Talk:Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of religion article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion

	Criticism of religion is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

To-do list for Criticism of religion:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Neutrality and verifiability issues Check and recheck for POV Citation, citation, citation! Improving the flow of the article Expand introductory sections. Missing material Add an historic perspective, or at least a brief overview of the prominent critics, especially the recent wave of criticism (Dawkins, Harris, Dennet). The section about the harmful consequences of religion on society should discuss whether religion should be held responsible for the action of "misguided" believers. In particular, Dawkins criticism that moderate religion makes fundamentalism acceptable should be covered. Add a section on the position of women under various religions, for example, bride burning, honour killing, female circumcision, superstitions about menstrual "uncleaness". Add short section on shari'a law, to Homophobia section Add a new section on societal resistance to criticism of religion - the 'weird privileged status of religion' phenomena (perhaps at the start?) General Clean-up and Style Fix messy citations Trim the article, it's starting to get much too long. Or is it? This is a rather complex issue and requires a comprehensive discussion. Copy edit,many sections don't read very well.

The introduction of this article is too short. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.

Archives

/Archive 1 ~ Aug 2006 /Archive 2 ~ Dec 2006 /Archive 3 ~ Mar 2007

Contents 1 Quotes by Ole Nydahl, Lama 2 "Almost all" 3 A possible restructuring of the article 4 Criticism of the concept 5 What is the "concept of religion" ? 6 "Religion and Mental Illness" a bit large 7 Plurality section 8 obscure, or plain wrong? 9 Two Identical links. 10 Lack of neutrality 11 Quotes, Links and References 11.1 Quotes 11.2 Links 11.3 References 12 Criticism of Buddhism 13 Us versus Them Mentality 14 Intolerance to icons of competing religion(s) 15 Implausible beliefs 16 George Carlin 17 Removed Madison Quote 18 Bin Laden quotes 19 Opposition to criticism of religion 20 Good and Evil

[edit] Quotes by Ole Nydahl, Lama

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/buddha-meets-holger-danske.html

Ole Nydahl, Lama

“To say it plainly, it’s really embarrassing that people — after 2,000 years of development towards freedom here in Europe — cannot comprehend their potential, don’t trust themselves, or are so badly disabled in childhood that they cast away their free will and enslave themselves under a totalitarian and fascist system. Surely, it’s pure fascism to subordinate oneself to other people in that way — no matter if it’s under a deity dictating what to do, a prophet, Hitler or Stalin. It’s always the same. Whenever you deny people their freedom of choice and self-determination, you reduce them to inferior beings.”

“Aldous Huxley, whom I studied extensively at the university, called it ‘pack-poison’. If a lot of people do something it will attract others who want to belong or be a part of something. And if a start like this is sufficiently deviant it will always be attractive to certain unstable individuals. That is the reason why something originally in conflicting with human nature in the end can grow powerful, and accordingly very harmful.”

“We must see to it that things are in the open. We must insist, at the least, that people who want to exploit their own humanity — and who therefore can turn dangerous to those who want to stay free — be humiliated, ridiculed and truly exposed. Which means that they can be dealt with just like anyone else. If you grant those people a hiding place and claim that they are protected from any criticism in order avoid the ire of some dead prophet, then we’ve let go of the freedom of our future generations. We can very well describe it as a cancer, if you accept that people are not allowed to think and see things as they are. It’s something that conflicts with the general trend in society. This malignancy must be opposed by showing people who choose submission that there are other options — in case they develop an appetite for living.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.122.80 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Almost all"

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

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

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

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

To copy verbatim from UU central system of belief.

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

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

DanielDemaret 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DanielDemaret 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] A possible restructuring of the article

I can not find any criticism that applies to all religions. The way the article is now structured, the critiques may be interpreted as pertaining to all religions, and where they are not, it is sometimes unclear which religions are under a certain criticism.

Perhaps if one were to divide the article into groups

1. Criticism of Abrahamistic religions (Christian, Islamic, Jewish)
2. Criticism of other religions that include belief in gods
3. Criticism of other religions

and then further divide each section into "critiques common to all religions in this group", and then sections for critique of each particular religion. There are already some interesting articles on several of these, so an over-view and a link to these articles should suffice, and hopefully make the whole article more legible and more comprehensive and above all, less ambiguous.

Please criticize the idea. In a months time I might get tempted to rearrange the article myself if no criticism is forthcoming. DanielDemaret 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel - thank you for all the thought and energy you are putting into this page! It is true, it needs a bit of pruning and organizing. It has grown large enough I find it hard to read through it without getting hung up on a section and spending all my time working on it and never finishing it all. Of course, I am doing lots of other things too. I am going to spin out a couple of ideas here in no apparent order for your and everyone's consideration. • I suggest we need to come up with a clear definition of what we mean by religion. This may prove more difficult than it sounds! If you look at the Religion article in Wikipedia, you will see it very loosely defined, even on a pro-theistic page! Once we managed to agree on a definition, we could look at setting up a structure for criticising various aspects of it. • There are already pages dedicated to criticising the other main religions, so I would suggest this page should be more universal. We should repeat what appears elsewhere and generously attibute the work appearing on those more focused pages here. Perhaps we can provide many more links throughout this page to these other pages taking issue with specific traditions. • One thing I did in the ‘Implausibility of specific beliefs’ section was create a new section specifically detailing implausible Christian examples, perhaps another way to do this is add specific references to different traditions in each section? Looking forward to the brainstorming! Nuloy 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

Just one detail. Should we really have different definitions on religion from the article on religion? I have seen the definition there develop over the years, and I think it has gotten better all the time. Should we not instead seek to improve the definition in that article? I agree that it is a bit looks loose, but on the other hand that may be simply beauce people use the word so differently. Please suggest a better definition, and we'll see. Chances are that it will end up the same as in the other article after a while, since they have been at it for years, probably beginning with a definition that looks very much like christianity, and becoming fuzzier with time, to contain all actual religions.

On the structure of the article: Perhaps when one gets down to details, the only way will be to write one section of criticism for each religion. I know that critique of followers of Kali would be very different from critique of Shinto. DanielDemaret 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read this article again, with new eyes. A definition of religion should , as you suggest, be visible in this article. I am inclined to copy the one from "religion" near the top here. The section on criticism of the concept is totally lacking in citations, and that feels very wrong, but the rest of the articles paragraphs at least somewhat supported by citations. DanielDemaret 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I looked at the existing citations. They are not good enough. This article needs more citations everywhere and it needs better citations in some places. For example, the text that goes "the opposition from the Church to Darwin's theory" should probably best be deleted altogether. First of all it does not mention which church. Secondly, although there was initial opposition, the church of england quite quickly endorsed and praised Darwin. The only churches that I have heard of opposing his views are in the bible-belt. The opposition to Galileo is also well-known, but problematical, since recently historians have revealed a very different story here. It is best to link to the galileo-controversy here.DanielDemaret 14:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. I will forget restructuring for now. One major reason that it is hard to read is the lack of citations. Without more citations, a proper encyclopedic version of this article will be a very short article indeed. DanielDemaret 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the concept

The initial paragraph in "Criticism of the concept" could be trimmed down to maybe two sentences, since almost all citable information already exists below. It is good to have an overview, but an overview that gets too long tends to become illegible. DanielDemaret 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism of the concept" is way to large to be legible, and the title itself is fuzzy. It would be a lot more legible if we had short overview, and a more specific title, and let the rest of the material come under appropriate headings below. Noone will bother to read it otherwise. DanielDemaret 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the "concept of religion" ?

The "Criticism of the concept" starts a long text to criticize the "concept of religion". It must at the very least, first define what is here meant by the "concept of religion".

Everyone knows what a religion is, but the "concept or religion" is less clear. Concepts are mostly used to develop new ideas or to market a package deal. One must either explain the new idea - obviously religion is not a new idea - or risk sounding like a salesman.

If no good definition comes along, we will have to think of a new title. Something that summarizes what comes below. DanielDemaret 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Religion and Mental Illness" a bit large

Also, the section "Religion and Mental Illness" is getting large enough to merit an article of its own to be legible, with a link from this article. DanielDemaret 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel and everyone. As the founder and principle contributor of this vital section, I welcome the notion of making this a separate article and expanding it. I thought this concept was a vital one to bring up and am glad to see it standing the test of time here. There is growing evidence from many sources to support the notion most prophets and subsequent saints and seers suffered from one of a variety of mental ills or were victims of abuse. I have never begun a page from scratch, but would welcome further feedback on this. Nuloy 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you know more about this than I do, since I have not looked into any of the evidence in detail, so go for it :) DanielDemaret 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some religiously-inspired figures, such as Joan of Arc, said they were guided by voices. Today we know auditory hallucinations are a common feature of those suffering from schizophrenia."

Is there any proof that Joan of Arc actually had or suffered schizophrenia at an age of 17 and therefore? Is there proof? Because I don't see a point her name being in the same sentence when discussing hallucinations and schizophrenia. It's also like saying Prophet Mohummed(who also had visions)was delusional, hallucinating etc. Phu2734 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no question that the latter example would have been removed in a flash of lightning. Considering this standard, and the lack of evidence in general, I believe that this condescending claim should be removed if there are no sources which provide her as a specific example.--C.Logan 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plurality section

The critical argument is written well in the beginning of the section. Everything that comes after the part "...the oldest of the World Religions began in..." does not take the argument further. I am inclined to delete the remainder, since it serves only to muddle the core argument and wonder what the article is going on about. DanielDemaret 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] obscure, or plain wrong?

This article text...

"...Examples of this would include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses or the appearance of comets. [1] [2] Many critics listed here, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray say to continue to hold on to these archaic traditions and regulations, despite the expanding fields of knowledge contradicting them, is absurd and irrational."

...implies that there are World religions still today that "continue to hold on to" the idea that eclipses and comets herald great events. I am not aware of any such notions today, so I think this is plain wrong. The ressurection of Christ would be a better example here, since that belief is upheld. But since that criticism is detailed further down in the article, I it would be better if we trimmed the text here.DanielDemaret 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is both obscure and plain wrong? No worries. My philosophy has always been to leap before I look. I was trying to find some references and found them interesting. I will revisit this in the coming week and given this feedback will likely remove or rephrase it. I welcome any link suggestions you may have. My problem is I have all this information in my head from years of study and extensive travel experience. Sometimes when making additions here I find it a challenge to discover a useful link others can access. In time, I usually do. Please do not hesitate to improve on anything I have done yourself, BE BOLD. I have, among other things, a journalism background and am quite used to being edited. More later. Nuloy 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Identical links.

The two links which discuss the Criticism of Mormonism article leads to the same article as does the Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. I am not sure if Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint leads to a different article and were just messed up when their link locations were being added. If so I will look for that article in the mean-time (If there was an article on Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint.) Anker99 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of neutrality

I added POV tag since the article is unbalanced towards criticisms and responses are not provided. For example, according to OHEAR, ANTHONY (in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Culture" article), it is not clear if a culture with no basis in religion can inveigh against materialism by articulation on highest spiritual and artistic aspirations.

The Power of Myth (part 2) can also help in providing context to the religious stories and their importance. --Aminz 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article merely attacks religious belief and offers no counter-arguments. Most of it doesn't even attempt to take on a neutral tone. Personal opinions of the editors are prevalent in the article:

"The requirement of a leap of faith beyond understanding is seen as another sign of irrationality. Out-of-hand rejection of any new information contradicting strict beliefs and convictions, suggests an inflexible and closed-minded perspective. This attitude is contrasted with the basic scientific method, based on empirical observation, verifiable and repeatable experiment by neutral third parties."

"An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven."

"The function of religion can be successfully replaced by other branches of human activity."

"One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars."

These are just a few examples. This article needs personal opinions removed and counter-arguments added. Detlevx 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is essentially a sanctuary for OR and personal opinions, and such material should be excised. However, I'm not so sure about 'responses'. I naturally consider them important (considering my own beliefs), but we should remember that this page deals with Criticisms, and is not intended to be a point-rebuttal debate list. Therefore, we may want to confine any criticisms to a 'Responses' section (for general arguments), and if context is completely necessary, to include short responses in the relevant sections. NPOV is always worth striving for, but this is, after all, an article that deals with 'criticisms'.--C.Logan 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinions removed, uh huh... Detlevx you do realise that's what this article is about don't you? Various criticisms that have been leveled at religion and theism, at various times. It's not a debate about whether religion is valid or not. What you're doing is like my going and tag-bombing christian apologetics, then demanding they present pastafarian counter-arguments. It's unhelpful and ultimately futile. cornis 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article consists of opinions presented as fact. Look at the quotes I've listed above. I don't object to and article presenting arguments against religion. I object to the lack of neutrality apparent in this article. The tone of the article blatantly espouses anti-religious arguments, whereas the arguments ought be presented without bias. There's an enormous difference between saying something like "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars" as opposed to "It is a commonly held belief among polemics that religion is an obstacle to world peace, as throughout history various religions have incited religious wars." Also, supporting evidence needs to be added to show that these opinions are commonly held, rather than merely the opinion of the editor, as it seems in some examples. See the article "Criticism of the Catholic Church" for a good example of an article that presents arguments in a neutral tone.Detlevx 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've replaced the POV tag as this article obviously does not conform to neutrality standards. Compare it to Criticism of Atheism where pretty much every criticism section incorporates the Atheist counterargument. This page does not, and much of it is completely without sources. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree! This is the standard tactic of the Religious people. When they cannot win an argument based on evidence, they fall back on "Neutrality". Somehow this article is not "Neutral". Why? because it only it presents religion is a bad light and "does not represent religion is a good light". Unfortunately they do not give us any evidence that refutes the criticisms in these article merely "But not all religions are like this!!!"

Imagine if we should demand that an article on christianity be consider pov because "The tone of the article blatantly espouses anti-atheist arguments!" 202.168.50.40 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, why do you assume that since try to present a controversial topic in a neutral light, we must be religious zealots? If you disagree with the POV tag, why don't you defend the article rather than attack the editors? Second, have you bothered to read the Criticism of Atheism article for comparison? Are you willing to say the tone of the two articles is the same? Like is said before, I don't object to and article presenting arguments against religion. I object to the lack of neutrality apparent in this article. A wikipedia article of this type should list arguments, not implicitly support them by stating them as fact (see the quotes I've listed above). Once wikipedia articles begin to espouse a certain sentiment, they fail as a source of reliable and unbiased information. Detlevx 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) I'll try and address the points you've raised one at a time.

• "The function of religion can be successfully replaced by other branches of human activity." I've removed this, since it assumes that religion has a function at all.
• "An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven." That is implausible. Sorry.
• "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars." I actually agree with you here, I thinks it's just the phenomenon atheist harp on the most. I've changed the sentence to reflect this
• "The requirement of a leap of faith beyond understanding is seen as another sign of irrationality. Out-of-hand rejection of any new information contradicting strict beliefs and convictions, suggests an inflexible and closed-minded perspective. This attitude is contrasted with the basic scientific method, based on empirical observation, verifiable and repeatable experiment by neutral third parties." Granted the wording is problematic but it pretty much sums up creation-evolution controversy

ornis 05:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the last statement. ornis 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For an example of lack of neutralitly, this section is a polemic, not a statement:

An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven. ...

Unlike in ancient times, the stages of decomposition are now well understood. Within three days of death, a significant amount of change has occurred. The process has already gone far beyond any plausible possibility of the body coming back to life.

The quoted text does not represent any Christian belief that I'm familiar with.

First of all, the Christian gospel relates that Lazarus had been dead for days, and "stinketh," indicating that the process of decomposition and putrification were understood in those pre-scientific days.

Second, the traditional Christian view (Catholic, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestant) is that the resurrected body of Jesus was a "glorified" body, similar to but not the same as a mortal body. It's the implausibility of a dead body reviving on it's on (I got better!) that makes it a miracle.

Whether this actually _happened_ or not is a different argument. The problem with _this_ argument is that it attacks a straw man, not an actual Christian belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. My problem is that the entire section only cites decomposition info, rather than anyone actually making this criticism. It would seem that this is an example of original research, and somewhat more specifically, an example of editor synthesis. I also agree that the editor who added this missed the point. The whole thing is considered a miracle, not a scientific event. It is important because it goes against the laws of nature and reality; that's what a "miracle" is, on the greater level. In short, this seems like the half-baked original research of an editor, and I'll be removing it. More appropriate would be a criticism of the belief in the concept of miracles themselves, or at least the ones that break the laws by which we are typically bound.--C.Logan 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen this particular arguement before, but it reminded me of the argument that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too stupid to know how babies were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen these types of arguments. It seems that many people are inclined to paint our ancestors as being much dumber than they really were. This is not a good heritage to establish, and it profanes the work of human civilization- not to mention, it places us on a high horse, when today's world is really no better in many ways. Arguments like the one to which you've referred are logically unsound. Here we have Christians and Muslims, 2000 years after the fact, with detailed medical knowledge, believing in the Virgin Birth because of what is supposed to be: a miracle. That's the underlying fallacy in all these arguments; they argue against the plausibility of miracles when miracles, by definition, are meant to be implausible. In any case, the text has been removed, as it is an unsupported (unsourced, as WP:SYNTH does not allow this kind of original research), and logically fallacious mess of personal opinion.--C.Logan 20:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why there should be a requirement for an overwhealming amount of 'neutrality' about this article. It is about CRITICISM OF RELIGION and not defense of religion. It's like someone saying the page on Mormanism is incomplete without mentioning atheism. 75.28.13.226 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this page and with others like it is that they sometimes become a haven for individuals who'd like to insert information which they themselves consider to be criticism of the topic (i.e. their own POV, their own OR, and their own suggestive phrasings). This article is not here to cater only to the POVs of individuals who dislike the concept of "religion"; it is here to report on the issue of criticisms of religion throughout history.

Far too many people see the title and assume that it cries to them to "add whatever bugs you about the topic". We report on what notable people have said and have argued; therefore, we need to present things with a mind for neutrality: every criticism has a response. This article should deal with the topic of criticism- this includes, one should note, the replies made to such acts of criticism. Remember that WP:NPOV also applies to criticism articles.--C.Logan (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes, Links and References

[edit] Quotes

Friedrich Nietzsche defined faith as "not wanting to know what is true."^[1]

It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity. (Abraham Lincoln)^[2]

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason. (Benjamin Franklin)^[3]

When you know a man's religious complexion, you know what sort of books he reads when he wants some more light, and what sort of books he avoids, lest by accident he get more light than he wants. (Mark Twain)^[4]

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect. (James Madison)^[5]

The trouble with Faith is that it cannot coexist with Reason. Either when the religious beliefs run into a conflict with the senses, or with the world of science, we must somehow accept incompatible ideas or we must choose. The number of intelligent people who attend church services regularly suggests that many people can live in a sort of schizophrenic reality, where the laws of nature operate at all times except when thinking religious thoughts. On the other hand, they pretend to believe both but really only believe one. However, some of us cannot do that, and we are asked to abdicate our intellects as to preserve the purity of the dogma. Arthur Schopenhauer, Religion: A Dialogue^[6]

Schopenhauer also criticizes believers for mistakenly trusting those who claim religious authority, rather than thinking for themselves.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. H. L. Mencken

[edit] Links

• [1] taj al hilali on rape
• [2] cardinal pell, stem cell research
• [3] Holy war, AP state univeristy
• [4] Love thy neighbour. Hartung.
• [5] Draper, conflict of religion and science

[edit] References

Dominionism^{[7][8][9][10][11]}

[edit] Criticism of Buddhism

Being a major religion, how come there is no "criticism of buddhism"???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.196.163 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 July 2007

Well this article is not supposed to be about specific religions. As to why there is no "criticism of buddhism" article, I couldn't tell you, I guess no one has gotten around to writing one yet. I'm sure there's plenty that could be written, particularly about the type of cruel, theocratic buddhism, practised in tibet prior to the chinese annexation. ornis 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered about the absence of the "Criticism of Buddhism" page myself. It has been created but is simply a redirect. I'd volunteer to create a stub out of it, but am really lacking in knowledge on the subject. Anyone care to get it started? Iceswimmer 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism pages, like most sub-pages are normally created as offshoots of the main article, when the criticism section gets too large. See WP:SS. If you think you have enough criticism to make an entire article, you should probably bring it to Buddhism first; that article currently doesn't even have a criticism section, although that seems to be down to the fact that nobody has added any rather than because of any whitewashing attempts. But good luck finding any sources; there aren't many people other than the Chinese government who have much of a beef with the Buddhists. -- Vary | Talk 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from some sectarian violence in feudal Japan, Buddhism is about as peaceful, accepting, and open to new ideas as you can get. It has problems like anything else, but many of the complaints Western commentators have about religion in general really don't apply to a Buddhist worldview. I'd be curious to see a criticism of Buddhism page, if only to better understand it. Also, I'd be curious to see the evidence supporting comments like the one Ornis makes above: "...particularly about the type of cruel, theocratic buddhism, practised in tibet prior to the chinese annexation." I don't think that's an accurate picture, but then I don't know for sure, and I'd be interested to see why Ornis might make such a statement.--Pariah (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Things that come to mind off the top of my head, and a few suggested sources:

• Collusion or cooperation of Buddhist institutions in abetting violent nationalist policies. The book 'Zen at War' deals with this in WWII era Japan; there's also been some writing about the role of monastic preachers in keeping the rhetoric hot in the Sri Lankan civil conflict. Potential difficulty here is that most of these criticisms tend to be limited in scope to particular branches of the Sangha during particular eras, rather than taking a more general view of Buddhism's relationship to government power.
• Critique of Buddhist doctrines and philosophy generally. These are almost all written from a Christian POV, as evangelists and the Vatican are really the only folks to show a lot of interest in general criticism of Buddhist philosophy. Appropriate for a 'Christian Criticisms of Buddhism' section, primarily. Pope JP II wrote a few critical blurbs about Buddhism late in his tenure along these lines.
• Abuse of authority in the monastic tradition. Quite a bit was written regarding this in the American Zen and Tibetan traditions, particularly following the big meltdown at the San Francisco Zen Center. Old issues of Tricycle would certainly have some info here.
• Regarding Tibet- the Chinese government is currently the primary author and proponent of criticisms of Tibet prior to the Chinese invasion. Criticisms of the government of pre-Chinese Tibet are difficult to separate out from criticisms of Tibetan Buddhism; there are indications that the PRC thinks that Tibetan Buddhism was to some degree responsible for the low level of development in Tibet prior to the Chinese occupation, but these critiques haven't been greatly elaborated on in Western literature. There's a blanket claim that Tibet was a poor and harsh country prior to the invasion, and that Tibetan Buddhism and the feudal/religious government were responsible for those conditions, but not a lot more elaboration than that (at least that I've seen in English, but I'm far from an expert).
• There were also some critiques of Tibetan Buddhism written during the early 19th Century by early Western observers, many of which involved Protestant writers drawing a parallel between the elaborate ritualism and clericalism of Tibetan Buddhism and that of Roman Catholicism. Donald Lopez catalogues some of these critiques in Prisoners of Shangri La. I don't know that those historical criticisms are still embraced by anyone- they were written before there was much meaningful knowledge of the Tibetan philosophical and scholastic tradition available.
• Feminist critiques- the position of nuns versus monks, the authority of female teachers and leaders, various potentially disparaging remarks made in scriptures about women.

All that jumps out at me at the moment. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

--Clay Collier (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are all very interesting and well rounded points--enough to begin thinking about an article. The points you brought up reminded me of a few related examples:

• With regard to feminism, there is a reference somewhere to the Buddha apparently saying that the dharma wouldn't last as long (500 instead of 1000 years) if women were allowed into the sangha, but it's unclear whether this is meant disparagingly, or simply to say that men and women are different in their approaches to spirituality. I'm also not sure if the Buddha actually said this or if it came along later, out of the monastic tradition.
• There's also been some controversy over Homosexuality and Buddhism, but there again, it's difficult to say what it actually means since Buddhism doesn't actually punish people for being homosexual (though many traditional schools may not ordain them).
• Right now I'm reading Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor. It is a critique of the more religious aspects of Buddhism, and advocates a return to a more agnostic / fallibilistic form of the philosophy, which Batchelor argues was the Buddha's original message.

--Pariah (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Vinaya Pitaka (at least the Pali version), the Buddha had to be asked 7 times before agreeing to ordination of nuns, warned that this would weaken the teaching & shorten its lifetime, & made them thoroughly subordinate to monks. As with everything else attributed to the Buddha, this is a matter of disagreement among scholars. There's also some far more misogynistic material elsewhere in the Pali Canon, most notably the Kunala Jataka. Peter jackson (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also notable that Christopher Hitchens, one of the "Four Horsemen" of the "New Atheism" is highly critical of atheism. I will add a "Criticism" section to the Buddhism article 121.222.181.96 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Us versus Them Mentality

From the wiki article

HARMFUL TO SOCIETY

Critics of this world-view claim that this monopoly of universal truths leads, inevitably, to a very ingrained ' us vs. them ' group solidarity and mentality which, to a wide range of extents, dehumanise or demonise individuals outside the particular faith as 'not fully human', or in some way less worthy and less deserving of rights and regard. Results can, based on the fanaticism of this belief, vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.

From the news

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7806c633-36f5-46b4-a83c-4900c15d8353&p=2

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e8606929-82d9-4d42-82a5-0e3f4465f9cf&k=0

The New York Police Department report examines 'radicalization' of Western Muslims.

The report by the NYPD Intelligence Division examines recent cases of "homegrown" terrorism in Britain, Madrid, Germany, Amsterdam, Australia, the United States and Toronto. In each case, it says, the suspects were influenced by spiritual figures who preach an "us-versus-them/war on Islam" mentality that provides a moral justification for violence. They are vital to terrorist groups because they frame violence as a religious duty.

"The sanctioner is often a self-taught Islamic scholar and will spend countless hours providing a cut-and-paste version of Islam which radicalizes his followers. In many cases, the sanctioner is not involved in any operational planning but is vital in creating the jihadi mindset," it says.

In all the cases looked at by the NYPD, the suspects went through a remarkably similar process of radicalization that was triggered not by oppression or suffering but by a search for identity that went astray and led them to extremist Islam.

The report calls this the "self-identification" phase of radicalization, in which suspects begin converting to fundamentalist beliefs.

They may become alienated from their former life, seek like-minded believers, grow a beard, wear traditional Muslim dress and give up drinking.

The next stage is indoctrination. Suspects will often withdraw from the mosque and become more politicized, blaming global events on a perceived Western war against Muslims, the police report says.

The Toronto group was indoctrinated through spiritual mentors and on the Internet, where they watched jihadist videos and communicated with like-minded radicals in places such as Bosnia and the United Kingdom, it says.

"The Mississauga group went as far as wearing combat fatigues to the mosque -- a fact that was noted as unusual by the other congregants, but not reported to authorities," says the report. 220.239.110.162 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intolerance to icons of competing religion(s)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070904/ap_on_re_af/new_religion_vs_old_gods

ACHINA, Nigeria - Born to a family of traditional priests, Ibe Nwigwe converted to Christianity as a boy. Under the sway of born-again fervor as a man, he gathered the paraphernalia of ancestral worship — a centuries-old stool, a metal staff with a wooden handle and the carved figure of a god — and burned them as his pastor watched.

"I had experienced a series of misfortunes and my pastor told me it was because I had not completely broken the covenant with my ancestral idols," the 52-year-old Nwigwe said of the bonfire three years ago. "Now that I have done that, I hope I will be truly liberated."

Generations ago, European colonists and Christian missionaries looted Africa's ancient treasures. Now, Pentecostal Christian evangelists — most of them Africans — are helping wipe out remaining traces of how Africans once worked, played and prayed.

[edit] Implausible beliefs

This section is far too short. I did a brief rewrite listing several examples of implausible beliefs intertwined into the concept of religion, but this was deleted. Any explanation? This.machinery (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it looked like OR. All of the text you've added needs to cite reliable sources that criticize specific faiths or religion in general over those points.

That section's difficult because, once you get past the idea that most religious people believe in a god and most people who aren't religious don't, there's really not anywhere to go. Most individual points are going to boil down to the same thing: such and such a faith teaches that their god (who they believe can do the impossible) did something impossible. People who don't believe in their god say "That's impossible." The faithful smile and nod and say "Yeah, exactly!" Repeat.

So I'd defiantly move away from the bulleted list, which is at best going to be repetitive and at worst could sound petty, and try for a solid paragraph or so of (cited) discussion of the topic, which I think could be incorporated into "Irrational Foundation;" there's a lot of overlap there. -- Vary | Talk 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, please add citations for the text you've added, and please do it before you make the problem worse by adding more uncited text. You'll notice that most of the rest of this article is very well cited; that's because this is a review of notable criticisms by established experts on the topic, not 'what bugs us about religion.' A lot of the text you've added is very defiantly Original Research; you need to replace it with sourced criticisms. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't original research it is common knowledge. Am I supposed to find a published text to say that mythology is no longer considered serious religious doctrine? That is the definition of mythology. Am I to find a published text that tells us that the events of the afterlife are unprovable? Give me a break.

For some of the more common abuses in the religious power structure, I've also been noted for citation. You don't need a study to tell you that sin instills guilt in children. If you want to see development of the concept of atonement THROUGH religious institutions, go to a charity dinner at a church, or step into a confession booth.

When I look down the page, I do in fact see many sourced statements. The problem is these are often irrelevant, pretentious quotations which do not in anyway act as serious and succinct written criticisms of religion or the actions of religious institutions. Other sections may be well-sourced for their quotes, or write in detail about already famous criticisms, but overall the article is terribly organized and lacks any form of cohesion in adding these claims up and applying them to regular use. If you really think that I am causing damage to this article by writing obvious interpretations to the common practices of major world religions, feel free to simply delete my additions and bring them back to the sourced, yet utterly useless, 1-sentence sections they were before. Or better yet, just delete these sub-sects all together.This.machinery (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The "it's common knowledge" argument is usually the first thing that comes out of individuals after they are notified that they've added what could very well be original research. The fact of the matter is that if the knowledge is so common, a citation to that effect should be easy to provide. As far as I'm concerned, everything you've added could just be your opinion. Why should we consider it?

Find reliable sources to back up the claims; also, keep a mind for NPOV- always a good idea on articles like this. Try to display views and arguments from both sides of the spectrum, if at all possible.

Your major problem is your approach. This is a neutral encyclopedia which is based on verifiable and generally reliable sources. What may seem obvious to you is not so to others; in cases like this, your "truth" may be different from others, so try to stick to scholarly or notable opinions on the matter and give due space to the arguments of the other side.--C.Logan (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you want here. I used religious websites themselves, Richard Dawkins (who cited many, many times in the article), and Time Magazine. Apparently these are not "reliable" enough.This.machinery (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that OR and POV presentation is apparent; that Biblical creation myths are incompatible with scientific theories is one particular view within a complex issue. The comment on divine guidance seems like simple personal musing on the issue. The quote from Zarathustra should be cited to support the connection between the quote and the cited concepts. I'm unsure what "tithing" has to do with the rest of its home paragraph; the paragraph would need clarification to that effect.

The paragraph on missionaries diverges from what the cited source says- the issue is the perceived obliteration of culture, and not the hard exchange of help for conversion (which the source does not support, and which should be referenced quite clearly- there have certainly been cases of such nature, but this does not reflect the whole of missionary work). In general, and especially concerning the "guilt" paragraph, you'd want to make it note that what's presented is being said by the source; it is not necessarily true.--C.Logan (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tone is defiantly a big part of the problem. The statement that "A strong teaching of sin is crucial to the indoctrination children and new members, as it instills early on a profound sense of guilt in believers," for example, is not common knowledge. It needs to be cited, and it should not be stated as fact, even if you can find someone who's used those exact words: there are a lot of people who'd disagree. Read through the rest of the article to see how such information is already being presented.

The bit on tithing is way off topic in that section, and so far as I can tell is not backed up in any way by the source you provided; perhaps you used the wrong link? And I don't see the phrase 'quid quo pro' anywhere in the aricle on missionaries. Citing neutral or pro religion sources and using them to create a critical argument is synthesis. You need to find sources critical of this aspect of religion, and then find a way to report their arguments in a neutral way. We're writing an encyclopedia article covering the major points that critics of religion have raised, not constructing an essay on the subject ourselves. There are plenty of outlets on the web for personal opinion, but this isn't one of them.

And I'd encourage you again to move away from bullet points and towards cohesive paragraphs. It's just better writing. -- Vary | Talk 06:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you checked my citations, you'd see that the guilt into children clause is under the same citation that covers confession and psychoanalysis. The Christian author of the article states quite explicitly "Guilt is the physical manifestation of sin." Then elaborates on the effects of this on children. But it looks like you just jumped the gun and deleted them.This.machinery (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Among non-Christians, the most serious criticism of missionaries is that, just as in the past, they are changing religious ways of life for whole societies." Does this not infer a quid pro quo?This.machinery (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Carlin

Page history here comments that it would be useful to check the George Carlin quote from a transcript. The clip is on U-tube here and near the end of the routine Carlin recommends other, comforting fairy tales from which his audience might draw moral lessons, but concludes "there is no Humpty Dumpty and there is no God...not one, never was." --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that he could be saying either "there is no god" or "there is no God", and the two are homophonous so watching the video wouldn't help. I'd lean towards the former, but I can't commit to it without a transcript. Ilkali (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"...not one..." I see what you mean. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Madison Quote

The quote that was previously at the top of the 'Criticism of the concept' section is frequently misinterpreted to mean that Madison was an opponent of any form of religion. In fact, Madison was a staunch supporter of religious freedom. The full paragraph the quote was taken from:

You are happy in dwelling in a Land where those inestimable privileges are fully enjoyed, and public has long felt the good effects of their religious as well as Civil Liberty. Foreigners have been encouraged to settle amg. you. Industry and Virtue have been promoted by mutual emulation and mutual Inspection, Commerce and the Arts have flourished and I can not help attributing those continual exertions of Genius which appear among you to the inspiration of Liberty, and that love of Fame and Knowledge which always accompany it. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. How far this is the Case with Virginia will more clearly appear when the ensuing Trial is made.

By 'religious bondage', Madison here meant any sort of limitation on an individual's religious preferences or observances. The way it was used here made it seem that he was referring to any religious belief as 'bondage.' -- Vary | Talk 15:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing and removing the misuse of a source.--C.Logan (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Madison was not an atheist or agnostic. Quote of Madison should not be used in this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bin Laden quotes

All right, I see that an edit war over the Bin Laden quotes is going on. Can this be resolved in a more civil manner? I see that they were removed for being "inflamatory"; that to me seems like it would have no bearing on their NPOV-ness. They're quotes, so their text is allowed to have a POV (unlike article text), so long as the article doesn't become a giant quote and thereby have a POV. They seem illustrative of the sections' themes, so unless the quotes are inaccurate, could someone explain how being "inflamatory" qualifies as not NPOV? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How has civility been violated? Is pointing out Wikipedia policy in an edit summary uncivil? Anyway, that is a side issue. The quote was clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia may present significant views on the subject, as attributed to reliable sources and critics of religion. What it may not do, however, is to embellish those sources by adding quotes whose specific purpose is to elicit an emotional response from the reader. This is, as I see it, a component of the WP:NPOV policy (neutral tone). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a platform for editors to pick emotionally evocative quotes to advance their own position.

However, the policy which perhaps most directly applies is WP:SYN: Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. Since this quote itself was not cited by any notable sources as a criticism of religion, it is either irrelevant to the subject of the article (see above NPOV concern), or constitutes original research (via synthesis).

As a final strike against itself, the quote was of dubious authenticity, since it had been apparently cobbled together from various sources. So my opinion is that the quote should not be in the article, and fails on multiple policy fronts.

In conclusion, I am willing to be overruled on my editorial decision. However, I have so far provided three fairly solid reasons why this single quotation is unsuitable for inclusion in this article. The final question an editor should ask is the most important one: Is the quote encyclopedic? It fails this most important test, for me at any rate. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to criticism of religion

Shouldn't this article start out by highlighting that criticism of religion is often considered rude or offensive, and is basically a taboo to many people? Of course, nobody like their ideas or themselves being criticized, but with religion you are considered rude for the sort of criticism that would be considered fine if you were criticizing anything else. It is also non-religious people who feel religion shouldn't be criticized or scrutinized. Anyone who has read books critical of religion will know what I am talking about. Richard001 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is absolutely absurd. Criticism is off course a part of every aspect of society, not only religion. Criticism is part of freedom of speech. If anyone is not able to criticize religion, this means his/her freedom of speech is restricted. Your comment and proposal is violation of WP:NPOV. Do not bring your own POV/agenda in wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Otolemur crassicaudatus. Criticism of religion is part of freedom of speech. However, I don't think User:Richard001 is pushing his POV. He is an atheist. Criticism of religion is often considered rude and offensive, and it is a taboo in many socities. That's a not a good thing. I want this article to achieve GA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good and Evil

i changed the bit under Implausible beliefs, stating that it was impossible to be all good, because the nature of good and evil are man-made concepts and are not dictated by some universal law, therefore is extremely ill defined. consequently i said tried to say that people rarely can follow the criteria for good dictated by the religion itself but i'm not really happy with edit, because it's mostly POV with no citation's. does anyone have any suggestions for rewording it or improving the section? (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC))