've been able to do for each of the other of Craig's bulleted issues under "Arguments and Positions". (Indeed the fact that we've not been able to do that is a further demonstration of the need to put KSci's "The Presumption of Atheism" section into the Atheism article.)

-- Jmc (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ramos1990, I would support your proposal to add the new content I propose under a heading "Evidential claims and burdens of proof", if this brings us to a consensus.

@Jmc, thank you for your further clarification. Here I will address your points one at a time.

"The section there headed "The Presumption of Atheism" is the one that I'm referring to when I say it [the first part of the proposed text] properly belongs in the Atheism article. "

I completely agree that the atheism article should support the unsupported statement in its lead, but the atheism article is not, in my view, even remotely germane to the question we are discussing here, which is how to best inform readers of this article concerning the facts about criticisms of the Presumption of Atheism.

The section there headed "Criticism of the Presumption of Atheism" can be incorporated in this article in place of the paragraph under "Arguments and Positions" headed "The Presumption of Atheism"

I also completely agree that the content I propose need not be a stand alone section in our article (I had not considered this until Ramos 1990 propose a different heading). On the other hand, Flew's presumption of atheism is only one of several philosophical positions appropriate to a section "Arguments and Positions", so I do not think that heading should be replaced with this one. I propose to add the "Presumption of Atheism" content I've provided as a subheading under "Arguments and Positions". This is, I think, a good fit because the content I'm proposing covers many other very relevant topics, such as alternate meanings for the word of 'atheism' (past and present), burden of proof/default positions, in addition to multiple criticisms by atheists, agnostics, and theists.

So, Jmk, does making the proposed content a sub-heading under "Arguments and Positions" or an new heading under "Evidential claims and burdens of proof"address your concern?

"I would argue, in a somewhat condensed form so as not to unbalance this article

The purpose of the content I've proposed is to inform readers about this family of criticisms in a clear, credible and fair way with no POV bias whatsoever. The content I've proposed gives more space to a clear and understandable description of Flew's philosophical position than to any of the opposing criticisms - . If you think you can bring additional brevity to what I've proposed I suggest we go forward by adding the content I've offered so you can suggest the improvements you think are needed. This is, I believe, the accepted WP approach, is it not?

I've performed a markup on the text to indicate changes I've made to the text in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KSci/sandbox reflecting the changes we've discussed here. Can we add this content as I'm showing it now so it can be edited and refined by other editors (with the excess of citations, down-selected to include only the best 1 or two for each point).

KSci ^(talk) 05:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Jmc KSci ^(talk) 02:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I give up. It beats me how anyone can seriously say that "the atheism article is not, in my view, even remotely germane to the question we are discussing here" while at the same time saying "[t]he content I've proposed gives more space to a clear and understandable description of Flew's philosophical position than to any of the opposing criticisms". -- Jmc (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc I appreciate your input on this subtopic, but I think the Atheism topic only needs a sentence in the body with a citation to support the unsupported sentence in the lead. Adding an entire new section on the Presumption of Atheism would not eliminate the need to describe the presumption of atheism here because it is philosophical terminology and readers need the background to understand the criticism.

If there are no other comments or questions, I'm going to check the proposed text, edit out the unnecessary weaker citations and add it under the subheading "Arguments and Positions".

KSci ^(talk) 09:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the unused definition "agnostic atheist," for multiple reasons

The term "agnostic atheist" isn't used in the article, appears to conflict with the supporting citation, and uses a philosophical term "strong atheism" many readers are not likely to understand in the definition.

KSci ^(talk) 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150628151746/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of mainstream apologetic view as "fringe"

Charles, thank you for your input, but I don't agree. Please provide citations establishing that William Lane Craig's assessment is fringe. I can provide many more citations for the assessment as written or modify the text as needed. KSci ^(talk) 18:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the mainstream really Creationist/inerrantist? Craig teaches at Talbot which is part of Biola University, and " Biola holds to the key doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, the idea that the original writings of the Bible were without error with regard to both theological and non-theological matters. As a final guarantee of strict adherence to its theological worldview, the university requires every faculty member, when first hired and again upon application for tenure, to submit their understanding of and complete agreement with each item of the doctrinal and teaching statements to the Talbot School of Theology for evaluation." That's fringe from a mainstream viewpoint, and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Doug, thank you for your response. I appreciate your input. In response to your point above, the relatively common new atheist POV that the creationist/inerrantist religious beliefs of many Christians are "fringe" is one we need not debate. Craig's religious beliefs have no relevance to his professional philosophical work (arguing this would be to use a genetic fallacy). The content in question concerns broad trends in academic philosophy and the impact of these trends in reviving studies in the philosophy of religion, and most particularly Christian philosophy.

The view that academic philosophy has moved away from verificationism is not a POV unique to Christian philosophers. It is broadly recognized by academic philosophers and is reflected in the rise of postmodernism and various forms of relativism. Wikipedia's article on verificationism describes its decline after the 60s in the second paragraph. This isn't at all controversial. KSci ^(talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: I took a shot at addressing what I think you might be objecting to in the reverted text. Please provide your thoughts/suggestions on the following. The purpose of this text is to describing the factors that lead to a resurgence of Christian philosophy after the decline of verificationism in the 1960s

In the 1950s and 60s scientific naturalism and verificationism dominated the field of academic philosophy and new research in Metaphysics was minimal in professional academic publications. In the latter part of the 20th century verificationism fell out of favor and the academic study of metaphysics underwent a resurgence.. Describing how this affected Christian philosophy and criticisms of atheism, Analytic philosopher William Lane Craig wrote:

The collapse of the Verificationism was undoubtedly the most important philosophical event of the twentieth century. Its demise meant a resurgence of metaphysics, along with other traditional problems of philosophy which Verificationism had suppressed. Accompanying this resurgence has come something new and altogether unanticipated: a renaissance in Christian philosophy.

— William Lane Craig, . "Theistic Critiques Of Atheism". Abridged from "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism".

In the early 21st century the resurgence in Christian philosophy produced new criticisms of atheism, some of which Craig describes:.

Thanks in advance. KSci ^(talk) 20:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly was the dispute about? BabyJonas (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Atheism and Totalitarian Regimes correction from The God Delusion

This is what the article use to say:

"Richard Dawkins has stated that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[52] and opines that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[85] On other occasions, Dawkins has replied to the argument that Hitler and Stalin were atheists with the response that Hitler and Stalin also grew moustaches in an effort to show the argument as fallacious.[86]

This is what someone else added it later:

Dawkins also replied that Hitler was not atheist, or at least did not declare himself as so, and that he didn't directly execute most of the atrocities of the Nazi regime, that were executed by German soldiers or civilians, most of whom were Christian at that time.[87]

The link provided below "[87]" doesn't say that. Infact, the link doesn't mention Richard Dawkins at all and that link isn't in the notes section of The God Delusion either. ^ http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005206

The relevant passages that ARE mentioned by Richard Dawkins in his book are as follows:

"Even if we accept that Hitler shared atheism in common, they both also had moustaches, as does Saddam Hussein....What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. The is not the smallest evidenc that it does." Page 309.

I removed that last added passage as being irrelevant and added in an excert using Richard Dawkins own words since that would make more sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.168.211 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan definition of atheism

Carl Sagan uses a completely discredited definition of atheism in the given source - in this case, shouldn't the definition that he uses be clarified and dissociated with the generally accepted definition?SecC (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no true or universally accepted definition of atheism. It ranges from various forms of not having gods (dogmatic, disbelief, rejection, lacking, implicit, explicit, strong, weak, forsaking, ignorance, etc) so there are many definitions of atheism actually and either way, in the section it does not use Sagan to define atheism. There is no issue in using him either way even if it were for a definition, by the way. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Include that: what is self-evident?

God is a person, not an impersonal process (otherwise we distort the semantics of the noun).

• personhood is self-evident to persons (believers)
• nothing isn't self-evident that it decays into the universe
• Max Tegmark's self-evident cosmogony not from nothing but from solvable formulas in topological algebra (supposedly self-evident spacetime), is badly postulated; in his books he speaks philosophically providing no mathematical proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:CAB4:4457:E00:4701:E3FC (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A gentleman wants me to put this here

I don't know why, if there is nothing wrong with my edition. But hey here it is: Finally, the cases of the French Revolution or the Cristero War, in which there was no Marxist worldview, could be argue againt such a position.

What do you think? It's okay? Armando AZ (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for how the comment turned out, I am not skilled in Wikipedia Armando AZ (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The context for the disputed text is that it was added in the Atheism and politics section, in the After World War II subsection, appended to the paragraph Historian Borden Painter assessed Dawkins' claims on Stalin, atheism and violence in light of mainstream historical scholarship, stating that Dawkins did not use reliable sources to reach his conclusions. He argues: "He omits what any textbook would tell him: Marxism included atheism as a piece of its secular ideology that claimed a basis in scientific thinking originating in the Enlightenment". D'Souza responds to Dawkins that an individual need not explicitly invoke atheism in committing atrocities if it is already implied in his worldview as is the case in Marxism.

So I think Armando AZ is saying those two examples counter D'Souza's claim. But it isn't the editor's job to find examples to argue against a claim in an article; we need an independent source that counters D'Souza's claim with those examples. (Also, the "Tallett" ref is not defined in the article so I have no clue what work it is referring to.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No, this answer would be directed towards Richard Dawkins. The original text includes two criticisms from two different historians, and since the article is titled "Criticism of Atheism" and apart from that my edition begins with "Finally ..." I consider that it is part of the criticism. Armando AZ (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't add the content back to the article until you get consensus here on its inclusion.

What are the details for "Tallett 1991"? That is not a complete reference. Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

On the page De-Christianization of France during the French Revolution this author is quoted several times, who talks precisely about this topic

Please note that I am a newbie therefore I may not know how to pass an external link :/ sorry for that

Another thing, I am not an English speaker, so forgive me if I write things wrong Armando AZ (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the ref in this discussion. Now, I still don't understand the point of your content suggestion. Which specific "position" do your pre-Marxism examples argue against? Who says (what reliable source) that these "argue against" or counter whichever position of Dawkins it's referring to? Schazjmd (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, the addition proposed by Armando AZ is a non sequitur. I'd like to hear a convincing rationale for its inclusion. -- Jmc (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I've read the pages of Tallett which are used as a reference and can't find any relevance to this article in its description of the dechristianization of late 18th century France (breaking down the institution of the Catholic Church in that country, nothing about atheism at all). Schazjmd (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this, Schazjmd. It's a similar story with the culturacolectiva.com reference; the relative positions of the Mexican government and los cristeros are not at all clear-cut - there were atheists who sided with los cristeros in opposing government initiatives to restrict the church ("... y algunos ateos que consideraban estas decisiones radicales"). -- Jmc (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And well? what do we all decide, does the edition remain or is it eliminated? Armando AZ (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Armando AZ, you've been asked some questions that you haven't answered. Which specific "position" do your pre-Marxism examples argue against? Who says (what reliable source) that these "argue against" or counter whichever position of Dawkins it's referring to? And the question from Jmc, can you provide a convincing rationale for its inclusion in the article? Schazjmd (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In the article of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Non-Communist_states these two events are referred to, so for consistency they should appear here. On the other hand, it also appears in the article on the history of atheism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism#The_Age_of_Enlightenment .

That contradicts Richard Dawkins' view that atheist leaders carried out their persecutions because of their "radical Marxism."

Those would be my arguments Armando AZ (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is "Criticism of atheism". Something being mentioned in State atheism and History of atheism doesn't mean that it's relevant here. Your claim that the two events contradict Dawkin's views about Stalin's actions makes no sense. You don't have a reliable source making the claim that those two events shed any light on Dawkin's claims about Stalin. Your sources for this text don't relate to the subject of this article. I think Jmc's description that this text you want to add is a non sequitur is accurate. This text should not be added to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. Armando AZ has failed to yet offer a convincing rationale for their proposed edit.-- Jmc (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The heading of the section says "atheism and politics" so in fact the issue of state atheism is important. On the other hand, this also goes with the general criticism about whether these deaths were caused by atheism (beware, my text only adds this information, it does not say at all that the discussion is settled).

On the other hand and responding to Jmc, we must consider, for example, that President Calles was an atheist (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarco_El%C3%ADas_Calles) and it was during his government that the Cristero War started Armando AZ (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)