Talk:Criticism of atheism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Effects of atheism on individuals

The Alister McGrath reference here should be removed, since it does not belong in this section. The title relates to the effects of atheism, not mere correlations. A correlation might as easily suggest that atheism leads to X or that x leads to atheism so it is not at all correct to suggest a correlation is a cause. Apart from that, the majority of studies show that positive health measures, social harmony and human rights are inversely correlated with religiousity, though again that is not a statement about causation, which is why it would probably suit whoever included the McGrath thing to remove it, lest the door remain open for the overwhelming pile of evidence to contradict him.124.149.36.142 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Atheism as faith

I am not entirely positive how to effectively alter this portion of the article, so I will offer my suggestion to someone who may be more able.

This section briefly acknowledges that an argument exists, cites it, and moves on to explain the rebuttal from the wrong point of view. It is worth noting that there stands no valid argument that implicit atheism requires faith. However, as the word "faith" is often defined as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," it should be noted that an absolute position that no supernatural deities exist (explicit atheism) is a firm position in which someone is claiming that something which they cannot prove is truth. This is the basis for an argument that explicit atheism requires faith. If this section is going to house a rebuttal to an argument that explicit atheism is faith by arguing it from the point of view of implicit atheism, it should be made more clear. The existing sources for the argument are sufficient to make this point, but we're lacking clarity in the article itself. Jarland (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've edited to add content from a source already previously cited so that there exists content of the criticisms that fits the rebuttal below it. Only seemed appropriate that an argument be made if a counter argument should already be made. Jarland (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"...from the wrong point of view" What do you mean? In any case, go right ahead, and I'll copyedit behind you. GManNickG (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I may have been rather unclear in the way that I worded it, not uncommon for me. What I meant to say is that an argument that atheism is faith can, logically, only be an argument against explicit atheism and if the article is unclear about how such an argument is made to begin with, it seems out of place that the article then proposes a counter argument from the point of implicit atheism. We should make either make a point and then counter it or we should make a point and not counter it, but the worst option would be to make no point and then counter it. It makes the section read as a defense rather than an explanation of a form of criticism of atheism. Jarland (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, let's discuss how we can improve upon the idea behind my edit. I do not believe the idea is flawed, but let's discuss how to make it better if you disagree. Jarland (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to discuss this. I can see in the time since you left this message that there has been some further movement, both on this page and at my user talk, and I'm not sure whether this is still an issue. But the short answer (which I can expand if there are still questions) is that I agreed with you about expanding the argument, but I only wanted to remove the attribution of article title and author, because this was just one of several sources, and it was an undergraduate writing in a college paper. The concept is still there, but just not the name of the person and the title of the article. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Barna

If Barna isn't acceptable as reliable why do we quote them at all in the article? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I'd be fine with deleting the entire paragraph. (The study by G. Paul is only there as a response to Barna.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the references to Barna. Artichoker^[talk] 22:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Should Marx, Private Property And Communism be mentioned?

"Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society."-Karl Marx

71.58.198.190 (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what communism has to do with the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Communism was atheist as it's government choice on religions. See State atheism. Alatari (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And stalin had a moustache; it doesn't mean we write communism into that article. This is criticism of atheism, not criticism of communism. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, communism is already in the article...

Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."[15] He also contends:
And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[16]

--Alatari (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The guy himself says it was in the name of the communist ideology. I think it's grand to keep it because the responses also highlight this. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What is that crap Alatari? Karl Marx was long dead before that. 174.54.123.98 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This entire section, trying to link not only atheism with communism, but to link atheism with the atrocities committed under communism, is beyond egregious. There are multiple communist organizations and communities that are religious, and there is no evidence of causality. The inclusion of this entire section is specious.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson

For some reason Niall Ferguson whose speciality is financial and economic history, particularly hyperinflation and the bond markets, as well as the history of colonialism is being quoted for his views on atheism and morality. surely this is completely undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Section Atheists and religious groups

It is not clear what this section is meant to be about. It appears to contain a crticism of comments by an atheist but this isn't relevant to a criticism of atheism itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Also, the section entitled Dogmatism seems to be largely a criticism Dawkins, not a criticism of atheism. Using "dogmatism by some" as a criticism is a red herring. We can find dogmatists in any discipline. It says nothing of the discipline. A preacher's dogmatism isn't an indictment of Christianity and you won't see any of this sort of criticism under criticism of Christianity or its related pages. I recommend deletion of this section.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the material appears to be based off what journalists have said, surely putting the comments of journalists etc beside academics, theologians etc is undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Focus of this article

It seems to me that a "Criticism of Atheism" article should be focused solely on the criticism of the ideology of atheism. There seems to be a wide swath of criticism in here targeting individual atheists. Those criticisms are covered on those individuals' pages (e.g. Dawkins and Hitchens) Think about it. We don't have criticisms of individual Christians under the criticism of Christianity. I suggest that any and all criticisms targeting individual atheists be removed from this article. I'll leave this up for at least a week for discussion before taking any action.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I support, at some point, going through this page to make it more focused on criticism of the ideology. One useful approach that has been followed at other pages of this sort is to set a requirement that the sourcing actually say that whatever the criticism is, it is a "criticism of atheism". That way, we aren't depending on Wikipedia editors defining something as a criticism of atheism. At several of the criticism of specific religions pages, editors insist on that, so we might as well do likewise here. Similarly, this page has grown partly because some editors see it as a sort of pay-back for the existence of other pages that criticize religions, so it isn't surprising that there is content that ought to be pruned. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing criticisms of individual atheists per this thread.Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening sentence needs work. First, you can't assess atheism's validity. There are no tenets to assess. It's the rejection of a belief system. Basic logic tells us that we can't prove a negative. I don't know if there is a better phrase for "assess its validity." Suggestions? Second, "impact on morality" is misleading. I don't know how to fix that without adding in a weasel word (like purported). But the problem is that there is an entire section on atheism's impact on morality, with nothing about atheism's impact on morality. There are a couple of OLD philosophers in there, who simple charge that morality comes from religion. That says nothing about the impact of atheism on morality.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources need to be re-checked. I've noticed the catechism doesn't have any assesments of its validity in the quoted section. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely better. Thank you for taking the time for that. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the viability of the entire article. I don't know how you can have scholarly criticism of something that has no tenets, no ideology. There's literally nothing to criticize because it is the absence of belief. But if it's going to exist, I guess we can try to make sure it's balanced and focused.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We can just try to cover what reliable sources cover. Whether criticism makes sense or not we should still cover it here. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. But I do agree with tryptofish that we should establish criteria for the article. I've never seen official criteria outlined, so I'm not sure of the format, but I'd suggest something like this: "Direct criticism of the concept of atheism, excluding criticism on specific atheists." - the rationale for that is simple: you don't see criticism of specific Christians on the criticism of Christianity, and to include that sort of criticism would imply that one of those individuals speaks for the entire community.Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Communism and Atheism

I hate to be the one who keeps pruning everything, but this section is painfully illogical. The opening section aims to link atheism with atrocities committed by communist regimes. As evidence, it provides a quote by the Pope, which does indict atheism, but it doesn't link it to communism or the atrocities committed by them. This should be removed or reworded to something like "The pope has spoken out against atheism".Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the title back to it's original, I changed it because it was originally just about communism but has now changed. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation 57 and the insert are a dummy source, and isn't reliable anyway. Removing.Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Etiene Borne

The citations related to Etiene Borne seem to lack any verifiable data. The source simply lists an entire book, by this practically unknown person. There are no pages listed in the reference, and I don't know that this would even qualify as a reliable source even if we had enough information to find the quote that it references. I'm removing.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Any arguments for keeping this article at all?

I'm really not hearing any opposition to my arguments regarding the existence of this article. It's clearly a hit piece riddled with specious logic. As I said before, atheism lacks tenets. There is no inherent essence of atheism to be criticized, as it is itself a criticism of other religions. All of the arguments presented in the article are about individual atheists or about religious leaders' opinions on where morality comes from. It's just nonsense. It has nothing to do with atheism. Can someone please provide the counter to this argument?Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's worth looking at the Wikipedia:Help on this. To quote: "Don't spin off a section of criticism about a subject into its own article unless the spun-off article truly can stand on its own. In almost all cases, criticism should be properly sourced and integrated into an article ... Only under rare circumstances should the criticism become a daughter article." On that basis, there'd need to be pretty overwhelming arguments for the retention of this article in any form.-- Jmc (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism is a notable topic and I think there is currently still a lot of content in the article that it deserves it's own article (just look at the importance ratings for the projects at the top of the page). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's wait to see if anyone else chimes in. I still think the stuff that is left is bunk. But if this article is going to stick around then it needs some real work. To me, the opening should highlight the complications of criticizing atheism as a religion, as it isn't one. At best it's a philosophy - a very basic and spare one. I think the only people who claim it's a religion are non-atheists. Maybe we start with something like "Criticism of atheism is fraught with difficulties and complications, largely because there is no single definition of atheism, nor is there any agreed-upon structure."Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's nonsense, if it has due weight it should be in the article. We should be deferring to reliable sources in this regard. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Although WP:OTHERSTUFF is considered a faulty argument, it carries a lot of psychological weight. A purely pragmatic argument for keeping is that we perennially have editors who want to delete "criticism of (their favorite religion)". It pops up at AfD with clock-like regularity. The existence of this page makes those complainers feel just a bit better. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jasonnewyork, is it your contention that criticisms of atheism are invalid, because they are based in something other than logic or reason? -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is valid. Wikipedia should remain Neutral, and if there is a lot of well cited criticism of atheism, then it should be included. It is not for us to determine which criticism is valid or not. This article needs a lot of work and tidying up. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jason above said, "atheism lacks tenets" which I took to mean to be 'atheism lacks anything to criticise' or, put another way, 'atheism is unimpeachable.' I just wanted a clear answer as to the intent for deleting the article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Stevertigo, it isn't unimpeachable, because it isn't anything. As the article says, it's like trying to describe the hair color of a bald man. Christianity has tenets. Buddhism has tenets. Judaism has tenets. Atheism has nothing to it, because it is a rejection of those tenets. Everything that is a criticism in the article is simply a justification for religion, not a criticism of atheism. "Believe in the one true god or else you have no morality" is essentially the only argument in here, phrased several different ways...but that is not a criticism of atheism. The notion that atheism is some sort of faith or religion or something that has any substance is absurd. There is nothing to criticize...it's simply the reaction of religious persons being offended that someone didn't choose their particular religion. There is no proof of anything in the article. It's just "this priest says you have no morality if you have no god." It's not a criticism. It's religious propaganda. Criticism is the vetting of facts, the relationship between cause and effect, the drawing of conclusions based on reason and logic. What is in this article is not criticism.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Steve asked a good question, and I see this as yet another argument against deletion. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors feel that one cannot criticize the absence of something. If there are sources that say that it's a criticism of atheism, then it's a criticism of atheism for Wikipedia's purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited don't claim to be criticisms of atheism. They instead claim to be rationale for the acceptance of God. That isn't a criticism of atheism. That is a promotion of religion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's a good point. Do the sources, nonetheless, criticize, for example, the "failure" (or a similar word) to accept God? I suspect that they generally do. In that case, I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to say that they really do amount to criticisms of atheism. On the other hand, I'll note that some editors at, for example, Christian terrorism, are very unbending about the need to only include what the sources actually call "Christian terrorists", so I'm open to persuasion that there actually is SYNTH here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a different tack. As I understand the criteria for this article so far, the only thing required for "criticism of atheism" is for a religion of some sort to say "if you don't believe in my god, you'll be a bad person or bad things will happen to you." Or some such variation on that argument - essentially, atheists are immoral and here are the people throughout history who have said that. Now, if that is the only criteria for criticism, and everyone agrees on that, then we should include all criticisms since the dawn of religions. E.g. "The ancient Greeks warned that people who didn't believe in Zeus would be immoral and damned to the River Styx for all of eternity after death." or "The Ancient Egyptians warned that people who didn't believe in Osiris and Isis would have a miserable afterlife in the Underworld." I mean, if the only bar for inclusion in the article is "Someone of import said it" then we'd need to include all of this stuff.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jason wrote: Now, if that is the only criteria for criticism, and everyone agrees on that, then we should include all criticisms since the dawn of religions. - This is a good point, I think. But keep in mind that Wiki articles are always under construction, and at any point aren't perfect. We deal with ideas like your above comment as constructive criticisms - things that need to be improved about the article, not reasons for deleting the article. So, even though I and others here disagree with your stated desire to delete the article, which seems to have since been changed, we can still happily accept your criticisms and make improvements based on them. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So, let's be clear. The argument above was based on an assumed criteria. Are you saying the only criteria for the article should be that a reliable source says that an opposition to a particular religion is stated to be negative in some way? That's the extent of the criteria?Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

We who speak English understand what "criticism" is when we see it. We understand that comments which are negative or otherwise opposed to a concept can be construed as "criticism" of some kind. Keep in mind two things: "Criticism of x" articles aren't universally liked, but nevertheless serve as an important compromise between opponents and proponents: Proponents of atheism would tend to sanitize the wiki against material critical of atheism. Secondly the term "criticism" simply describes and characterizes a certain type of commentary. We don't use "opposition to atheism" because opposition typically comes in the form of criticism, which includes every kind of negative commentary - from off the cuff remarks to organized opposition. So "criticism" is inclusive, and its also specific - we don't need to describe much how anti-atheism organizations work, we simply need to report what they say. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that this page is not about criticism of atheism, but is instead a pro-religion/retribution page. None of the sources cite any studies or proof. The points in the article are petulant polemics by religious people who don't provide any real rationale beyond "this I believe." But having made my case, and no one joining my objections, it seems as though the article will stand. I suggest outlining the criteria for the article, based on the questions above from triptofish, e.g. should criticism be explicit or implicit?Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Jasonnewyork wrote: I stand by my claim that this page is not about criticism of atheism, but is instead a pro-religion/retribution page. - Its title is "criticism of atheism" - how you characterize that criticism is your business. None of the sources cite any studies or proof. - That's religion for ya, all faith and belief, and very little of that scientific method that's so necessary for life and living. The points in the article are petulant polemics by religious people who don't provide any real rationale beyond "this I believe." - That your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But having made my case, and no one joining my objections, it seems as though the article will stand. - Think about how un-NPOV it would be if you found some accomplices who would stand with you in your quest to delete the article. This is the problem with proponent editors, and its to the credit of "criticism of.." sections and articles like this one that they actually persist in spite of proponent's best efforts to delete them. I suggest outlining the criteria for the article, based on the questions above from triptofish, e.g. should criticism be explicit or implicit? - Can you give us an example of what you mean, and what difference it would make? -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing less civil than someone who gloats over a win. I conceded the argument. No need to rub it in with "Think about how un-NPOV it would be if you found some accomplices..." I'll remove myself from this discussion to let others chime in with their thoughts. Clearly, I remain unconvinced that simply calling something criticism makes it criticism, but I've said my peace.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to gloat, I just wanted to illustrate what this debate looks like from the side of NPOV. There are times when proponents get together and override NPOV, and its unfortunate. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Opening up new section for discussion of criteria of the article. I suggest that criticism be limited to scholars who have studied atheism. The criticism of Christianity is limited to scholars who have studied the Bible (or it should be), so I think the same should apply here. Sources should have demonstrable knowledge in the discipline of atheism. If we open it up to anyone who has a negative opinion about it, it will just become a giant kvetch page. They need to have studied it and have some professional authority and deep understanding of it. I'm not familiar with all of Wikipedia's rules, but I would think this would fall somewhere within them.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that criticism be limited to scholars who have studied atheism. - You mean they should have gone to university and studied courses in "atheism?" Or that they should have a degree in "atheism?" Your strict criteria is not in accord with NPOV, which does not support the idea of cherry-picking only the sources which fit a certain partisan ideal. Hence the criticism of Christianity page has criticisms by various scholars like Dawkins, who doesn't AFAIK have a theology degree or anything like it. Sources should have demonstrable knowledge in the discipline of atheism. - Atheism is not a discipline. Its a dogmatic rejection of divinity. If we open it up to anyone who has a negative opinion about it, it will just become a giant kvetch page. - Thats what editors are for, to keep the article from collecting views which aren't sourced. They need to have studied it and have some professional authority and deep understanding of it. - "Professional authority," in the way that you use it, is neither reasonable nor an NPOV requirement. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I said demonstrable knowledge. If you don't like it, please provide an alternative.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins has demonstrable knowledge of the Bible. Any article on criticism will include people with demonstrable knowledge. If we don't have some criteria, then fishermen's thoughts on economics might appear on a page about Keynes.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the concept we use on wikipedia is "reliable sources," as much as a tar-baby as that concept is. In a certain way we have to be entirely agnostic about what sources we use - we aren't in the business of picking one kind of view over another - that's not an NPOV way of doing things. You are suggesting that we interfere with NPOV by interjecting some biased criteria for how sources are picked. We don't do that. We only discriminate against statements when there's a specific issue in contention, and priority has to be given to one statement or another. That's called due WEIGHT. We don't do it to strip an article of its content, as you appear to be suggesting.

I don't mean to make an example of atheism's revered saint, but AFAIK Dawkins doesn't show "demonstrable knowledge" of anything at all in the theological realm. His writing, what little Ive read of it, is pure screed and little else. Still, he has some notability, and he's published in a few different ways, so his views are notable. I'm not going to argue with that, regardless of how much I disagree with his views. That's how NPOV works, and thats how WP:notability works. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. I am removing myself from this discussion as well until others chime in. I still believe that sources should have demonstrable knowledge on the subject matter before including them in the article. Otherwise, I don't understand how any article could be worth reading if the research isn't related to subject-matter experts. But I suppose that's a reflection of the platform, which is unfortunate.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Jason, I have two suggestions. First, I'd approach your suggested criteria the way we do typically at other pages. That means that: (1) we accept sources more broadly than what you propose, basically on the grounds of the source saying that it is a criticism of atheism, whether or not the source has scholarly credentials, but that, on the other hand, (2) we give greater weight to those sources that are scholarly. My second suggestion is that you go back and take a second look at what I asked you, above, about WP:SYNTH. You kind of blew me off before getting into a discussion with Steve. I really think you'll make more progress if you engage seriously with issues of synthesis. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to blow you off. I thought I was bringing it up with explicit vs implicit criticism - e.g., direct criticism of atheism vs the criticism of anything outside of a religion. After looking at the synth link you provided, I see more clearly what you mean. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that just because someone is criticizing non-religious/non-Christian beliefs, does not mean they are criticizing atheism. And to conclude that is original research. Is that what you're saying? If so, then, yes, I see that, and I agree. I was essentially attempting to say the same thing in my own round about way.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, that's basically it. For example, I have seen that editors who dislike having anyone criticize their religion can be very demanding that sources can only be cited when the source says explicitly that it is a "criticism of X". Therefore, it's not unreasonable for you to insist that sources we cite here say, explicitly, that they are criticizing atheism (or godlessness, disbelief, or something similar). If you argue for disqualifying content on that basis, you just might find me agreeing with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Understanding the wiki rules is helpful. Thank you. Not sure why I'm arguing against this page so much, since I'm not an atheist. It was just filled with so much illogic that it made me uncomfortable. I think the filter you steered me towards makes perfect sense. Thanks.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits

Somebody hasn't been on wikipedia long enough to know how these articles work. I made several edits individually, and commented each edit, so that all can see the reasoning behind each one, and revert them individually if there were issues. Instead, I see that the whole lot were reverted, with a message to come here to the talk page and discuss them. What crap. "Be bold" is the wikipedia motto. Each of my edits were thought out. I even reverted one of my own edits! User:Jmc, please take the time to address each one of my edits. This article uses way too many weasel words (see the template), and most of my edits removed those weasel words. A blanket revert shows you favor one side of the content of this article more than the other, and also shows that your focus is NOT on achieving a good article, just to press home your side. I am going to revert the reversion, and you can begin addressing the edits individually. Don't start an edit war, edit the article so it is reasonable and fits to Wiki standards that all the other articles use. I will accept individual reversions but not a bulk reversion; you clearly overstepped there and I ask for you to take some time and review each one on it's own merit. Overuse of weasel words is a flagrant violation and must be fixed. Mark Renier (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. "Somebody hasn't been on wikipedia long enough to know how these articles work." I'm not sure whom Mark Renier is addressing here - it certainly doesn't apply to me, who's been editing WP much longer than he, if he'd care to check my user page. I've definitely been here long enough to know that his failure to participate in ongoing discussion before making major edits and the unpleasant tone of his first appearance on this talk page are happily not typical of the considerate approach of other editora. -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Major edits consist of removing/adding entire sections. None of my individual edits did that. They were all modifications of existing text. I don't care what your timestamp you have on your page, address the edits individually and I will bring my tone back in line as if I was addressing a proper wikipedia editor, and not a mass roll-backer, which is borderline vandalism. Time in service does not equal quality of product. Mark Renier (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed exactly what got reverted and what didn't, but I'm OK with the net effect of the edits so far. If there are issues that are still unresolved, please let me suggest that we treat the situation as WP:BRD, and also step back from personalizing the intent of any edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, it still needs help. For example, I can't make heads or tails of that first paragraph under morality. Does it make sense to anyone else or am i just really tired?Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Someone recently reverted an edit (here) with the edit summary "Undo. Removals like this require discussion first.". Edits like that do not require discussion first; indeed, almost no edits ever require discussion first. Please see WP:BOLD. I've seen a few reverts like this recently. Keep in mind that reverting content fuels contention, not collaboration, and it should be reserved only for edits which clearly detract from the article. Reverting is not a useful tool for discussion; the talk page is. If anyone has an actual objection to the removal of content I noted in the previous diff, feel free to revert it again with that objection listed in the edit summary. I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, and have no problem with either version. I'd also be happy to discuss the matter further with anyone who's interested. However, please just make sure to specify reasons for reverts, or start discussion yourself; don't simply revert and ask for the editor to discuss... that sort of thing isn't often helpful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mann jess. By "discussion first" I was referring to the WP:BRD cycle, by which an edit would be reverted and then discussed. I restored the paragraph Jason deleted because it contained substantive material on the issue of atheism and morality. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I have no problem with the revert now. Thanks for the edit summary (and paragraph) explaining. BTW, WP:BRD mentions that you shouldn't invoke BRD as a reason for a revert, but should provide a separate reason. That's essentially what I was trying to get across above. You've done that now, so no issues on my end. :) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that paragraph doesn't deal with atheism at all. This relates to a previous discussion above with tryptofish. The paragraph as written is about what morality is with respect to God (the God of the Bible). This is not a criticism of atheism (see full discussion above). It's a paragraph about Pascal's belief that morality comes from God - it isn't a direct criticism of atheism. In other words, Pascal's words are vague enough to mean that one would lack morality if he/she had a connection with Buddah, so long as it isn't with God. Therefore, this isn't a criticism of atheism. Again, trypto and I had a lengthy discussion about this above.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Said another way, it's a criticism of non-Christian beliefs (everything outside Christianity), not specifically atheism. There is a difference, and it's an important one.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The passage reads:

"The German idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view". The French philosophe Voltaire stated "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.""

As I read it, it sets up a dichotomy between theism and its opposite, atheism. Its not referring to other religions, just to a belief in God versus a lack thereof. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The material is original research. Reading up primary sources like Kant and quoting him and interpreting it as related to criticism of atheism is original research. Quoting Voltaire and saying that this related to criticism of atheism, also original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is original research. If you look back at the Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position link and the discussion between tryptofish and I, that's what we were talking about as well. This paragraph is about Kant's belief in God and what happens without God. As I said, that is not a criticism of atheism, and to conclude that it is, is original research.Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, please do not revert others with an edit summary like "Undo per BRD". WP:BRD itself specifically says not to use BRD as a rational for a revert. If there is a problem with an edit, please specify that problem within the edit summary. Something like "I don't see the synthesis here. Care to discuss?" or "Source X seems to back this up. Could you elaborate on the problem?" would be ideal. Without having specified a problem with the edits, there is nothing for the editor to discuss. He's then forced to come on to the talk page and say "what was wrong?" Reverting without a rationale often leads to frustration and battlefield behavior. We have enough of that on the page already. Please don't do that. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I just said something similar below. This is getting exhausting. I make edits, explain rationale and then edits are reverted with seemingly no explanation.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious Groups Section

Since everything seems to be challenged on this page, I'll just bring things up for discussion before deleting (in spite of the "be bold" mantra).

I just did some digging on the "religious groups" section. It is essentially a quote from the Catholic catechism. Which is of course a perfectly fine source. Problem is, I went to the section referenced, and it denounces polytheism and idolotry, not atheism. Unless anyone can point to the section that has to do with atheism, this section needs to go.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a working link to that site? The link in the section appears to not be working, it just redirects to the Vatican main page. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not my link. The citation did not back up the information in the article as stated above and in the comments when I removed. Why did you revert?Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The link is here. I scanned it over, and it does appear to support the content. The section on atheism starts at 2123 (about midway down). Perhaps it was missed in all the noise of the rest of the page. Let me know if there's something I've missed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is clearly a section specific to atheism. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So in summary, Jason removed an entire section from the article claiming that the passage wasn't supported by the source - that the source was talking about polytheism not atheism. On closer inspection, the source in fact does have a passage about atheism, and the quotes in the removed section both come from the atheism section. !

Is it more clear now why I reject Jason's newbie tendencies towards deleting material rather than constructively correcting it or amending it? With that said, I note that Jason for the most part has conducted himself properly - he has brought most of his issues to the talk page, and sought the counsel of other editors, and where hes attempted to remove material from the article he has left edit summaries, though these could be improved upon. In no way am I suggesting Jason is conducting himself improperly, rather as the above case shows, he needs to be a bit more judicious with how he treats the hard work of other editors. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does support the content. The way the link is written in the link (at the bottom of the page) it seems to reference section 2113, which references idolotry (polytheism is right above it). But you are correct. Atheism is criticized in section 2123. That was the question I posed on June 7th at the start of the thread. Sorry I missed it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve, everyone makes mistakes. You didn't know the source supported the content when you reverted. You did it "per BRD". Had you looked everything over and provided a rationale "the source seems to support this, care to discuss it?", this would have been a lot easier. This is not an inclusionist vs deletionist issue. Please stop framing it that way. We don't need to discuss this further, just please start discussing article content (not editors, or deletionism), and provide rationales if you need to revert. Thanks. I'm glad we got this particular content issue sorted out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. Jason deleted an entire section, and his rationale seemed flimsy. I reverted because it was the right thing to do - to discuss the merits of a substantial deletion one way or another. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed Issues

What do you do when you have a bunch of "citation needed" annotations? If no citation is provided within a given period of time are those statements removed?Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We generally try to find citations for those passages, if we are inclined. That would be a constructive way of dealing with it. We do however have a mode of editorial thought that's called "m:deletionism" which tends to make destructive edits rather than constructive ones. The deletionists were largely defeated around the end of the great wiki wars of 2005, but they still show up every once in a while. The thing we learned from all of that was that deletionism is typically a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Its easy to just delete stuff, hence its not considered as noble as actually writing stuff. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think going on an anti-deletionist spiel doesn't answer the question. If no citation is given and a reasonable amount of time is given then it can be removed. This can be reverted but note that the burden is on the restorer and not the remover per WP:BURDEN. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What speil? I was giving an editor with only 200 edits a sense of perspective and history regarding the idea of making constructive edits versus nonconstructive ones. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, but a little off topic (perhaps at his user talk page?); you didn't actually answer the question he asked. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I did answer his question. Note that Jason has been in the mode of making deletions rather than additions or citations to existing text. Id like to encourage him to think outside of the deletionism mold and get on with being a constructive editor, one who writes as much or more than he chops. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The number of additions or deletions an editor makes has no bearing on the individual edits. You seem to have singled my edits out for reverting over and over with no real explanation. The edits I've made are careful and thought through with rationale on each edit. I feel this is starting to be edit warring.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. Focus should be placed on discussion of the issues, not on forcing a particular version into the page prior to discussion. There is nothing wrong with improving an article by removing inappropriate content, and we should absolutely not be reverting an editor just because his edits have largely been to remove material (with justification in edit summaries and on talk). Again, I have no current view on the content itself, but this battleground stuff should really stop. This is not an inclusionist vs deletionist issue. Please start discussing instead of reverting. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue Jason brought up was the removal of material with a cn tag. I suggested alternatives to deletion, and there are some good reasons for that. For one, the cn tag may be relatively fresh, and not enough time had passed for someone to cite it. One of the main ideas with the cn tag has always been that people be given enough time to add a citation. This may be a matter or weeks or months, though sometimes they stick around for longer. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't always have to wait to remove cn-tagged material, and there is no specified time period if we do. A cn tag is not a part of the "removal of material" process; it's a part of the "addition of sources" process. If you see material which is unsourced and you think it would be unlikely to find a supporting source, then it should be removed, not cn tagged. If you find material which is unsourced and you think it's likely there's a source out there somewhere, but you don't have it now, then cn-tag it. The more time something sits around with a cn tag, the less likely a source exists to back the statement up. At any point (a day, week, or year later), anyone is welcome to say "this is unsourced and I can't find one, it's time to be removed."   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

New Reference

Does anyone think it is worthwhile to add a "see also" link to the "atheism and religion" page? It speaks to a lot of the confusion that folks have had on the talk page regarding atheism's connection to religion and how some people identify as atheist while still having spiritual beliefs. I don't know how to add those types of links, so if anyone else agrees can you add it or tell me how to do it? Thanks.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Although as I look more closely at that article, it has issues too. I could go either way.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See also sections are standard fare for any article, including disambiguations. But the article already has such a section, and you seem to be talking about something else - a see also link in the body of the article? These are less common, but the standard form is to put them in parenthesis like (see also Foo), or more formally, (cf. Foo). -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Steve, Jason is asking whether we should list Atheism and religion in our See Also section. Either way is fine with me. It seems like a good target based on its scope.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Concepts of Atheism

"Concepts of atheism" was left in the opening sentence, because there are indeed 'concepts' listed on the atheism main page. However, there are no criticisms of those concepts in this article (practical atheism, theoretical atheism, et al). Is that a misalignment? I know this may sound like nitpicking, but I'm just seeking clarity here. I'm happy to leave "concepts" as part of the header if indeed criticism of atheism includes criticism of those identified concepts. I just don't see any proof of that at this point.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Its my birthday and I've been out of the office doing things. You really need to maybe give two or three days notice, per WP:AGF. I assume good faith, I expect good faith assumed of me.

Its clear that atheism has concepts, its not just a rejection of God, because that would be inane and simplistic. Atheism's grand concept is that there is no God, and beyond that there are varied conceptual ideas for why there is no God, no proof, no evidence, etc. You are not nitpicking, but you are asking a valid question: Should there be some symmetry between this article's points and the concepts listed at atheism? I think there should be some symmetry - there should be encyclopedic coverage of the main points - but perfect symmetry is not required, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what information would fit in "criticism of concepts of atheism" that wouldn't fit in "criticism of validity of atheism"? If they're the same thing, we should just choose one, and validity seems more accurate based on the content of the article thus far IMHO. Or if you feel that strongly about keeping the word concepts in, I don't mind. Happy birthday, Steve. Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday from me too! (No particular opinion about the content.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Yeah Jason I think concepts needs to stay in there, if only because it seems impossible to criticize the validity of something without first criticizing the idea itself. We deal primarily with concepts. Articles represent individual and distinct concepts. Its a nominal and objective way to refer to most things. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Suicide Rates

The first sentence of the second paragraph under "effects of atheism on the individual" cites two studies that claim findings that atheist have higher suicide rates. Two issues:

1. Only the American Journal of Psychiatry is cited. I tried googling around for the World Health Organization information, but no dice.

2. I read the abstract from American Journal of Psychiatry, and the conclusions drawn have to do with religious affiliation, not atheism. Here are their conclusions: "CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention." This is another example of the WP:SYNTH issue identified earlier. It's not a criticism of atheism, it's a criticism of non-religious-affiliation. I'm going to remove this sentence unless anyone has a counter to this perspective.Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few sources for that piece. The Journal does actually back it up (I'll check it again later to provide a direct quote), as does the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, cited in the next sentence. The latter supports attribution of the WHO on page 58. If you search google scholar, a few other sources support this as well. As far as I'm aware, there's pretty strong evidence to suggest what Martin is saying, that is, atheists have higher rates of suicide, but also better health, higher life expectancy, higher wealth, and other factors indicating better quality of life. There are a few other sources discussing other disparate trends, but any consensus that exists seems to point to that. If you're aware of another source which discusses it which might contradict Martin, I'd be happy to read it over. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this belongs in the main article instead of this article, it doesn't seem to exactly be a criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well that's true. Originally, there was an intro sentence saying something like "Some of criticized atheism for its effects on the individual", and this content summarized the relevant issues. I removed that intro sentence because it was unsourced and weasely. This content may belong in the Atheism and health article, and if we find a source to support something like that intro sentence, we could then summarize Atheism and health here. Does that work?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

what atheism and health article are you referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops! The article was religion and health. It may belong there, or in the main Atheism article perhaps.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for double checking. I read the abstract of the AJP study (and pasted the conclusion). I don't think it's an issue of the source not backing up claims of higher suicide rates among non-religious people. It does say that. The problem is the synth issue. It doesn't talk about atheism in there anywhere (that I saw). In other words, they use "people who are unaffiliated with a religion." That's different from being an atheist. The people in that study could have all been agnostics for all we know or spiritual people who just haven't found the right religion. There's no way of knowing, and concluding that non-affiliated is the same as atheist is original research. If the conclusion said "atheists have higher suicide rates," and they knew that because the subjects were all self-identified atheists, then I'd say leave it in. But that's not the case. Unless I'm missing something, which is certainly a possibility.  :) Lemme know your thoughts.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the paper goes on later to talk about atheism specifically with respect to their participants. In particular, it discusses trends of depression within atheists relative to religious groups. I think it would be hard to read the journal and come to the conclusion that "nonreligious" was not synonymous with their usage of "atheist" in their study. I don't have access to the full paper, so I can't see how they define each group for sure. We could easily replace the journal with another cite if you feel it isn't specific enough. Here's another paper which discusses relative suicide rates by country, and supports Martin's conclusion and the WHO data. There are a few others on google scholar. Many studies are registration-only, however. I personally think the AJP paper is ok here, but maybe others feel differently. If you have another suggestion or sources, let me know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, just a minor nitpick: Synthesis is not the same as original research (though it is a subset). When one paper is being cited, but it doesn't fully support a claim, that is OR, not Syn. When two papers are cited to support a novel conclusion not found in either, that's Syn. At best, this would be a case of OR. I'm not sure it rises to that level, but I want to make sure our terms are correct :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I see their references to atheists, though those comments come up in the "discussion" section. They aren't listed in the methodology or conclusion sections. I'd feel more comfortable if they discussed the screening process for how they determined "affiliated" vs "non-affiliated." It does seem that at times in the discussion they interchange atheist and non-affiliated, but I can't tell if that was unintentional or if there was in fact enough rigor in the screening process that allowed them to draw those conclusions. They didn't include the term "atheist" in the conclusion, so my sense is that they didn't feel like they could conclude that. But hey, that's just my thought. I'll take a look at the other studies later and see if those work better. Thanks for all the work and research, Jess!Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The WHO article was cut off for some reason, and the portion in the link I could read didn't include anything re atheism. Setting that aside, I don't have access to the other articles, so I'll just leave you with my previous thoughts and this: I'm open to leaving it but in a perfect world I'd feel better if the following criteria were met: 1. We had a study that stated in its conclusions that atheists have higher suicide rates (and if that were quantified, e.g. "suicide rates for atheists are 5% higher than general pop," that'd be even better). 2. The subjects of the study weren't all from a psych ward with major depressive disorder (that doesn't seem representative of general pop or of atheists in general). AND 3. We agree that this type of information would fit within any other religious criticism article. But I'm happy to leave in if no one else agrees w/my position. Because, to restate, if the claims are truly founded, that general pop atheists have higher suicide rates than gen pop non-atheists, that seems like a criticism that falls under the currently included "effects of atheism on the individual." Cheers. Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No worries. I know what you mean, but since I don't have access to the full paper either, I can't say for sure. I think it's fair to assume they discuss the screening process and define their terms within the paper somewhere. We could ask someone at the resource exchange, or I could go to my local college/library and see if we can get access there. I'll see if I have some more time in coming weeks for a short trip. No guarantees though. I think the WHO data (cited by Martin) is strong enough on its own, personally. If you think it over and decide the AJP paper isn't explicit enough, feel free to remove its attribution; I won't object. I initially added it because it appears to be cited in a number of other places. (Search google scholar for "atheism suicide" and you'll find a fair number of cites of that paper) I figured that gave it "notability" enough to warrant mention. With that all said, IRWolfie made a good point that this isn't a criticism on its own, so the whole thing should probably be removed for now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you mean the Cambridge Companion... is cut off? The online version I have here discusses suicide on page 58, reading "Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates, of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irrelegious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism." This appears in the chapter "Contemporary Numbers and Patterns", where he discusses atheism's apparent effect on groups. How about we remove the section, per IRWolfie's input, and we can reintroduce it if we find a good source which discusses criticism of the "effects" of atheism. Does that work for you?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving it to the religion and health article makes some sense, maybe under "absence of religion" or similar. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I vote for that or for tabling this until we find a solid study with "atheists have higher suicide rates" explicitly in the findings where the subjects weren't all mental patients (like they were in the AJP study). There has to be one out there, but DONT go to your library. That's too much work, and you've already done so much. I will take a look at google scholar (a new source for me!) at some point and see what I find. But don't wait on me. Do whatever you think is best in the meantime.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor emphasis in Atheism and the individual section

Hey Mann Jess, to follow up on this, I think that as the last sentence currently stands, it could be confused that atheism is the cause. Since the quote in the reference mentions that atheism is not the cause of social health, but that social health may facilitate people to have less theistic beliefs as it would not be seen "necessary". This should be clarified in the article to prevent incorrect attribution. Correlation may be confused with causation. What can we do here? Perhaps different wording that represents the quote in the reference more adequately. I plan on revising other sections on this article since it looks too choppy. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been following those edits, and my take when I saw the revert was that I agreed with Mann Jess that the sentence Ramos added sounded like it had been unsourced editorializing – but now that I see Ramos' rationale here, I think this is a good point, about cause and effect. I haven't yet gone back to read what the cited source says about it, but I think that we may well be dealing with the remnants of some WP:SYNTH on the part of whoever added the material originally. Instead of approaching it as a statement, then rebuttal format, I'd rather see a single statement that correctly reflects what the source really says (or leave the whole thing out if the source decided that the relationship to atheism was inconclusive). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Trypofish, glad to hear your thoughts. The added information was meant to be statement, then context, not statement, then rebuttal, but I guess it didn't come out that way. I will re-word that last phrase to reflect the contents of the reference quote (click the ref to see the whole quote) more appropriately instead of adding on. I think it was a remnant also since it looks awkward (the section is about individuals not societies). Usually sociologists offer warnings that correlations are not causations necessarily since many factors come to play (race, population, culture, government structure, resources, economic habits, etc.), not just one. Obviously unhealthy societies with low theistic belief exist too and have existed and so have healthy ones. The same could be said of societies that have lots of theistic belief - they vary. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Ramos

I reverted a set of edits by Ramos because they appear to misrepresent the tone of the source or are otherwise problematic. I have a copy of the relevant pages if necessary.

"...there are positive correlations, among some developed countries that have a noticeable number of people who lack theistic belief, on measures like health,[11][12] life expectancy, and other factors of well being"

— Ramos1990

This makes it sound as though the source is discussing negative implications of atheism on social health, but let me quote from the source:

In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy.

and

Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God, as has been demonstrated by Norris and Inglehart (2004)

These edits are cherry picked to justify the addition of certain viewpoints while ignoring the greater context of the source. SÆdon^talk 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how the edit you noted is cherry picked by me. My amendment does not sound like it is mentioning the negative. I was building up on the statement that was already there and rewording it to reflect more of the contents. It originally noted only that countries with more atheists have better social health. The cherry picking was done by someone else, not me. I was trying to rectify something that could give readers the wrong impression of the contents of the reference. As it stands it still has the same problem!!! I was just trying to add context that correlations are not causes, as the reference quote noted. Just as is noted in the actual reference quote, atheism is not necessarily the cause of social health and theism is not necessarily the cause of social ills, rather the reference states ** social health facilitates individuals to depend less on gods and social insecurity facilitates individuals to depend more on gods **. This is an important point to understand. People see correlations and they equate to causes, that is why I noted this before to make sure that people who read this article do not think that atheism CAUSES social health. I own this reference myself and others on sociology and know that this distinction is important. On another thing, I wanted to ask why was the paper "Atheism" by William Bainbridge removed? Since there are social issues on individuals mentioned already I think this is viable data on the topic. I noted that there is correlation among atheists and weak social obligations, but not a cause. I was being careful here too. The paper notes this. I think this can be included as a criticism of atheists. There are studies also on happiness, charity, and atheists which I think are relevant to this article also. What are your thoughts on this. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, the source characterizes countries that have a higher proportion of atheists overwhelmingly positively and therefore it is not cherry picking to represent the conclusions of the source. Your edit removed the positive aspects of atheism and used the source to focus on the minor negative aspects when you deleted the sentence regarding wealth. That entire chapter is dealing with the fact that social health in almost all respects in higher in atheistic countries. Further, how can an atheist be "religiously ethnocentric?" SÆdon^talk 20:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Correlation and causation are by no means the same thing. There may be a high correlation among prosperous countries and atheism, however, that is not to say that atheism is the driving force or cause, rather, that accelerates prosperity. In turn, one should not say that prosperity causes atheism. There may be numerous reasons for why a country is prosperous. To say that it is prosperous as a result of atheism is simply jumping the gun. It is perfectly valid to note the correlation, but that should not justify any sort of causation of the matter. [User:Goatsy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.225.214 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I am confused. How is my amendment diminishing the reference quote? How did it remove the positive aspects? The relevant material is in Zuckerman's conclusion in the reference quote - which you did not quote in full when you addressed my amendment. You ignored the critical part when you addressed me. Here is the WHOLE quote In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy. Of course, none of the above correlations demonstrate that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills. Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God, as has been demonstrated by Norris and Inglehart (2004), mentioned above. p.59 The relevant points should be reflected in the article. My amendment does not diminish the positives, nor is it cherry picking at all, especially since I mention "well being" which includes social benefits and the structure of the sentence is still the same as it was before. You can add "wealth" back if you want, but it seems ridiculous not to mention what the reference also mentions - ** Of course, none of the above correlations demonstrate that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills. Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God **.

In fact if you read Zuckerman's whole paper you will notice that he uses Norris and Inglehart's resource-security interpretation throughout to interpret possible reasons for why some countries have low god belief and notes that conditions like economic security, low infant mortality, etc may contribute to lower need to appeal to gods(p. 55-59). Nowhere does he assert that atheism causes these things, but he frequently implies that these things may facilitate lower appeals to divinities. He also notes that there are exceptions from both sides - e.g. Vietnam and Ireland (p. 57). He also notes that "healthy" countries are also very few and mainly concentrated in a very small region of the world with a decreasing population. Also, since the reference for most of the sentence is Phil Zuckerman, not Gregory Paul or Michael Martin, this needs to be corrected. I may actually delete this sentence if this keeps up since it looks to be out of place, its incorrectly attributed, incorrectly represented, and its causing unnecessary misunderstanding between us. In terms of "religious ethnocentrism" in the study by Altemeyer, "active" atheists, not to be mistaken to mean "ordinary" atheists, did indeed show very high in-group and out-group discrimination. This is was one of the measures in the study along with dogmatism, charity, and a few others. The empirical finds are intriguing. My edits were not meant to offend you or anyone, but to make the article better with good sources and better reflection of the contents of the refernces. I am trying to make this article better since it has many issues and no one seems to be wanting to fix them. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, can you re-factor your comment so it's not a gigantic wall of text and is somewhat more readable (break it into paragraphs for example)? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I will wait to see if anyone responds. Today seems slow. I am more inclined to remove the information for the reasons mentioned above and also since the section re-title of including "societies" was not desired by the other editors there should be no information on societies - only information on individuals. As Tryptofish noted in the section above, this looks out of place and is a remnant. Probably was a "rebuttal" to something before. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have been holding back from commenting until now, because I wanted to see what others might say, but I think I can now offer this. Some of the most recent discussion seems to me to have come from different editors looking at different parts of the recent editing history. I think that what Saedon was concerned about was not the same thing that IRWolfie reverted.

Saedon reacted to Ramos' language about "The correlation implies that social health may facilitate atheism, not vice versa." and so forth, and I think now that Saedon is correct that saying it that way, in Wikipedia's voice, sounds like we are contradicting the source, which does indeed say that atheism correlates with these things.

On the other hand, Ramos' most recent edit was simply to remove the fragmented material entirely, which actually was not unreasonable, nor particularly contrary to the discussion here. What I think is a bit weak with the language that now remains is that it makes it sound like atheism causes the various good things in society, whereas the source says instead that the various good things are what help atheism take hold. Rather than add clarifying statements, though, we would do better to get the existing statement right, assuming we keep it at all.

I tend to think that we would be better off not deleting the passage, but rewriting the main text to make it better conform to the source. I'm going to make a bold/BRD edit like that now, so everyone please see what you think, and feel free to revert me if I get it wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Trypofish, good edit. I think this is a step forward in a reasonable direction if we keep it. A few issues need more addressing. I will remove Gregory Paul and Michael Martin and replace with "some studies" since there are two separate sources one by Paul and one by Zuckerman. Also I will remove one of the redundant references since the same sentence has the same reference a few times. This simple editing was all I was tying to do so that it reflects the actual reference. No need to go alarmist over one phrase. Another issue is, considering that both references attempt a simplified assessment (no multivariate analysis, no cultural or political considerations to asses the individual nations and their correlations, strange generalizing over what is "religious" and what is "secular" ) on societies , not individuals, should it be kept in the end? I added "societies" a few days ago to the section title and it was reverted. Assessing individuals is different than assessing individual societies and assessing individual societies is different than assessing cross national data on multiple topics (particularly because there are methodological problems which compound and do lead to incorrect conclusions and gross generalizations (Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health: A Research Note - Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Mark Caleb Smith, and Thomas Mach (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.pdf)) FYI. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm good with the further edit you made. I'd like to hear what other editors think about individual/society. Maybe it's a problem, but I'm not really convinced that it's that big a deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear thoughts on it also. But if info on societies will be included, then the section title should be expanded. Anyways I am going to be bold and re-add the data on social obligations since no one has mentioned anything contrary to it. Feel free to amend.Ramos1990 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just noting that the recent removal justification of Willam Bainbridge's citation by IRWolfie is a bit awkward and unsubstantiated considering that the source author is National Science Foundation staff and is an extensive researcher as a sociologist who has authored many sociological articles and books before. One can find his resume here [1] to see his credentials. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of New Atheism

Is adding material specifically targeting criticism of the New Atheism, due in this article?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Absolutely. The New Atheists, though they use old arguments and ideas, are a recent social phenomenon which has received considerable criticism for their propagation of "secular" atheism and even more broadly on anti-supernaturalism. This information is indeed relevant as it deals with atheism and criticism of this worldview. Therefore, if you wish, you may contribute on this topic. Just make sure to provide citations. I hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

New Atheism - Criticisms might be a starting point. -- Jmc (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jmc, thanks for the enthusiasm and starting point. Here are some articles on criticisms that may be of use [2], [3], and [4]. I have a few more scholarly sources which I may enter in at some point, but this should provide materials for the moment. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I recently found a book named Religion and the New Atheism and I am planning to use it here.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Ramos1990 - there're interesting viewpoints in those articles.

24.94.18.234, I take it that you're referring to Amarasingam's collection - there's good material there, too. -- Jmc (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I added a New Atheists section since there seems to be some good ideas floating around. Go ahead and contribute to make this article better. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ramos. While I (obviously) don't object to adding sourced content to the article within this scope, we have to be careful to adhere to WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYN. The opinions of any old commentator may not themselves warrant coverage on wikipedia, so it's important to see if their views have gained traction elsewhere, rather than simply being presented once in a blog. Similarly, we have to take care to represent only what the sources are saying, and not interpret them broadly to make connections which may be tenuous. For instance, the last source that was added about Humanism mainly talked about the subject's concern about Humanism, not any criticism of Atheism. Indeed, his only direct characterization of New Atheism was overtly positive; he ventured as far as to criticize "militant atheists", but that's a different subject altogether. In the same vein, criticism of Dawkins or Harris is not criticism of Atheism. I've cleaned up the section a bit. The remaining paragraph is iffy as well, but I've left it in for now because I'm not sure what to make of it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Jess, I have been watching this article for a while and have been noticing that much of the reasons to remove content is generally awkward. I agree with some of your observations, though this was just to start off the section in the first place. I don't think that the additions were stretching the articles, rather they were including things that were being criticized about the New Atheists which is what the section title was called.

The Humanist piece does indeed say that the author does find some usefulness in New Atheists , but it also says the core concern of the positive humanist image as being threatened by them: "Concerned that his positive vision of humanism is being threatened and perhaps eclipsed with a new brand of acerbic atheism, Paul Kurtz has drafted and released just this week a new "Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Values and Principles." and "Now with the emergence of "the new atheism" Kurtz finds himself in the uncomfortable position of being the elder statesman and founder of a movement tempted by tactics he has warned against before." and "Writing in the December 2009/January 2010 issue of Free Inquiry, the magazine he founded, Kurtz declared "militant atheism is often truncated and narrow-minded...it is not concerned with the humanist values that ought to accompany the rejection of theism. The New Atheists, in my view, have made an important contribution to the contemporary cultural scene because they have opened religious claims to public examination...What I object to are the militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons and will have nothing to do with agnostics, skeptics, or those who are indifferent to religion, dismissing them as cowardly."

Does this not offer some criticism of the New Atheists? Its all in the quote from the article. Its threatening the positive image that humanists have struggled to build due to the narrow minded thinking and tactics that have been used. Clearly the balance of the article is on what the New Atheism has been doing to Humanism. Why would this not be relevant in this section?

Also the other piece that you removed included criticism of the view the New Atheists in that they have a very narrow understanding of religions. Even you noticed it since your recent edit summary said "Cleanup. First article is criticism of 4 horsemen (and misunderstanding of religion generally), not atheism.)". Isn't this the point? Its focus is the New Atheists - not atheism in general. It was arguing against the conceptions of the New Atheists as being to narrow minded when it comes to how they see religions. The focus of the article is NOT how general people conceive "religion", its how the New Atheists conceive it.

Finally the other remaining article, I am not sure why you stated "The remaining paragraph is iffy as well, but I've left it in for now because I'm not sure what to make of it." How can you not make anything of it? Clearly this one is a definite criticism of how the "root of all evil" mentality, which they have, is being criticized. I would like to know how you imagine a criticism to look like and what you think should be criticized? Obviously criticisms come in different ways from partial disagreement to total disagreements with different parts and ideas. But I would like to know your perspective on this as this lack of clarity will bring about issues later on.

I don't think the citations need to be removed, they only need to be reworded, if anything, since they were all criticizing different aspects of the New Atheists. What do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems I might not have been entirely clear. Let me try rewording my comment above with your response in mind. Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Similarly, New Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Criticizing 4 atheists is not the same as criticizing Atheism, and after all, this article is not "Criticism of Richard Dawkins". When a source criticizes 4 atheists in particular for their specific actions, we can't extrapolate and say it is a criticism of Atheism generally.

The author of that first article doesn't just criticize those 2 to 4 atheists, of course. He also goes on to criticize public awareness about religion generally (which seems to be his main point). But of course, that doesn't belong in this article either. We have to be careful. Wording like "These new atheists" or "This new atheist" are not criticisms of New Atheism any more than saying "That man..." is a criticism of men. The author criticizes a few individuals within the "New Atheist movement", and goes on to criticize the public at large, but that belongs in their bios, or something like Religious education perhaps, but not this (general) article.

In the same vein, "militant atheism" is not Atheism (or even New Atheism). The author in the 3rd article specifically contrasts New Atheism and "militant atheists", so again, using his wording to suggest a criticism of Atheism generally would be unfounded. You'll notice that, in that article, Kurtz himself never says anything critical of New Atheists; he only expresses concern over Humanism with respect to recent trends (including New Atheism). Imagine that I said "I'm concerned my friends might think I'm poor because my neighbors are poor." Is that a criticism of poor people? No, it's an expression of concern over my appearance. Kurtz noticed a trend in New Atheism that was different than his goals for Humanism, and he drafted a statement to distinguish the two. We can't be more direct, or usge stronger lanuage than our sources, and this article in particular doesn't give us much of use here.

I'd rather not get into the remaining article, since it's not being removed by anyone. If I have more time and formulate an opinion on it more clearly, I'll post some comments then. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Jess, thank you for clarifying your points. However, I am not convinced by your reasoning. The author for the first article focuses on the views of religion espoused by the New Atheists. The intro talks about the New Atheists, not the public perceptions at large, and the end does too - its the focus and the point of the article.

The Kurtz piece does provide criticisms of the New atheists by noting how they have affected the Humanist image. Your example : "I'm concerned my friends might think I'm poor because my neighbors are poor." is not reflecting what Kurtz piece shows - narrow mindedness by the New Atheists is damaging the Humanists image. Not sure why you think that this is not relevant as a criticism. But whatever. You can find the Kurtz original piece here [5]. Its better and I probably will add it since it offers more direct criticisms.

I agree that we should all be careful, but it appears the problem is in paraphrasing the sources, not the sources themselves. You have to provide better justifications for removing them since they are all indeed relevant to this article and the subsection.

I find that some editors made pointless errors about what should and should not be included in this article. I appears hypocritical even (seems like strange versions of the No True Scotsman Fallacy). Your ideas on atheism, atheists, and the New Atheists also apply to the "criticism of religion" for example. I will amend your statement: "Each religion is a thing, not a person or a few people. Criticizing some "religious" people is not the same as criticizing religions. When a source criticizes certain "religious" people in particular for their specific actions, we can't extrapolate and say it is a criticism of religion generally." No doubt this is true. Just because some Muslims have done certain things does not mean that this is reflective of Islam or most Muslims. But I doubt you would argue that because of this it is not relevant to include any issues, that some people have raised, in that article. Especially if it a citation is provided.

The fact that the article intro notes: "Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications." renders all of this as relevant material. Atheism just like Islam has many dimensions (abstract and social) and this should be reflected in the article. The New Atheists though they appear to be a few, they have some significant impact in society. Just as the Pope is one man, and does not reflect the personal views of most Christians, but he has social significance. The section at hand is about criticism of the New Atheists so we should keep that focus in mind unless the source notes more. In that case rewording would be fine. I made it clear in the recent edits that these articles were about the New Atheists. If you extrapolated from this to atheism in general then that is not my issue. Criticism comes from different angles and in different intensities. I hope this clarifies a few things. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that criticism of suicide bombers, for instance, is broadly and commonly linked to Islam in the literature. It is a criticism of Islam (religion), because the sources say it is. If my neighbor murders his wife, and a blogger comments that his religion played a role in the murder, that content doesn't belong in Criticism of religion. The blogger's comment can be noted in my neighbor's article, but we would need a source explicitly saying "look, here's a problem with religion!" to put it in the general religion article. So too here: we cannot present individual criticisms of individual atheists as criticisms of Atheism.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings once more Jess, the difference you note is not correctly differentiated. You said "So too here: we cannot present individual criticisms of individual atheists as criticisms of Atheism." I never said that a criticism of individual atheists automatically transfers over to a criticism of atheism (which you are using as a concept only). Its just like criticisms of religions, criticisms of individuals do not transfer over as criticisms of religions automatically either. However, you are ignoring that atheists do actions, have beliefs, and make organizations like other groups. Most criticisms have to do with actions and behaviors, not merely concepts. Explicit atheism is a social phenomenon, not just a concept and it does not exist in vacuum.

Much of the criticisms of religions are based on actions people have taken, not the concepts. You have offered suicide bombers and Islam as an example of criticism of one religion. Obviously, Islam does not teach about suicide bombing, but the associations to actions and behaviors are relevant as criticisms, according to you. I would say that there is some social weight, even thought the foundations for such actions are not fueled by Islamic beliefs (Robert Pape's research). In the same way, in order to not be hypocritical, when groups such as the New Atheists or other atheists are criticized for their beliefs, behaviors, and approaches to others; these criticisms become relevant and indeed are part of the whole social phenomenon of explicit Atheism just as you associate suicide attacks with the broad phenomenon of Islam and even the more broader phenomenon of religions. Things like this should be expected in any "criticism of" page. I am sure you notice that criticisms are diverse and usually are not holistic like "I'm going to criticize everything about big concepts like religion (or atheism) now." Criticisms are generally more subtle and they are not holistic. Usually they are done by small parts here and there, not in a "complete" fashion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ramos, the only thing that matters is sourcing. That's it. Whether an event is "a part of a social phenomenon" is irrelevant to our sourcing criteria. Asma criticizes Dawkins, which is not the same as criticizing Atheism. Kurtz criticizes "militant atheists", a different group altogether. To include content (especially which falls under WP:BLP), we need a source that says it directly, without interpretation.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Jess, sourcing is clearly not the issue since there already were sources provided and none of it was original research. Literally these were sources that critiqued the New Atheist as a group and that is what was noted. Clearly the sources were diverse and did include critiques of multiple members, not any one single person. Please read the articles over again, as it seems you did not notice what they were focusing on. Asma's commentary (not a blog) criticizes the New Atheists narrow views of religion and you noted in your edit summary that it was on the 4 horsemen, not any one individual, too: "Cleanup. First article is criticism of 4 horsemen (and misunderstanding of religion generally), not atheism.)". Plus, why are you saying its only on Dawkins all of a sudden? He's not even emphasized in the article! He is only mentioned in there because he is one of them. Also Kurtz original piece is talking about the New Atheists [6]. Clearly he uses Dawkins as an example of the narrow mindedness of the New Atheists, which has also been displayed by other atheists in the past and the present. Please read the article. If its not about them, then why does he refer to them quite a bit? I have been emphasizing the whole time in this discussion about the New Atheists and sources relating to criticisms of the group, not as individuals, though this should also be perfectly valid.

The real issue is your interpretations of how criticisms work and relevance of materials for the article. Your understanding of atheism is too narrow since you are just looking at this as just a concept. What do you expect a criticism of the New Atheists to look like? Should it be about arguments about theism only? I really would like to know. Perhaps one can look at a reliable dictionary to see what constitutes a criticism. Criticism of atheism includes critiques of groups and even people for their behaviors, beliefs, and actions towards others. This is really simple to understand. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of 4 atheists is not criticism of Atheism. You're welcome to seek a third opinion (via WP:3O, WP:RfC or WP:DR), but the sources in question do not directly criticize "Atheism", the topic, and should therefore not be included. I feel like your wording is beginning to get confrontational, and I'm not sure how to respond but to repeat what I've already said, so instead I'll back out for now. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you got the impression that I was getting confrontational. It was not my intent. I really wanted to know how you calibrated criticism as it seemed you were misinterpreting the sources and using that to dismiss them. This article sure has had some awkward opinions from other editors before (usually arbitrary reasons that were not sound for removal of certain well cited contents) and this is why I was making sure to post the ideas on the talk page first to see if others cared about the suggestions. I proceeded with caution.

I think a third opinion on the matter is a good idea. Trypofish usually provides very reasonable insights on disputes. Well see if others want to put in their input. I know criticisms can be tricky since just like with criticisms of religions, most are not really criticisms of religions at all, but about specific people, specific events, and specific observations for minor aspects of specific religions - not religions in general. The same could be said of the criticism of atheism. Most critiques are about specific people, specific events, and specific observations on specific groups of atheists. All criticisms are very limited by default as they do not apply to all people at all times for any given group. But nonetheless they are relevant to any "Criticism of" pages due to social influence and impact of groups that "speak out" and "represent" for certain groups of any society. The views held by the New Atheists are not exclusively held by them since ordinary atheists and agnostics do show similar beliefs and propensities of expressions, but not all of course. And this is what make the criticisms of them relevant to this article. Hope there are no hard feelings. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've actually been following this discussion without commenting, but thanks Ramos for mentioning me here. It's a tough question, which is why I didn't step in until now. I've read the New Atheism section on the page, and I'm not bothered by it, the way it reads now. At the same time, I agree in principle with Jess that it's UNDUE to include criticisms of specific individuals, as though those individuals somehow speak for all of atheism. I guess the test I would use is the following: if it's a criticism of one individual New Atheist, it does not belong here, but if it's a criticism of a view held in common amongst most of the New Atheists, then it's fair to include it (so long as it's a criticism of their view of atheism, as opposed to criticism of something they said incidentally to it). I realize that there are borderline cases, and I guess it's best to address those as specific examples, rather than to try to discuss them in generalities. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish, I appreciate your input. By the way, excellent observations as usual. I also like you recent edits. Good job since rephrasing to better reflect the relevant contents of the source, as you see it, is always good. I agree with you and Jess that sources that focus only on criticism one individual do not belong in this section since the section is on a group (New Atheists). Those on one individual would belong to biographies. The sources on groups should note them as a group or at least note more than just one individual in that group and mention the group. The sources that I originally posted did clearly focus on the New Atheists as a group, not one individual: links are here [7] (I think this one is quite relevant) and [8] though the better source for this last one is the original which I found at a later time [9]. I am glad you note the fuzziness of criticisms since no individual really speaks for everyone on anything (Atheism, Islam, America, Asia, Hispanics, Men, and well.. anything). But none the less, criticisms do arise on different dimensions (actions, beliefs, behaviors, belonging). Ramos1990 (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to hear what Jess thinks about what I said, and I also think it best to look at specifics. I've just looked at the three sources you provide above, and I guess it comes down, very much, to what one says in summarizing them. I note that Kurtz is somewhat conflating New Atheism with the disputed label of "militant atheism", and I think we have to be careful about distinguishing criticism of the atheistic views of New Atheists (appropriate) from criticism of the attitudes or debating styles that they might have (not really appropriate). I'd also be careful not to focus on one brief "appropriate" comment in a source, if the great majority of what the source says is "not appropriate", because it could get us into cherry-picking. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to comment, mainly because I agree with your reply. I agree that specifics matter. As a point of comparison, I went to Criticism of religion and picked a completely random source ([10]). There is no ambiguity in that source. He talks directly about "religion" and "organized religion", so no interpretation is needed to conclude that's what he's criticizing. That's what I'd like to see in a source for this section: "New atheism tends to be...", or similar. Instead, I see "This new atheist...", which is quite different. I think it is dangerous for us to try to determine trends in the New Atheism community on our own (or with the help of a separate source) in order to determine if these are germain to the subject as a whole. WP:SYN comes to mind. New atheism (like any other topic within theology) gets plenty of criticism, so it should not be hard to find comments which are direct.

As an aside, I don't think Kurtz is using "militant atheists" and "new atheism" interchangeably. I read the sentence in a similar way to "Goths, in my view, dress very well...What I object to are the people who dye their hair." The latter may intersect on some level with the former, but it is a different group, and choosing to use the unfavorable interpretation of that sentence to include unfavorable content here is more interpretation than I'm comfortable with.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then, it actually sounds to me like we are all in agreement about the general principles here. Is there still a specific disagreement about a particular edit to the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish and Jess. Good talks. Just a quick comment to Jess, I don't think I wrote anything like what you inferred: "This new atheist..." anywhere nor do I see evidence for this assertion on my initial posts for this section. See what I originally posted before the removal of the start up content [11]. I think this is where the confusion was emerging from - misinterpretation. What was written sure was not WP:SYN. Good thing you looked at the "Criticism of Religion" page. It has been extensively cleaned up by me which is why you were more likely to find more appropriate sources in it than before. I have also reworded a few things to better reflect the sources contents and to try to keep somethings intact though there definitely was and is lots of WP:SYN in it. For instance some sources that talk about Christianity and Islam do not mention religion in general. They are religion-specific, not religion-general which is what that article is about. Anyways, I think and hope this matter is settled. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you said "This new atheist". I was saying the source said that, which is why I'm uncomfortable using that source. If we all agree to leave those sources out, then yes, it does appear that we all agree. I'm sure we can find plenty more to flesh out as much content as we need. BTW, the Criticism of religion article has been on my watchlist for some time, so I'm somewhat familiar with it. I did skim through your changes when you made them, and they seemed helpful. My only point in bringing it up was to show that sources can be direct about this topic, and that's what we need here too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you clarification Jess. I agree with you, now that all this has been clarified. Thanks for you positive comments of my edits in the other article. Hope we can work together to make some of these articles better. And yes, the goal should be to get direct sources on these diverse topics. You have a good night.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick question. IRWolfie says this ref [12] is Undue. What do you guys think?Ramos1990 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie. And, eek, I feel like I need to take a bath after reading that source! It's a perfect example of what fails my suggested test, above. It's partly praise of some New Atheists (Dennett), so it isn't really a criticism of the ideas as a whole. Instead it's personal criticisms of Dawkins and Hitchens, dislikes of their websites and their personal habits. One can probably hold one's nose and poke through the source, and come out with a cherry-picked fragment that, in isolation, could fit on this page, but I'd oppose doing that. (OK, Tryptofish, tell us what you really think!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Appreciate your input. I will keep your ideas in mind on other articles.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm weighing in here, belately (I've been offline for the last ten days), at the invitation of Ramos1990 to contribute a third opinion (and noting that in the interim Tryptofish has already done that, so that mine is a fourth opinion, FWIW) (and also noting that a consensus seems to have been arrived at, so my comments are perhaps superfluous at this stage).

However, I do want to say that it seems to me that there's a category difference between (traditional) Atheism and the New Atheism, and that this is crucial to the wording of this section. I would dispute the point that Jess is making in saying "Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Similarly, New Atheism is a thing, not a person or a few people. Criticizing 4 atheists is not the same as criticizing Atheism". I would contend that New Atheism is categorically different in that it does refer primarily to "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" and their particular advocacy of Atheism. For evidence, refer to the article on New Atheism; throughout it refers to the "New Atheists" rather than the "New Atheism": "The New Atheists write mainly from a scientific perspective", "The New Atheists assert that many religious or supernatural claims ...", et passim.

Therefore a section headed "New Atheism" must necessarily focus on "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" and their fellow-travellers, and on the criticisms that are made of them and the (militant!) manner in which they promote Atheism - as it currently (and correctly IMO) does. -- Jmc (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we're all pretty much on the same page here, but I'd like to clarify a few things in relation to what you said. Although New Atheism, in contrast to atheism broadly, is associated specifically with four authors, it still would not be appropriate to put criticism of individual persons on this page. In addition, this page is Criticism of atheism, not Criticism of the New Atheism, so criticisms that do not apply to atheism broadly risk being WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)