Talk:List of former proponents of atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I figured a category would be worse though. A list doesn't effect the articles for these people. Although there are categories like Category:Former Muslims or Category:Ex-Mormons, atheists are seen so badly in the US I figured a category would be meanspirited to the American atheists. Still as we do have several of these "former this and former that" I thought it fit. My only concern is that atheism isn't precisely a religion, but I couldn't find Category:People by former belief or even Category:People by philosophy--T. Anthony 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- A category would be worse; this can be annotated and sourced. I'm mostly concerned though with establishing what basis there is for ever identifying these people as atheists; claims of apologists such as Josh McDowell are particularly suspect. There's also the need to specify exactly what atheism meant to these individuals, to make sure the term isn't being equivocated or misused. Postdlf 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree. I think some of these are fairly legitimate in that they were people who explicitly believed God did not exist and then changed their mind. However I may have made some errors on starting and in time further errors crept in while I was away.--T. Anthony 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've now sourced it as well I can. Granted the source on Price just says he converted to Christianity, it doesn't say what he was before then. I removed Gabriel Marcel as most sources say he had been raised agnostic rather than atheist.--T. Anthony 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This article is quite well sourced now, and it is an interesting list. I hope it's not deleted, especially as there are lists of formerly religious people, because whilst atheism isn't quite a religion, this article does balance the other lists Slackbuie 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Contents |
[edit] Took off unreferenced deal
I think it's fairly well-referenced at present. The reference for Price though just states he converted to Christianity, it doesn't confirm what he converted from. I think he does fit, but maybe I need something more conclusive. Strobel is not referenced, but I think that's acceptable.--T. Anthony 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] McGrath?
Was Alister McGrath ever an atheist? (As opposed to just not church-going) His article doesn't mention it.--T. Anthony 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I found a source ie McGrath himself. (Granted he could be lying, but for the sake of fairness I'm going to say he's not.)--T. Anthony 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did take Keith Ward out as I couldn't find a source saying he ever was atheist.--T. Anthony 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Entries are alleged unless secondary sources show atheist prior to conversion.
It just struck me (prompted by a discussion in another article) that for someone studying religion who would want to know the former religion of notable figures then they would want secondary sources to confirm the former philosophy i.e. in this case "atheist".
Quite a few (all ?) records only show they are on record after the conversion e.g. in books, autobiographies or interviews etc. I know of no atheists who have converted to a theistic religion who are on record prior to their conversion as saying that they are atheists (though please prove me wrong here). I understand the difficulty of getting secondary sources that report that a person is an atheist prior to their conversion but that does mean that at best we say "Alleged" Atheist as we have no secondary sources that are able to record that they were an atheist other than the person themselves. Ttiotsw 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have no evidence most of the people in List of ex-Roman Catholics ever really believed in Catholicism either, and some of them clearly never did. Still in the case of John C. Wright and George R. Price we clearly have men who were atheist, but then were not atheist. In both cases their conversions came in their 40s so they were on record with atheist statements. In George R. Price's case he divorced his wife partly because he was an atheist who found her Christianity annoying. On further reading I found out he stayed Christian after his conversion, I had said he dropped it but stayed theist, he just became less evangelical/intense about it later. I know more directly in the case of Wright as I read his stories when he was atheist and I first knew him as an atheist writer of science fiction. His conversion to Christianity was slightly surprising to me, I was told of it by a strongly atheist person from Eastern Germany. (The guy who told me of Wright converting was far more surprised than I and he claimed to have never known a true theist. He also found/finds the idea of theism ludicrous) There were also several raised as atheist, but admittedly their atheist statements in youth might have just been parroting their parents. Still the ex-Catholics or ex-Muslims might have just been parroting their parents ideology/belief/faith/whatever in youth too. Likewise a few were former Communist whose atheism went along with their Communism and who abandoned both more or less simultaneously. Still for consistency I decided not to use a stricter standard here than I would see in other "ex" lists. You might be happy to know that I did remove names when I found evidence they'd been agnostic instead. I'd kind of like to remove C. S. Lewis even. I've read his letters from what's called his "atheist period" and I'm fairly convinced he was never atheist. He was just strongly irreligious, but clearly believed in something "spiritual" even then. Deist/Pantheist, leaning toward Neo-Pagan, would be closer to what he was in youth. There are letters from him then that clearly state he rejected the idea of "God as Father" because he felt it was a delusion per Freudian psychology, but I don't think he ever said much that showed he rejected all conceptions of God. Still I likely couldn't remove Lewis without creating objections. I will remove some if you find evidence they were never atheist and I will even remove Lewis if we can get a concensus to do so.--T. Anthony 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article title
Ignoring whether I think this should even have an article, I think the title is disingenious. Everyone is an ex-atheist since newborn babies aren't religious. List of former proponents of atheism sounds a bit better to me. Voretus/talk 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you sincerely believe that? If you do this is why you are incorrect. Newborn babies I suppose could be implicit atheists as they have not been introduced to the concept of God. (Although I know people who would reject that) However by the same logic you could call possibly say they're nihilists as well as they have no sense of truth or meaning of any kind yet. It's just not meaningful or useful to place babies in any metaphysical position like that. Still I don't oppose the rename, but I think it was unnecessary and you should've given it more discussion. (Interestingly only Muslims seem more irked by a "former list" than atheists do.)--T. Anthony 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know that it was a point of contention. I thought it was a given. Sorry. I wouldn't use the same logic to call them nihilists, though, as normally nihilism is asserted, whereas I've always held that anyone who doesn't believe in God, a goddess, gods, or a goddess is an atheist. I suppose it isn't explicit, as you said, but I didn't think that anyone thought that babies/young children were religious.
- I'm also not irked at a former list. If other religious/philisophical views get them, atheism should too, no matter how hard atheists complain about it. It's of the same use. I just didn't like the title. The list just seems to list former active proponents anyway. Voretus 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- For most people I think "atheist" means someone who doesn't believe in God. A newborn has no opinion on the matter, it's just ignorant. I think most people would find the statement "newborn babies are atheists" to be, at best, misleading or incoherent. In fact I'm not sure I'd ever heard such an expression before. Nihilism was maybe not the best example though. It'd be more like saying babies are amoral, non-democratic, and have no respect for the law. All that might be true in a sense, but it's essentially meaningless and possibly encourages inaccurate associations.--T. Anthony 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and done it. Voretus/talk 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)