Talk:List of atheists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of atheists has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

List of atheists 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.

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 →

Archives

[edit] Mao?

Um...shouldn't Mao Zedong be on the list of politicians? One would think him important enough to include in such a list. Not that I'm accusing anyone of deliberately leaving him out... Corbmobile 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literature, arts and entertainment

Rather than revert a reversion of a reversion, I thought I'd pause and seek consensus on the question of whether the recently consolidated Arts, entertainment and literature category ought to be broken back down. I contend that it is too broad. The category currently encompasses such diverse professions as sports, journalism, literature, fashion design, and music. I believe this broadness makes the list less useful to readers, who might be researching atheists in specific areas, and will not be well-served by this hodge-podge category. "Arts" is certainly ambiguous, but "Literature" and "Entertainment" are less so, and ought to be treated separately. What does everyone think? 69.23.115.197 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. In this case, I would be a "splitter" rather than a "lumper." logologist|Talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be broken into "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment". That would probably also require a case-by-case basis though; I'm sure if Britney Spears were an atheist, she'd belong in the "Entertainment" section; classical composers would belong in "Arts". They would both, of course, technically be "musicians". In between would be Frank Zappa, who was both an artist and an entertainer (thought I think he would better belong in "Arts"). --Switch 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, in this case I'm a "splitter" as well. The old "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment" were not ideal but probably the best we could do. BTW, take the point about Zappa's cross-over status but reckon the majority view would lean towards "Entertainment" for him. If a few of his works ever make it into the Penguin Guide to Classical then maybe I'd go "Arts"...! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no chance a jazz composer will ever be in certain publications, simply for the fat that jazz is not classical by definition. But as for the separation, I suggest either a separation of songwriters/performers, or a simple old/new. --Switch 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall allow no such thing. It is completely open to interpretation and elitism by general consensus, which is a lack of objective reasoning due to subjectivity - personal preference is a nonissue. Verdi was not considered art at one point, yet he is now. The doubt of differences between jazz composers and classical composers is obvious difference between this, and one can merely refer to the wikipedia entry "highbrow", as well as "lowbrow" and "kitsch" to see how much of a lack of consensus there actually is on defining what is art. If one is going to include musicians, all musicians must be included. I will accept only if the category is extremely specific so as to avoid any debate of "art" and "non-art". In this case, every primary career of the persons in that category must have its own category. George Carlin would be under "Comedians", Rimsky-Korsakov would be under "Composers", Ayn Rand would be under "Authors" (and possibly "Philosophers" as well). --68.91.88.159 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are (ever thought of being a name, not a number?!) you'll garner far more respect by avoiding telling your fellow editors what you will and won't accept, and instead proposing alternate solutions to a perceived issue. Nor will threats of reverting changes when you don't have consensus on your side help your cause. Most people who have responded in this section contend that 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' is too broad a category. No-one has suggested that the former 'Arts and literature' and 'Entertainment' sections were perfect, but they did at least break down the overall list of atheists. If you'd like to propose an alternate split, perhaps 'Musicians' (including pop, classical, jazz, et al), 'Authors', 'Visual artists', or whatever, then we can all discuss and hopefully come to a satisfactory agreement. Your current 'solution' of one super-category is hardly satisfactory, nor is your belligerent attitude about it. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Creating a colossal super-category defeats the purpose of having categories at all. logologist|Talk 07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall split the categories up into specifics, then. You can't expect me to treat your case with respect when you have given no objective reasoning to do so, aside from not liking it and heeding mere convention. "Art" is subjective, and having an "entertainment" section seperate from "art" is subjectively elitist with no grounds for being so. You have yet to address that point. Until you can disprove my argument, I will stand by my case indefinitely. Objectivity does not allow for democracy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.88.159 (talk • contribs) 21:12, November 11, 2006 (UTC).

Ho-hum. While it may be academic now, for the record, no-one above rejected the 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' category because they 'don't like it' but because it was too broad and meaningless. Your bit about 'elitism' was pummelling a straw man, no-one argued for keeping Arts and Entertainment separate on that basis. You've evidently come to the same conclusion as the rest of us re. breaking up the categories and high time too. By the way, friendly advice for the future, you can 'stand by your case' as indefinitely as you like but at the end of the day, if you can't abide the consensus you must try to win hearts and minds on the talk page and gain a new consensus – your case won't be worth much otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, 68.91.88.159, please respect consensus.

Here's a proposal for categories, based in part on List of notable brain tumor patients, which is a featured list:

Activists and educators
Business
Film, television and radio
Music
Philosophy
Politics and law
Science and medicine
Sports
Visual arts
Writing

All, please tell me what you think. 69.23.115.197 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is fine, but I am splitting it up in a way that is a bit more specific. You can alter it to your specifications aftrer that if it's too specific. This is 68.91.88.159 and the message posted recently was my doing as well. I can respect consensus as long as consensus is objective. The standard language in Opera was Italian for quite some time, and that was only because of "consensus" that it was the ideal language to write in. I use that example because the nature of agreement proves very little.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.88.159 (talk • contribs) 21:32, November 11, 2006 (UTC).

I suggest breaking the list into every specific occupation a person listed holds, as anything else would be subjective. Who is to say what is or is not a sport? The "official" classifications are arbitrary, and distinctions between games, sports, and arts are inherently subjective. Rappers can be considered musicians or poets, or distinct from both. Comedians can be writers, activists, educators, physicians, and any number of other professions. Where does art stop being "visual"? What about comic books? Alex Ross and Frank Miller (comics) are both writers and visual artists. Where does the line fall between politics, philosophy and activism? Marx was involved in politics, was a philosopher and was an activist.

I hope my irony wasn't missed; the point is, no division of occupations can ever be entirely free from subjectivity, and will ultimately be reached by consensus. Helping to clean up is great; decreeing that you will not "allow" editors to arrange the list in the way they agree is best is not. --Switch 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Switch. And thanks for your proposal, 69.23.115.197 (be great to see you as a name too, by the way). This looks better than before with the super-cat of 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' and basing it on an FA list helps. Obviously it's been implemented now but, more importantly, it looks like we have some agreement on it. If anyone out there has any serious issues with the organisation of this page now, let them discuss it here. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James D. Watson

The Wikipedia articles states that Watson is "an outspoken atheist." Does anyone know of an authoritative source for this? Would anyone, perhaps, know how to contact him in order to get it directly from the horse's mouth? logologist|Talk 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Such would be original research, and the information from such contact would also be unverified, by Wikipedia's standards. Both are unacceptable. If a reputable source describes Watson as an atheist or, even better, if a quote is found in which he says he's an atheist or doesn't believe in a God, then that would be acceptable. 69.23.115.197 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of Steven Weinberg and James D. Watson and Friedrich Nietzsche

by User:69.23.115.197 seem to me groundless. Their status as atheists appears well documented at www.positiveatheism.com. logologist|Talk 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that their status as atheists is well documented at positiveatheism.com. Quotes from James D. Watson can be found here. Two of the quotes are of unknown source, which makes them unacceptable. In neither of the remaining quotes does he say he is an atheist, or say that he does not believe in God.

I surveyed all of the quotes from Weinberg. In none of these quotes does he say he is an atheist, or that he does not believe in God. I may have missed something here. If you find any instances in which either of these scientists identifies himself as an atheist or says he does not believe in God, please bring them to my attention. I will be glad to be corrected. 69.23.115.197 18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you make of Weinberg's statement to Jonathan Miller, at the end of The Atheism Tapes, program 2 (accessible at "Steven Weinberg," External links):

"I don't believe in God... the god of traditional Judaism and Christianity and Islam seems to me a terrible character. He's a god who... obsessed the degree to which people worship him and anxious to punish with the most awful torments those who didn't worship him in the right way.

"I... had a friend, now dead... who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief... It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too." logologist|Talk 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is definitive. I put Weinberg back in with that reference. Do you have anything like that for Watson also? Thank you. 69.23.115.197 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hope people aren't basing Nietzsche's purported atheism on "God is dead." This reflects a profound misunderstanding of his philosophy. Could the powers-that-be please delete his name from the list or provide stronger evidence for his atheism. He was a Christian apostate, no doubt, but he never claimed anything resembling atheism.

   Nietzsche was an apostate AND an atheist. You can deduct it from many letters written to his sister, but also from some quotes like "if there were gods, how couldn't I be one of them" 128.135.226.238 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

People people, let's think about the burden of proof. Since everyone is born an atheist shouldn't the burden of proof be on those that claim certain people aren't atheists? Since atheists have a negative position, a lack of a belief, shouldn't one assume that someone is an atheist unless otherwise proven?

It's kind of like saying that someone is a capitalist unless that person denied being one because we live in a society where capitalism is the dominant influence on our economic system. --80.56.36.253 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The majority of the world's people are theists. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim; in this case, the article is making the positive claim that people listed are atheists. As this makes them a minority, it cannot be assumed for all unless they have specifically stated otherwise. It is instead assumed for none unless they have stated otherwise.

Furthermore, some people define atheism differently than others. Some limit the meaning to strong atheism, while others use the broader meaning of weak atheism. And to some people, it would be an insult. We can't list a living person who has not stated their atheist views, because that would violate the policies for biographies of living persons. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

Current discussions from Novemeber were kept, all previous discussions have been archived as per archive box on top. The old archive has been reassigned to Archive 1 in accordance with Wikipedia Archival procedure. A list of rejected people can be found at here. Mkdw ^talk 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ref for Arthur C. Clark

It seems to say the author is one Jeromy Agel in the reference down there, was this ref just not formatted correctly, was that really Clark's words? Homestarmy 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Carolla

from http://adamradio.wordpress.com/2006/02/10/adam-with-jeff-probst-and-louis-ck/

Adam thinks that, even though he’s an atheist, we need to flood hell with all of the cool people because then hell won’t be such a bad place. Rachel says that she’s moving on to her next existence in her next life

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Carolla#Adam_on_Atheism --Philo 06:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I nominate Ann Druyan who won the Richard Dawkins Award in 2004. --Philo

07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertrand Russell

I removed Bertrand Russell from the list. He said the following:As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist... None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. He would only have called himself an atheist at popular audiance, because they don´t understand agnosticicm and the philosophical connections of it.--Peter Holgan 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The key point is that he considered himself both an agnostic and an atheist, depending on the context. That why he's in both List of atheists and List of agnostics, where his entry is accompanied by this quote, which clarifies this nuanced self-identification. Nick Graves 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Buffett

Warren Buffet has described himself as an agnostic, not an atheist. Two sources which confirm this are:

1. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/faces3.html

2. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649&PHPSESSID=71cdf024ed00bc1cfeaa7092bb2e05e5

If there are no objections, I shall probably remove Warren Buffett from this list within the next week or so, and also update the related entries in the 'American atheists' lists and the 'Warren Buffett' article.

I will remove Buffett to the List of agnostics right now. Thanks. Nick Graves 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing

Logologist suggested that all of these names be rearranged alphabetically or chronologically, rather than by occupation. I support rearranging alphabetically, since it will make it much easier to manage the list and avoid duplication. What does everyone else think? Nick Graves 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've created confusion. My point was that some additions within the occupation lists have been out of alphabetical order. However we do sort our certified atheists, we probably should be consistent. I would keep the occupational divisions but, within each, put the individuals into chronological order by year of birth, rather than alphabetically. (The individuals are not all contemporary with each other; they span a couple of centuries of history.) logologist|Talk 06:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've viewed a fair few featured lists and some are alphabetic only (e.g. List of Telecaster players), others alphabetic within occupation (e.g. List of notable brain tumor patients, List of HIV-positive people), others chonological within occupation (e.g. List of people with epilepsy), and others chronological only (e.g. List of major opera composers) - and some in tables, some not! The upshot is that while I've seen more alpha-within-occupation, there is bugger-all standard. What I can say after reviewing these other lists is that I don't think any are better organised or more attractive than this one. I support remaining with the occupational division (not out of bloody-mindedness after the battle had earlier but because I think it's a better to have such an abmittedly imperfect breakdown than none at all) and don't see an issue with retaining the alphabetic order within occupation. I'm not against chronological order by birthdate within occupation per se, however I think a list is simpler to follow and add to if its left-most element is what you sort by - and since all lists of people start with their name I think it makes more sense to sort by that. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather dislike the lists not ordered by ocupation; in fact, I'm considering giving the list of anarchists the same treatment this one has had, although it would be a lot of work. I personally would favour chronological organisation within the occupations - it was different being an atheist 150 years ago than it was 50 years ago, and it's different again now. -Switch ^t 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what Logologist meant now. The names were supposed to be arranged in alphabetical order within occupation, but Logologist found some that weren't. That's to be expected, as "drive-by" additions are often made at the end of a section, rather than in proper alphabetical order (We might have missed some earlier, too.). Since a lot of such additions are made without a citation, one easy way to deal with them is to just revert them as soon as they pop up. A good reference for each entry is essential if this is to get to featured list quality. I oppose rearranging chronologically, not because it wouldn't be nice, but because it will make managing the list more difficult. It's just a lot easier to shoe-horn someone in by their last name than by birthdate or deathdate. Arranging by occupation can create some problems, because so many people are more than one thing (a comedian can be an author, an author can be an activist, etc.) and a reader might not find someone listed where they expect. However, I'd just as soon see the list organized as it is now (assuming it's still in alphabetical order within occupation). Nick Graves 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of (for now)! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Since the conversion of all pics from 100px to 75px a couple of captions, i.e. Rimsky-Korsakov and Skłodowska-Curie, have been truncated. Suggest we go back to something closer to 100px across the board, I doubt the slightly greater size will have a huge ripple effect. Also we have too many 'Science and medicine' pics, my vote is we drop two of Feynman, Pinker or Watson, i.e. suggest Dawkins, Curie, Pauling and one other should stay. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep all the Nobel laureates. logologist|Talk 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to be selective about which pictures to include and excude based on notability as atheists. Then there a lot of pics would have to be dropped, i.e. Stalin is much more notable as a communist dictator and Curie is much more famous for her scientific discoveries. Very few would be notable for their atheism, it would be mainly those famous for their work in suppost of atheism, like Dawkins and Shelley. I suggest we follow one of these four options:

1. No images at all

2. Only images for those famous specificly for their work for atheism.

3. Images of most people. Only excluding those whos atheism can be seen as little more than a footnote.

4. Images of all people.

-ramz- 21:33, 17 December 2006 (CET)

I'd be in favor of option 2, although determining who is worthy may itself cause disagreements. Barring that, perhaps option 1 would not be unreasonable as the primary article for nearly all these people will have a photo in any case. -- Rydra Wong 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, ramz. Of these options I would discard 1 and 4, and concentrate on something between 2 and 3. A number of the current pics are arguably there because of the subjects' fame per se, rather than their outspoken views on atheism or the part it plays in their work. Re. the musicians, for instance, Rimsky-Korsakov may be the best-known, but not for his atheism; Numan is the most outspoken and the one for whom atheism plays the biggest part in his work. Tend to agree with ramz re. Stalin and Curie; similarly, I don't know that Carnegie, Diderot, Freud and Watson were/are outspoken or that atheism especially informs their work. One might also argue for the removal of Asimov's pic since by his own lights he came to self-identification as an atheist quite late, even if it was always implicit. I think there's some sort of case for retaining the other pics on this basis and adding a few more, e.g. Ellen Johnson, Harry Harrison, Phillip Adams, Jonathan Miller. Cheers, Ian Rose

I agree with Ian Rose on discarding options 1 and 4. A featured list of people ought to have some portraits, but a portrait for each would crowd the list and make it a mess.

I am in favor of a criterion somewhere between 2 and 3 (but closer to 2). Option 3 would crowd the list much like option 4, and we probably would not even be able to find enough appropriate images to fulfill it anyway. This is because there is no fair-use rationale for using copyrighted portraits in List of people articles. The portraits used in this article must be in the public domain, or else copyrighted portraits with a license that allows their use here.

I think option 2 as worded is too restrictive. I would recast it this way: Images of persons whose atheism was relevant in their public life or works. In other words, you don't have to promote atheism to be pictured, but your atheism has to be relevant to your notability. Even this criterion can be flexible--especially notable persons who happen to be atheists could be pictured, even if atheism wasn't relevant in their public life. For example, if an avowed atheists were ever to be elected president of the US (ha!), they could be pictured even if their atheism never became a public issue (ha!). And we may even opt to not picture someone even if their profession is to promote atheism, since they might be relatively obscure, despite being notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia.

I don't think we'll ever agree on a single criterion or set of criteria that is perfectly applicable in all cases. Such inherently subjective concerns as aesthetics will always play a role in the decision about whom to picture. Nick Graves 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan

From all his writings it's clear he doesn't believe in god; this is most apparent in Billions and Billions. Also, his wife, Ann Druyan, says this about him: "When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions" http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html Profonikz 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One can be a nonbeliever and not an atheist. Did Sagan ever specifically call himself an atheist? Has an informed and impartial source called him an atheist? That's what's needed. Nick Graves 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of quotes from Sagan that are very atheistic in nature, it seems to me somewhat misinformative not to place him as atheist. Does he actually have to say "I'm an atheist" to be an atheist or "I'm an agnostic" to be an agnostic?

Quotes from Carl Sagan: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htm

-ramz- 00:39, 18 December 2006 (CET)

I skimmed through those quotes, and nothing jumped out to me as being specifically atheistic. Can you identify one which demonstrates that Sagan was an atheist?

No, one does not need to say "I'm an atheist" to be an atheist. But a reliable source (preferrably the person themselves) needs to identify someone as an atheist for them to be listed here. Nick Graves 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it seems that he did say I'm an agnostic based on the following quotes: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it", "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Carl_Sagan -ramz- 19:31, 3 December 2007 (CET)

[edit] possible additions

Frank Zappa and Bill Hicks were almost certainly atheists, but I can't find anything to 'prove' this, other than a bunch of anti-religious quotes, which might not qualify. I think they should be included though, can anyone help out? 203.167.235.136 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they were both atheists. Hicks might have some evidence for him - I'll have a look - but I doubt if any solid evidence for Zappa being an atheist could be found. Anti-religious quotes do not count, as many people, including pantheists, some agnostics, and deists might be derisive of organised religion or dogma, but without being atheists. -Switch ^t 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After looking around, it still seems Zappa was an atheist, but haven't found a verifiable source. Hicks was a more interesting matter; after looking more closely, he seems to have identified as an agnostic, and was definitely spiritual if not religious - He may well still be an atheist, but I haven't been able to source it. -Switch ^t 09:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you find the reference and a quote substantiating Hicks' agnosticism so he can be added to List of agnostics? Thanks. Nick Graves 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impartiality

Nick Graves recently removed Delius, and the reason given was that the source was "impartial". I have restored them, on the grounds that there are other links that are equally "impartial" (if being located on a website that advocates atheism qualifies for that stigma) and focusing on Delius while there are so many other examples is clearly an example of being impartial. Should all websites that are for atheists be removed, if that is the only qualifications for being "impartial"? [the preceding comment was unsigned by 68.91.89.105]

68.91.89.105, the problem with using atheism-promoting websites as sources is that they have a bias toward representing as many great people as possible as atheists (in an effort to counter the stigma of atheism), and often do so with scant evidence, and sometimes with unattributed (and therefore suspect) quotes.

Regardless, Delius and Ligeti should not be included based on the citations earlier provided, because the quotes do not prove they are atheists. Delius can criticize Christianity and still not be an atheist. Ligeti can not believe in god and still not be an atheist. Nick Graves 15:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick, just a point of order... I tend to agree with avoiding pro-atheist sites as the sole source of a person's supposed atheism since the impartiality of such sites is open to question, similar to a pro-gay site being the sole source of a person's alleged homsexuality. I also fully agree that one "can criticize Christianity and still not be an atheist". However I'm less convinced by the contention that one "can not believe in god and still not be an atheist" both in general and in the context of this article where, in the first line, we suggest that "An atheist is one who disbelieves in the existence of God". While we've agreed on giving precedence to those who self-identify as atheists, we also include people "if they fit the narrowest sense of the word 'atheist' (they have denied the existence of God and other deities)". Cheers, Ian Rose 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Ian. Regarding your second point: As indicated by one of the footnotes, there are different levels of disbelief. It could be lack of belief, refusal to believe, or outright denial (that is, the assertion of the contrary of a belief). To not believe in god is not the same as asserting that there is no god (denying that god exists), even though both positions are a form of disbelief. The former position may or not be atheism, depending on what sense of the word one chooses to use. The latter position, however, is almost universally understood to be an atheistic view. Nick Graves 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you too, Nick, and what better time for us to be discussing the finer points of atheism than Christmas Day?! I think the only possible disagreement we have is how one might disbelieve in god and still not be an atheist (assuming one isn't simply ignorant). While there may be a subtle difference between 'not believing in god' and 'asserting that there is no god', by the definitions we've employed in this article both are forms of atheism. To go back to the Ligeti example, the quote used in support of his 'atheism' was far from unequivocal (and was in any case said about and not by him), i.e. "Ligeti doesn't believe in god, but he said god does a lot of things", so I have no argument with rejecting his addition to this list on that basis. My point is that if Ligeti had just said "I don't believe in god" then that should qualify him for an entry, however your statement "Ligeti can not believe in god and still not be an atheist" suggested you might not agree with that position. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if atheism is merely not believing in god, then Ligeti would be an atheist in your example. However, not everyone accepts or uses this definition. A great many people use only the narrow definition (denial of god's existence), and would object to categorization of mere nonbelievers as atheists. Such would be the position of many of those on List of agnostics, who use or used agnosticism as a third category between atheism and theism. They might be atheists according to your definition or my definition of the word, but not according to their own.

English does not have an academy to officially set the meanings of words in stone for everyone. Rather, meanings of words are flexible and variegated, and become molded according to the uses of populations and subcultures. Sometimes, the great majority of English users agree on a word's meaning. Atheist is not one of those words.

We cannot settle the controversy between rival definitions, nor would Wikipedia be the proper place to attempt to settle the issue. Instead, a good solution is to accept people at their word when they call themselves "atheists," or to rely on informed and impartial sources who make such identifications. In other cases, we ought to rely only on the sense of the word that nearly everyone agrees is atheistic (the sense that is consistent with the narrow definition). Such an approach avoids the pitfall of putting Wikipedia editors in the position of a language academy which attempts to prescribe meanings for words.

If we were to make nonbelief in god a sufficient criterion for identifying someone as an atheist in this list, we would end up listing many people who reject the broad definition, and who would object to being called an atheist. I think that's a situation we ought to avoid. Nick Graves 22:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No major issue with any of that. Your edit summary for this last, i.e. treating each case on its merits, sums up the way to go. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As I was writing the edit summary, I realized I probably could have just left it at that. I'm often too wordy. I'll be working on that next year. Nick Graves 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christer Fuglesang

There seems to be a small conflict of opinions regarding the nationality of astronaut Christer Fuglesang, some want it to be "Swedish-Norwegian" and some only Swedish. I myself have to say it should be Swedish since as Nick Graves pointed out both his parents were Swedish and I haven't heard that he has any Norwegian citizenship, furthermore does his wikipedia article state only Swedish. His only actual connection to Norway it that his father came from there. He attained however swedish citizenship before Christer's birth. Therefore I'm reverting his nationality to Swedish. -ramz- 02:23, 10 January 2007 (CET)

[edit] Jan Guillou

Nick Graves inqured me to provide an english translation of Jan Guillous statement in the article referenced. I'm not sure where I should post it, so for the time being I'm providing it here, If I've mistranslated some part, then please correct me.

Title: "It takes a lot to piss me off"

Relevant section:
Atheist
Today is the first of Advent, how are you celebrating?
- I am [an] atheist, but Ann-Marie and I light a candle anyway. I have dedicated "Madame Terror" to her. Since she has helped me much with [my] books, not least with this one, the latest. Much talk on and forth, I've had a lot yellings.

Same part in the original Swedish:
Ateist
I dag är det första advent, hur firar du det?
- Jag är ateist, men Ann-Marie och jag tänder ett ljus ändå. Jag har tillägnat henne "Madame Terror". För att hon hjälpt mig mycket med böcker, inte minst med denna, den senaste. Mycket snack fram och tillbaka, många utskällningar har jag fått.
-ramz- 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the translation to his reference now. -ramz- 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] let's reexamine the meaning of atheism and a proposal

I've seen alot of people removed from this list because "just because they aren't religious doesn't mean they're atheist". The thing is, the definition of atheism is "one that has no belief in deities". This also includes agnostics. My next question is, could we merge this into an article called List of atheists and agnostics? I think it would stop this politicking of trying to find out if someone is atheist or agnostic and stop the removals. --Philo 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. That would just make the list excessively long, and people would want clarification as to who is an atheist and who is an agnostic. The introduction to the list clarifies it enough in my opinion. ~Switch ^t 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The List of agnostics page is pretty darned short, so I don't think length is a big problem. I think this is a merge that should be seriously discussed; the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is often fluid or debated, with some claiming that they're mutually exclusive and others claiming that agnosticism is a subtype of atheism; merging the lists would allow us to neutrally report on who claims to be an atheist and who claims to be an agnostic, without Wikipedia itself needing to weigh in on this thorny issue. Furthermore, it would resolve many of the problematic entries, like Bertrand Russell (who claimed, in different senses, to be either an atheist or an agnostic at the same time), as well as people who said that they didn't believe in God but never specified whether they were atheists or agnostics, and people who were agnostics at one point in their lives and atheists at another (with, if the two are distinct, is probably a near-universal occurrence). -Silence 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, keeping the lists separate allows us to reoprt on who is an atheist and who is an agnostic in an objective manner too, by using only reliable sources (preferably primary sources). While by my definition of the words, agnosticism and atheism are unconnected sematically (as in, an agnostic can be either an atheist or theist, and an atheist can be agnostic or not), and I would consider myself both, not everyone sees it that way, and under WP:BLP we shouldn't conflate the two. I also don't see how that would help the Russel issue in any way; if we had the two lists together, we'd have to distinguish who is an atheist and who is an agnostic, which would mean we would still have to explain his position (something that should be done anyway); if we keep the lists separate but in the same article, he'd be listed under both sections, and that would be a waste of effort anyway. All I see in merging the two is problems with classification and confusion.

It might be worth creating a list of nontheists though, to list people who have not identified either way but have said they do not believe in God. ~Switch ^t 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An atheist like myself sees little difference between atheists and agnostics. But I think some religious people se it differently. I think that (to some degree) agnostics are just atheists who are afraid of offending people. An atheist will come right out and tell you that your religion is nothing but a myth, but agnostics try to be a little more uncertain. Therefore, atheists piss off religious people much more than agnostics. To some religious people, an atheist is somebody who has been completely deceived by Satan, but an agnostic can still be "saved". People who don't believe in this hooey see little difference between the two classifications, but the difference is rather major to some people. What I am getting at is that these articles should probably remain separate, and not just out of fear of offending the fundies. There are many more agnostics than atheists, and the shortness of the agnostic list is merely due to incompleteness. Famous people who publicly describe themselves as atheists are a rare breed (at least in the U.S.) and deserve their own list. -- Big Brother 1984 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Atheist means different things to different people. The definition for the word is actually a lot more fluid and contentious than the definition of agnostic. For that reason, and because of WP:BLP (as was mentioned earlier), I maintain that the primary criterion for inclusion here ought to remain self-identification.

Some believe that atheism is just lack of belief in deities, while others believe it is outright denial of the existence of deities, or even denial of the possibility of the existence of deities. Some believe agnosticism is a subset of atheism, while others believe the two are distinct categories, while still others believe that there is some overlap. It all depends on what definitions one uses, and there is no one authority on which Wikipedia can rely to settle the issue. All of these beliefs about the true definitions of atheist and agnostic are specific points of view. To accept one and reject the others advances a point of view, which would violated WP:NPOV.

I don't believe entries such as Bertrand Russell are problematic, because his viewpoint is clearly explained in footnotes on both lists. I believe List of agnostics is probably a lot shorter than list of atheists because agnostic is an identity that reached its peak of popularity in the 1800s. Since then, some destigmatization and liberalization of the popular meaning of the word atheist has led to its use by more and more people.

I do not object to creation of a List of nontheists. The meaning for that word is pretty uncontroversial. All atheists would fall within its scope, though not all agnostics (some agnostics do believe in a deity, even if they say they do not know its nature, or that it exists). Nick Graves 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Big Brother 1984 hit the nail on the head by saying that those who can be identified as atheists by reliable sources should have their own list. Agnosticism and atheism aren't exactly the same thing and should be treated separately. For what it's worth, I personally take the same line as Russell (and Asimov), and don't find it at all problematic. I can't prove the non-existence of god any more than a theist can prove the existence of god; but being against the very idea of gods, I call myself atheist so people are in no doubt. Call it being an 'intellectual agnostic' but a 'gut atheist' (Big Brother, I might add however that I have theist friends who still don't see that as a reason to give up entirely on me, and now and then I feel constrained to remind them that it's a losing battle...!) BTW, I also have no objection to the all-encompassing 'nontheists' list. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I likewise second — "third"? — the motion to start a "List of nontheists." logologist|Talk 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Mason

--Nick Mason, Pink Floyd's drummer, is also an atheist. In an interview in 1995 to the British Magazine Q, he said: "No. I don't believe in God. I believe in God Dylan" (unsigned)

Someone who doesn't believe in God might or might not identify as an atheist. Nick Graves 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should recheck the definition of atheist before you start to comment on it's discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.36.253 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Darwin?

what about Darwin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.43.243 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

What about him? Find a reliable source for his atheism and he'll be more than welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe many biographical authors has labelled Darwin as an atheist based on his views. Although this line (and a lot similar) can be retrieved from Charles Darwin's views on religion: "In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did 'not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation', but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had 'never been an atheist'". Btw, today's Feb. 12, Darwin Day. -ramz- 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwin was a Christian because that's what his parents taught him to be. Later in his life, after he had proposed the theory of Darwinian evolution he lost his faith and became an atheist. But he never dared to say this because his wife would choose to be offended if he did.--80.56.36.253 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, he never said he was an atheist, in fact he denied it steadfastly, but you reckon he secretly was so let's just include hm anyway... yes? ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am removing Joseph Stalin

Joseph Stalin was a monster. How can anybody put him together with people like Linus Pauling? Joseph Stalin killed millions in the name of communism. Thus, it would be wrong to blame atheism for the killing of those innocent people. Stalin should not be listed for moral reason. And it is not clear whether he was an atheist or not. According to Stalin's bodyguard (quoted on a TV series) Stalin had something of a relapse from atheism during the war and used to pray in the Kremlin chapel. I am removing Stalin from the list. If I see the name of Stalin again, I will remove it! User:devraj5000

Devraj, part of the deal working on this project is that personal feelings should not interfere with the creation of an encyclopedia. You think Stalin was a monster? Guess what, you're not alone. That has no bearing on his appearance in this list, nor does your concern that readers will blame his murderous rule on atheism. As you've been informed by other editors, one bodybuard quoted in an unnamed TV series does not negate self identification that is clearly cited. Unless you can present better evidence refuting his atheism, free of any baggage about his humanity or lack thereof, you are unlikely to win your argument. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. And thanks for removing the photo of Stalin.User:devraj5000

[edit] Narrowest sense of the word?

From the article: "With few exceptions, only those who have called themselves "atheists" are listed. Others may be listed if identified as such by informed and impartial sources, or if they fit the narrowest sense of the word atheist (they have denied the existence of God and other deities)."

How confusing. The normal definition of an atheist is 'someone who does not believe in the existence of god(s)'. The narrower definition (strong atheism) is 'someone who believes god(s) do not exist'. The above (denied the existence of God and other deities) is clearly weak atheism, not strong. The broad definition, not the narrow.

If all people who 'have denied the existence of God and other deties' are included (which, incidently, would be fine with me, but does not seem to be the policy here) people such as Einstein and Jefferson should be included as well. Diadem 17:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the word deny. As wiktionary shows, denying the existence of deities would entail either not allowing for them to exist (strong atheism), or asserting that they do not (strong again). ~Switch ^{t c g} 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)\

All those that lack a belief in deities should be included. That includes pantheists like Einstein.--80.56.36.253 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pietro Acciarito

We don't seem to have a suitable section for Pietro Acciarito, a blacksmith whose notability is owed solely to the fact that he failed to assassinate King Umberto I of Italy. He later said he would just as soon have " stuck that old monkey the Pope (Leo XIII.) " (Vizetelly, The Anarchists: Their Faith and Their Record, the source which identifies him as definitely... an atheist). I've put him in "Activists and educators" for the time being, but he doesn't really fit there. I also considered "Politics and law" but that seemed even less appropriate. Thoughts? ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 05:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. How about a Loonies section?! Cheers, Ian Rose 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modifying intro to include the rejection of either monotheism or theism

I would like some concensus as to whether or not we should change: "An atheist is one who disbelieves[1] in the existence of any deities." to "An atheist is one who disbelieves[1] in the existence of a deity or deities."

I propose this modification on the grounds this wording is more consistent with definitions which refer to a denial of God or gods. This is because one can either reject just a single God (monotheism) or both God and gods (theism). With either case, the persons are considered atheists.Modocc 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll start the ball rolling, FWIW. For once, I'm a fence-sitter - not particularly fussed with either wording... Cheers, Ian Rose 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Logically, "one who disbelieves in the existence of (a) deity" would seem to cover all possible cases, singular, plural, and abstract. logologist|Talk 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammatically,a reading of "of deity" is best placed within a context, even within an abstract context, and since such context should be supplied retrospectively, and by its usage, its not needed in the definition. The “(a) deity” is also an awkward construction. Also, the plural case is not explicit, and I am not even sure how its inferred here, thus no doubt other readers will wonder too.Modocc 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_atheists_aaf1.html"

Categories: Old requests for peer review | B-Class Atheism articles | High-importance Atheism articles