Talk:List of atheists/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Moved from Talk:List_of_atheists to Talk:List of atheists/Archive 2 as discussion was 112kb oversize. Mkdwtalk 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Links

Reorganization of "arts" and "entertainment"

After seeing Rimsky-Korsakov on the "entertainment" section, as well as others who really blur the line between "arts" and "entertainment", to settle further dispute over something so subjective I have merged the two.

Inclusion standards

Who should be on the list of atheists? So far the ones discussing the subject have agreed on:

  • People who have influenced the history of atheism or advanced/influenced atheist thought in a significant way (first section).
  • Notable people (deserving of a Wikipedia article) who have atheism as a relevant part of their life, work, etc. (second section).

The first section includes not only activists but e.g. philosophers who constructed godless/humanist theories of ethics (their work contributes to atheism because it demonstrates the possibility of ethics without belief in God).

The second section is trickier, but we believe that simply including famous people is useless. If you need to dig out endlessly into interviews and public appearances of someone to find one instance of professing or implying atheism, then that person doesn't belong in here.

There could be advantages in dividing the list further. The temp list below is divided by time (pre-modern, modern (up to 19th cent.) and contemporary (20th cent. onwards)).

--Pablo D. Flores 12:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I myself am a bit confused as to what the purpose of these lists are. Is it meant to be a sample of influential atheists or is it meant to be prosopographical and comprehensive? If it is the former, I think that some people like Skandar Keynes hardly deserve to be on it and if it is the latter.... we have a lot of work to do!

This seems a very good standard, I would question whether someone like Rodney Dangerfield qualifies for the list or if his name is found simply because of some joke he has made in the past ("Thank God I'm an athiest"). One problem I will always have with such lists is that people are constantly changing their religious outlook on life.

How to divide the list

As of today, we have "Notables" and "Others", each one divided into "Contemporary", "Modern" and "Pre-modern".

Another possible division would be

  • activists/reformers
  • philosophers/scientists
  • writers/poets/filmmakers
  • entertainers/presenters/actors/celebrities et al.

Solipsist comments:

With the 'People who have influenced the history of atheism' section, you might try listing chronologically by date-of-birth, rather than alphabetically. In a way it helps illustrate the development of ideas...
I would caution against deletion of celebrity atheists just because they are celebrities. ... On the other hand, there isn't much wrong with deleting entries and asking anyone who restores them to justify the restore.
Currently, the division between "notable" and "other" atheists seems pretty arbitrary. Why, for instance, are Isaac Asimov, Mark Twain and Mao Zedong not listed under "notable atheists"? They were certainly notable people who were atheists. The justification seems to be some sort of division between people who made a big deal of their atheism versus those who didn't, without any objective criteria for such a division. In my opinion, this needs to be reworked, perhaps listing them instead based on their professions (compare for example list of Jews and list of Muslims). — Ливай | ☺ 23:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agnostics

Many people qualified themselves as agnostics because it was politically or physically dangerous to be outright atheists (Susan B. Anthony); others were philosophically agnostic but atheists in practice (cf Bertrand Russell). We need to adress this. I'd vote for inclusiveness, but there must be a way to avoid letting in the most dubious "presumed atheists". --Pablo D. Flores 01:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how we could address this issue. If we are certain they were truly atheists and have a certain degree of proof about it, they should be included. However, the fact that they were seen as agnostics back in their time may be a sign that they weren't all that influential in the first place (??). --Comics
Not really. In fact, they may have been too influential/popular. That's why I mentioned Susan B. Anthony -- she was probably an atheist but kept more or less quiet about it since it would have damaged her reputation in other causes that she deemed prioritary (like women's suffrage). --Pablo D. Flores 12:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PS Should we include a brief definition of what an atheist is, weak vs. strong, etc.?
No, I don't think so. It's not the purpose of the article. However, it would be useful to just point to Atheism and state that an explanation is available there. --Comics 21:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Surely an atheist is one who is not a theist, thereby including agnostics (a- means not) Lucas42 16:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
No, an agnostic is NOT an athiest. An athiest is a person that does not believe in the slightest possibility of a God, an agnostic believes that there MAY be a God, therefore they are not athiest or thiest. Rshu 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is such; Agnostics are those who don’t deny the possibility that a God exists whereas Atheists are those who do deny the possibility that a God exists. Whether or not an Agnostic believes there can be no proof is irrelevant and should not automatically define them as an Atheist. Druac Blaise 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you, er, read the articles on atheism and agnosticism? Atheism is the lack of an active belief in God or gods; agnosticism is the acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge as to whether or not God exists. Everyone is either an atheist or a theist, by definition. Most people who describe themselves as "agnostic" are agnostic atheists, although a very few are agnostic theists. Almost all atheists are agnostic. --Switch 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of social pressures against acknowledging one's atheism, I recently heard a profound comment: that many people's belief is not really in a God, but in the belief in a God. It's akin to Pascal's wager: better to be one the safe side. Anatopism 01:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions for atheism and for agnosticism. Not everyone uses or used the broad definition of atheism (lack of belief in God). I think we ought to give respect to the labels people have used to describe themselves and avoid retroactively applying labels based on our own understanding of their meaning today. If Darrow or Ingersoll or Susan B. Anthony called themselves agnostics, but never atheists, then they belong on List of agnostics, not List of atheists, even if you consider them atheists according to your particular standard of what an atheist is. Rohirok 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not "my standard", it's the correct definition. --Switch 11:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a correct definition, but it's not the correct definition. There is more than one definition of atheism, and no absolute way to determine the "one true" definition. I've talked to many agnostics, and whenever I've tried to convince them they're really atheists because they lack belief in God, they reject it outright. They reject that definition for themselves, as is their right, and as I've argued before, this ought to be respected. English doesn't have an Academy to set the meanings of its words in stone. They change with time and vary between groups. With such indeterminacy of meaning, self-identity by a certain label becomes the only neutral and objective way to determine whether someone falls within a certain belief category. Rohirok 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

I've moved the rejected items to a /Rejected subpage, as per the suggestion of MeltBanana. I'm also cleaning up some discussion here and summarizing it (hope you don't mind).

  • When you delete someone from the main list or from the Dubious list, place him/her in the /Rejected subpage and note the reason next to it.
  • If you move an item in the article page (as in the case of George Carlin being moved from Others to Notable), make a note in this Talk page (under a new heading).
  • If you check someone's bio in the Dubious list, note what you found next to it, and your opinion. Strike it out if it looks rejectable, then wait and see if anybody objects. If it looks absolutely rejectable from the start, move it directly to /Rejected.
  • For the sake or orderliness, let's place new comment topics under new headings. The top of this page should always be the summary of the inclusion standards. Makes the page easier to edit, too.

Pablo, it seems as through an unregistered user has deleted a few entries. I would have gone ahead and reverted it, but you did the research on these people, so I think it should be up to you. Took a quick look at Einstein, he seems to be ambiguous. For the others, I don't know. What do you think? --Comics 04:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For Susan B. Anthony I found this article in American Atheists. She is one of those people that may or may not be in the list, since there's no explicit profession of atheism, but everything points that way. In any case, I'm reverting. The unregistered user didn't offer a reason (as stated in the consensus policy) and didn't even offer a short explanation in the edit summary.
As for Einstein: definitely not a theist, maybe (and that's a big maybe) a pantheist, but it seems clear that "God" was more like a synonym for "the laws of the universe". Cf Stephen Hawking's "mind of God". Again, no reason given, so it'll be reverted. --Pablo D. Flores 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless the people in the dubious list are being checked, I'll begin striking off those who seem less convincing. And a couple weeks from now, struck-off items will be moved to Rejected. --Pablo D. Flores 12:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Einstein (again)

If you're thinking of deleting Einstein from the list, please please post a convincing reason here. Do not just delete him with a short comment on the edit summary. I'm reverting the last deletion now. Einstein said he did not believe in a personal God (that rules out deism, and theism for the most part), or prayer, or personal immortality, or anything supernatural besides cause and effect. --Pablo D. Flores 01:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article says he is a pantheist. Is that convincing enough for you? DJ Clayworth 02:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In case it isn't, here is a key quote.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
While there are a lot of other Einstein quotes indicating his rejection of traditional theistic belief, and of a personal God, you mustn't always assume that means atheism. Sometimes people's beliefs are hard to pin down. DJ Clayworth 02:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I on one occasion deleted Einstein, I guess I should say something here. It is true that Einstein empathetically rejected having faith in a personal god (and I would like to note that this does *not* contradict deism, per wikipedia and other sources such as dictionary.com), I believe it was on the same occasion that he described his positive belief in some entity he labelled god. I don't have the exact quote, but it should be easy to find, and runs something like "My god is the god of Spinoza", making him a modern pantheist. I think these are reasons sufficient to at least make it very doubtful that he was an atheist, which is not compatible with belief in ANY god. --Teeks 22:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

As mentioned on the archived talk page

Removed Stephen Hawking - although many people imagine he must be an atheist, publicly he is deliberately equivocal on the point. When pressed he has said 'I don't believe in a personal God', but he can believe in a God as the embodiment of the laws of physics. - Solipsist 16:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hawking is most likely a deist, so removed again. -- Solipsist 08:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read in Vanity Fair that Hawking was an Atheist-I'm the one who added him in April 2005. I thought that qualified as evidence. Seriously, is there any evidence to the contrary? -- User:152.163.100.70 05:43, 7 Apr 2005
The 2004 Vanity Fair article was pretty good. I don't recall what it had to say on Hawking being an atheist, but I may still have the article around somewhere. The general view that Hawking is a deist, with several quotes and references can be found on the Celebrity atheist list. -- Solipsist 21:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism." - Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer Druac Blaise 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]" - About.com - Quotations on Freethought and Religion Druac Blaise 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kemal Ataturk

Is there a proof that Kemal Ataturk is an atheist? I know no speech, or writing of his that says so. May very well be of course. But I don't know any proof in that direction. Abolishing chaliphate does not make him an atheist. Or being in favor of secularism. If there is no proof someone can point to, I say lets delete his name from the list. Aknxy 23:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dubious or in the process of checking

  • Aziz Nesin Check this one out: yes he is an atheist. He was a popular Turkish humorist and author of more than 100 books. His birth name was Mehmet Nusret.
  • John Baskerville (1706-1775) - British printer, openly atheist, requested to be buried in unconsecrated ground.
    • His last request is about the only thing worth mentioning? -PDF
  • Steve Benson - American Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist, grandson of former U. S. Secretary of Agriculture and LDS prophet Ezra Taft Benson.
    • This guy denounced the Church for covering up his grandfather's senility, then became an atheist. Not really important IMHO. On second thought, he may deserve a small place in the Others section... -PDF
  • George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron - British Romantic poet
    • Undoubtedly notable, but is there something else besides a scandalous life? - Anybody?
  • Ani DiFranco (1970-) - American progressive feminist singer, guitarist, and songwriter.
    • Very interesting person indeed, yet her atheism should be confirmed. Do her lyrics mention it?
  • Paul R. Ehrlich (1932-) - American entomologist, more known by his book The Population Bomb, and a founder of the Zero Population Growth group.
    • Yet another unconfirmed.
  • T. E. Lawrence (1888-1935) - (Lawrence of Arabia), British guerilla soldier and writer
    • No idea about this.
    • I'm 100% sure he wasn't. In a book he wrote (The Mint), he says that only the first four words of the Anglican creed remain, which are "I believe in God."
  • H. P. Lovecraft - American author of fantasy and horror fiction
    • Confirm this. The article says he had mystic beliefs, though it might mean he was *interested* in mystic beliefs (anthropologically).
  • John McCarthy - AI researcher and inventor of Lisp programming language^
    • Looks important, but not relevant. Quotes suggest a skeptic. Apparently a talkative guy, yet didn't say much on atheism.
  • Henry Morgentaler (1923-) - Canadian medical doctor and abortion rights activist. Founder of Humanist Association of Canada.
  • Roy Neuberger (1903-) - financier and art collector, his preference of wealth over spirituality estranges him from his son, who wrote a book on the need for spirituality in his life and rediscovering Judaism.
    • Interviews? Anything on the record? At best an "Others".
    • Found that some of his lyrics may be influenced by or discuss religion. I'm not familiar with his stuff, though, so I'm not sure to what extent.
  • Christopher Reeve - American actor, director, and writer
    • Confirm atheism. Seems like many people were included in this list only because they were non-Republican or not willing to thank God in public at every opportunity...
    • As a Unitarian, not likely he was an atheist. See the Reader's Digest interview not long before his death - "RD: You went nearly 50 years without religion in your life. What made you recently join the Unitarian Church? Reeve: It gives me a moral compass. I often refer to Abe Lincoln, who said, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion." I think we all have a little voice inside us that will guide us. It may be God, I don't know. But I think that if we shut out all the noise and clutter from our lives and listen to that voice, it will tell us the right thing to do. The Unitarian believes that God is good, and believes that God believes that man is good. Inherently. The Unitarian God is not a God of vengeance. And that is something I can appreciate." --KillerChihuahua 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991) - American TV writer, producer, creator of Star Trek.
    • Isolated sentence in bio: "He was a secular humanist". ST fans needed to find traces of nonbelief in the series and movies.
  • Olive Schreiner - South African writer.
    • Confirm, especially literary themes.
  • Gore Vidal - American author
    • Needs confirmation.
  • Virginia Woolf - author and feminist
    • Nothing about atheism or religion in her bio. Writing topics?
    • Sould be noted that she is doing double time at List of pagans, atheism a major theme in many of her works, this [1] seems to confirm it.
  • Philip Pullman (1946-) - British writer, author of the His Dark Materials fantasy trilogy, seen by many as a rebuttal to C. S. Lewis Cristian alegory Narnia.
    • Very likely candidate for "notable", if anyone can confirm his atheism. Imagine writing an anti-Christian children's book and turning it into a bestseller!
      • Is an associate of the National Secular Society which suggests his atheism. I have a tape of an appearance on The South Bank Show, in which he may confirm it.Elephant Juice

Unchecked so far

  • François de La Rochefoucauld - French writer and philosopher
  • George Orwell - British author and journalist
    • Probably was an atheist but very few quotes to prove it and his writings suggests he was attached to the traditions of religion rather then the beliefs. Not particularly notable for his views on the subject.
  • Niels Bohr(1885-1962) - Danish physicst who calculated the energy levels of Hydrogen and came up with the Bohr model of the atom.
  • Alfred Kinsey - I, SocratesJedi, have found several citations on the internet indicating his atheism, but have not yet verified. I intend to do some research at the university library on him tomorrow (and hopefully settle the question), but if someone wants to check this out before me I certainly wouldn't object. In any case, I added him to the list tenatively. So if you find otherwise, remove him.

References

You can find source information on several of these people on the List of atheists talk page and its archive... oh right, that's here. Philip Pullman for example already has several references.

Simon Bolivar would be worth some further investigation. He was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, in part for being an atheist (although this may be referring to his masonic connections, and it may have been politically motivated). As a founding farther of several Latin American states, he is potentially very notable as a counter to the history of the Conquistadors under the Catholic Church. -- Solipsist 18:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The net is awfully lacking in this respect. All I've found is rumors. Some say he was a mason, others say he was an atheist, most say he was accused of being an atheist by the Catholic Church (politically motivated as you say), and some Catholic revisionists say he was a devout church-going guy. I'm inclined to believe he was indeed a mason, which would put him in line with others at the time (cf José de San Martín, Argentina/Chile/Peru Libertador). I find it extremely unlikely to believe that he was a mason and a covert atheist --Pablo D. Flores 14:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know what you mean. One of the better online references for this one in terms of credibility is [2], but it doesn't really say why or give details on any of the people mentioned. It might take a book to resolve it. -- Solipsist 23:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are that if the net is ambiguous on the topic, or there is insufficient information, he should be scratched off. A person like this would only be considered again if someone could provide sufficient information to back a claim of atheism or whatnot. --Comics 21:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed some names

Here are some names I removed, and why:

DJ Clayworth 02:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albert Einstein was an atheist, not a pantheist, according to Albert Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
Clarence Darrow was an agnostic atheist, not an agnostic theist. There's no such thing as simply "agnostic".
Adraeus 19:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I must respectfully disagree with Adraeus. Einstein saying he did not believe in a personal god is not at all the same as saying he belived in no god whatsoever, or reserved judgement on the matter. Also, there is indeed such a thing as simply "agnostic" - agnostic theists think there is a god but they cannot prove it, agnostic atheists think there is no god but cannot prove it, and agnostics (no qualifier) have no idea. There is also the apathetic agnostic, who doesn't know and doesn't care. I removed:

Known as "The Great Agnostic" during (and after) his lifetime, he was clearly, by his own frequent statements, agnostic not atheistic. An argument could be made for his being more deist or pantheist in outlook, but agnostic he was. --KillerChihuahua 18:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about Ingersoll. However the page on him links to an external site of the Council for Secular Humanism, which only mentions him as an agnostic. So I would tend to agree. -- Solipsist 19:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to add another link to clear any confusion: Why I Am An Agnostic, by Robert G. Ingersoll. --KillerChihuahua 19:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gene Roddenberry

Some quotes purportedly authored by Roddenberry:

"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

Adraeus 19:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that these do not establish Roddenberry's atheism, just his healthy distaste for the more extreme outcroppings of theism. Criticizing religion and denying an "all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans" (assuming he made these quotes, of course) would still only establish him as a strong skeptic. JRM 02:45, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Other

I have removed the request for attention to this page, as I think it has sufficiently improved for the moment and is no longer in need of major cleanup. If anyone disagrees with this, please protest here. --Comics 21:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion David Hume

I removed David Hume because, at least from what I've read, even though he was skeptic of miracles, the argument from design did make sense to him. Further reading on this, can be found at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ515.HTM and http://www.vision-uk.org/jrnl/0001/bvdhume.html - User:168.243.215.234 06:03, 27 Mar 2005

This has been discussed before, although now it has been side-lined to the Old discussion page. I would say the ~erasmus site has no credibility at all. -- Solipsist 06:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, it seems Hume did shatter the Argument from Design. However, although some would say the logical outcome of his skepticism would be atheism, it still isn't quite clear to me whether he was one. Some online essays cite him as rather a Deist, but after reading how pragmatic he was, I'm more inclined to think he was indeed an atheist who would keep it to himself just to avoid troubles with the authorities of the time.
Not sure.. Hume scholars dilineate between the "hard Hume" and the "soft Hume" - the former being the famous skeptical philosopher, and the "soft Hume" being a very different view: the philosopher writing on how we should live practically. So just because the "hard Hume" side of his writings might rule out arguments for God's existence, it shouldn't lead us to think that necessarily Hume himself lived a life not believing in God. For example, "Hard Hume" also says we can have no logical reason for believing in the self, since "we" are only a stream of sense perceptions. Again, this shouldn't lead us to think that Hume lived this out and had no sense of self or of other selves (other people). FranksValli 04:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

List of NON-Atheists often presumed to be Atheists?

Should we add a section on Non-atheists commonly, or often, presumed to be atheist? I am thinking of Einstein, Hume, Ingersoll, and such - who have been ON and OFF this darn article so many times it boggles the mind. If there were a short list of the 10 most commonly added non-atheists, with a short word of explanation, it might reduce the number of times they have to be deleted again, with corresponding evidence, quotes, and links to back up the decision.

--KillerChihuahua 18:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well if you ask me, part of the problem is that these lists are separate. That tends to lead to incompatible views being expressed on different lists. The real trouble is that there are several different interpretations on what an atheist/humanist/agnostic/deist really is, and many people meander between them during their life time. Hume is a good case in point as an unresolvable figure who straddles the atheist/agnostic boundary. If anything, the answer might be to merge several of these lists. -- Solipsist 19:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you ask me, this on/off thing should stop, for a while, until everybody has checked their sources. This

biography of Ingersoll says that he was an agnostic atheist, which is a perfectly accepted and acceptable term, since (like someone else in this page explained before), there's no such thing as an agnostic (unmodified) -- everybody has an opinion on God, even if it is "I'm not interested". Ingersoll was, according to this bio and to everything I've read elsewhere, an agnostic (said he didn't know if God existed) and an atheist (he didn't believe God existed). I respect the point of view of KillerChihuahua, but this could easily lead the problem of the Martian porcelain teapot. Can you deny, with full knowledge, that there's a porcelain teapot in orbit around Mars right now? No, but that doesn't leave you an "agnostic" on the issue (because you most surely don't believe there's a teapot out there). This meta-discussion is all very interesting, but it helps no-one if the Talk page becomes ten times as large as the main article. --Pablo D. Flores 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Edison

- "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." - "Religion is all bunk." - "All Bibles are man-made." - "My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it."\ - “God? God?” he exclaimed later, “A Supreme Being, sitting on a throne and commending human individuals to eternal peace or condemning them to everlasting punishment for what they have achieved or failed to do upon this earth? The thought to me seems as abhorrent as fallacious.” - and also this, generally: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/edison/ -- obviously a biased source, but it does consider the question of Edison's beliefs, with the texts of two interviews on religion that he gave.

Granted, Edison never got an ATHEISTS 4EVA tattoo on his forehead, but his case seems pretty open-and-shut. Besides, in his wikipedia bio article, it's stated, simply, that he "was an atheist" - either that needs to be taken out of there, or he should go on the list.

The criteria for making this list seem a bit too stringent. Mcsweet

Organization of the list generally

What about renaming the two categories, or just merging? "Notable" might be better as something like "Active" or "Outspoken" or whatever. In general, it just seems hard to parse the difference. Also, the division between "modern" and "contemporary" may be unnecessary. Is anyone up for turning this into, simply, a "list of atheists" instead of several lists?

Or, since we have so many murky cases, maybe a "list of atheists" about whose beliefs there can be no doubt, and then a list of "likely atheists" or "quasi-atheists" or something?

Well that is what it used to be and it was a bit chaotic. But then a couple of editors sorted out the new arrangement, largely to try and control the number of (not so)'celebrity atheists' of unproven status. The idea is that the 'Notable' atheists are those who were significant to, or developed the idea of atheism. The discussion is at the top of this talk page, and the bottom of the previous archived talk page. -- Solipsist 20:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh okay; hadn't seen the older versions, although I did see the discussion up top. I guess the distinction is important, and I'll move Edison down to "Other". Still, what about the Modern vs. Contemporary divide? I mean, we've got people who died in 1956 as "modern" and people who died in 1960 and '62 as "contemporary" - can't we just merge and have 2 lists instead of 4? And I'm still wondering if there isn't something other than "Notable" to call the first category - "Influential" or "Active" or "Activist" or something
Yes, I'm not so sure about the "Notable" title either - "Influential atheists" might be better. As for the Modern vs. Contemporary split, it doesn't worry me much either way. -- Solipsist 07:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
cool; i switched it to "influential or outspoken", and rearranged the lists to "living" and "past" and "classical"
The Modern/Contempory was a bit confusing certainly but the heading Past seems like funniest euphemism for dead you could use in such a list. Particularly as death has an important bearing on atheist philosophy it is surprising it does not say Those proved wrong. I suggest using Modern to describe everyone who is dead but not classical MeltBanana 00:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized the awkwardness of "Past" while I was switching things around but was too lazy too think of anything better, and "Modern" just seemed sort of off for folks who've been dead for two centuries and counting, even if it's sometimes used that way. Maybe we should just use "dead"? I mean, I doubt they'll be offended.

Michael Martin

Would Michael Martin (philosopher) belong in this list? nyenyec ☎ 23:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


Salvador Allende

What about Allende? There were many reports of his atheism from what I recall. I think he belongs in the list... George H.12:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Referenced

http://www.adherents.com links to this very article, as well as the other believer lists: [3]. It notes:

Most of these links are to web pages on other web sites, which we have no control over. But Adherents.com feels the links below are reliable, good-quality resources.

Since adherents.com is itself a very well-sourced site, that seems like a nice feather in our cap. JRM · Talk 10:01, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Section of converted atheists

I just removed a section of the article which listed "poeple who were atheists and now believe in God" and thought I should give a little justification in case anyone was interested. Those listed (1 person at the time) don't belong on this page since those people are, quite simply, not atheists and should be placed on the List of Christians page, or one of its many variants. Since none of those pages list people who were Christian but are now atheist, and rightfully so, I don't see why this list should. Also, the section and single entry were added by User:Rossnixon who seems to be pushing his POV in various articles. --TheMidnighters 15:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Confucius

Confucius was just added to the "dead" section of notable atheists in the article. His bio refers to him and his teachings as secular, but there is no mention I can find for a determination of atheism. Please confirm. The Bearded One 06:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I was also about to comment on this. The Wikipedia article on him states
"Although Confucianism is often followed in a religious manner by the Chinese, argument continues over whether to refer to it as a religion because it makes little reference to theological or spiritual matters (God(s), the afterlife, etc.)."
I will revert this edit unless evidence can be shown proving that he was in fact an atheist or influenced atheist thought. Comics 16:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I definitely wouldn't think that Confucius was an athiest. He strongly supported religion in a 'social' sense, endorsing things such as ritual, ancestor worship, and the Mandate of Heaven. While it could be argued that he supported those for what he saw as their their social effects and not out of any sort of religious belief, I still think that would be enough to disqualify him given the strict definition of 'Atheist' at the top of this list. --Aquillion 20:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I will revert the change unless somebody can justify the addition. Comics 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Several deletions that we might consider making

Lots of people on this list either have no evidence present to support the claim which would put them on the list of atheists, or their nonbelief is simply unimportant/irrelevant. As it says at the top of this page, "If you need to dig out endlessly into interviews and public appearances of someone to find one instance of professing or implying atheism, then that person doesn't belong in here." I think a lot of people ought to be removed or moved to the list of possibles until more relevant evidence is found.

The list of people are some that I deleted (though I should have probably made discussion about it on here before doing it, but nevertheless, they were subsequently reverted anyway) and includes, but is not limited to: Bill Gates, William Shatner, Richard Burton, and George C. Scott. There is no evidence in any of their articles that suggests they are or were atheist, and even if they are/were, in none of their cases is it relevant to the work they have contributed to the human race. I also deleted Trent Reznor because, though I have seen several quotations that suggest he is anti-religion (specifically organized Christianity), I have seen none that suggest he's atheist. However, his anti-religion stance is clearly relevant to his music, so I can see how we might justify including him - though I'd rather see something more concrete than just "religion sucks" quotes. Tons of people, celebrities and the like, have made public statements about religion, belief, or what have you, and have been completely misconstrued as to implying their respective theological stances.

Like it says, this isn't a list of what people may or may not be anti-religion, atheist, agnostic, acrostic, or whatever. This is apparently supposed to be a list of people whose non-belief manifested itself in their work.

I also deleted Thomas Edison, because, as I posted in the Thomas Edison article (it is still on the page about him), I found several sources claiming he was a deist, albeit one distrustful of religion. One rather clear source is linked to from Edison's page. Regardless, even if the claims that he was a deist are mistaken, Edison was an inventor, and I don't think he published anything about theology or religion, so that makes it irrelevant, so he clearly does not belong on this page for two reasons. --Othersider 07:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. When we reorganized this list and added the inclusion critera a while ago, I closely followed this page in order to ensure all additions were justified after we had cleaned it up. I stopped following it for a while and now that I look again, there are many names that do not deserve to be here considering the criteria that we had agreed upon. I have no problem with any of these changes. --Comics 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

He's on this list and List of Catholic authors as a convert. Can someone explain this to me? If he later became an atheist, he should be listed as a "late-life apostate". If vice versa, then a "late-life convert".--HistoricalPisces 18:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a little complex. See this and this. He did indeed convert for the sake of his third wife, who was a devout Catholic herself, but his religious views are generally described as ambivalent at best. This news article on his death notes that he was once a practicing Roman Catholic, implying that he lapsed, and several other sources seem to say similar things. Our Wikipedia article on him makes no mention of his religion beyond his upbringing one of his wives. A lot of places (like this, search for Hemingway) note him as being ambivalent; I suspect he would be best described as an agnostic of some form. --Aquillion 19:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

potential atheists

i've heard that these people are atheists but cannot confirm. (UPDATED)

quote from wikiquote:

"It's a big question. Getting rid of religion would be a good start, wouldn't it? It seems to be causing a lot of havoc."

When asked "Given the chance, how would you change the world?" (Independent, 18 March 2005.)

  • Linus Torvalds [5] - "Hmmmm, completely a-religious -- atheist. I find that people seem to think religion brings morals and appreciation of nature. I actually think it detracts from both. It gives people the excuse to say, "Oh, nature was just created", and so the act of creation is seen to be something miraculous. I appreciate the fact that, "Wow, it's incredible that something like this could have happened in the first place." I think we can have morals without getting religion into it, and a lot of bad things have come from organized religion in particular. I actually fear organized religion because it usually leads to misuses of power."

should we add? --Phil

The only one I would add is Woody Allen who is quite a strong atheist and it is often discussed and reflected in his work. I don't see how atheism could have influenced Björk. Same goes for Linus. He has not contributed anything to the field nor is his work influenced by atheism. --Comics 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
yes but isn't the point of the article to list atheists? does it necessarily have to be people who have contributed to the philosophy? --Phil 22:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. If we are simply to list atheists, this list would be hundreds of pages long. I don't think it's especially notable that any celebrity who has said "I am an atheist" or something of the sort should go on this list because, keep in mind, that is not necessarily encyclopedic content. I we determined a while ago a certain criteria set out by if a person has contributed to the advancement of atheism or that atheism played a large role in their lives and influenced their work dramatically. --Comics 14:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds

I wanted to make sure that there was at least a brief discussion on the Talk page about the potential inclusion of Torvalds (in the second section, obviously). In many parts of the world, there is a significant stigma attached to the label "atheist". So even people who are not activists, who are famous in other areas, should possibly be noted in the List.

The other section is for famous people who just happen/happened to be atheists, and whose unbelief is/was relevant in their life, but who do not/did not actively fight for its cause.

Torvalds seems to fit this criteria, yes? The Bearded One 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

When we first established that criteria I think what we meant was that it was relevant in their life and especially for their work. I don't think this is the case for Torvalds. The fact is that simply listing famous people who happen to be atheists is not really encyclopedic content and is exactly what this list USED to be, but we are now trying to avoid. Imagine if we were to list all famous people who just happen to have declared they are atheists how long (and ultimately useless) this article would be. That type of info should be reserved for their individual pages as it is biographical and little else. Also about stigma in many parts of the world, I don't think it's really relevant in Finland, where Torvalds was born. --Comics 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the paragraph describing the criteria for inclusion should be altered. The article should be up front about who is being included and for what reasons. I'll look at the text now and see if I can devise some appropriate changes. The Bearded One 05:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, this is vague. I have had this article off my watch list for some time but will be re-adding it, it seems a little too all-inclusive at this juncture. Scope-creep. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I feel darned sure that Vladimir Nabokov was an atheist, and stated so in print, but I don't have a cite. Anybody? - 9 Feb 2006

Sorry I don't have a cite for Nabokov but he would be one of the last people from which I would expect to get a simple answer to a question like that. Also importantly he is not realy a significant atheist in that he propagated athieism or it formed a major part of his work; so he doesn't realy belong on this list. MeltBanana 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Maher

Bill Maher He is not an atheist. He does not like religion and has made that point often on Larry King Live. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.75.106 (talk • contribs) . (moved from top by Deltabeignet)

I have to agree. Maher is critical of religion, but has also stated "I'm no atheist" on his television program. - AWF

Anaxagoras

Can we include a philosopher who said that all is directed by mind/intelligence as an Athiest simply for rejecting the gods that those around him worshipped?

Hitler

Pretty sure he was one. He might have deified himself, but I think he was otherwise pretty much an atheist. Also, shouldn't Stalin and Mao be on the list? Or is this only the "People atheists like to think of as being representitive of their viewpoints", which I doubt would be afforded to any other school of thought.

There is no evidence to support the fact that Hitler was an atheist. Certainly he was brought up as a Catholic, and may later have moved away from those beliefs, but there is no specific evidence to corroberate the fact that he was an atheist. On the contrary, there are quotes like:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
and
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
which show that he was certainly motivated by religious beliefs at one point in his life (at least well into the 1920s, but it is not certain if he continued with those belifs later one.

-cites for these quotes?

Also, I would suggest you look up facts before stating that there is a type of political agenda here. Mao and Stalin are both on the list. Your comments are just simply insulting to atheists, attempting to show that there is absolutely no selective inclusion of important figures in other religions. –Comics (Talk) 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if my comments seemed off-hand, but maybe I have been misled. However, I believe that there were many statements by the Nazi propaganda machine stating that Hitler equated his own philosophy with that of Nitzche's, including the "death of God". As for Stalin and Mao, I honestly did a text search and nothing came up...I suppose it was an error in my use of that function. As to selective inclusion, I merely meant that I believed "selective inclusion" was not something done on a site that is supposed to approach information objectively Corbmobile
From what I have seen, the evidence is certainly unclear. What I have seen is that, at least up until the time that he wrote Mein Kampf, he was deeply religious and, as the quote suggests, believed he was acting in the name of God. Once he took charge, however, it's a little unclear and I have not seen any quotes specifically professing atheism. –Comics (Talk) 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
During the war it is clear that Hitler looked down on Christianity, but thought that some religion was necessary as an opiate for the masses. As Albert Speer quotes him, "The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." Speer goes on to say that Hitler "conceived of the church as somthing that could be useful to him." More importantly, Speer quotes Hitler as saying "'You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the greatest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?'" These quotes are from Speer's Inside the Third Reich, page 95-96 in the version I have (Collier paperback 1981). These quotes make it certain that at this time Hitler did not believe in Christianity, and make it seem likely that he was atheist, as he only sees religion as means to his ends, rather than being true in any sense. ---Zathras 2 June 2006
With regard to Naziism in general, Hannah Arendt, a non-believer, said in Eichmann in Jeruselem that "in principle, the Nazis were as anti-Christian as they were anti-Jewish."
So ultimately, his religious beliefs were unclear, and as such he is certainly not notable for atheism. --Switch 07:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If Marx's comment about religion being an opiate of the masses is sufficient ground for him to be counted as an atheist, the above grounds are sufficient for Hitler. Both see religion as a tool to keep the masses in check, and the comments are in "reckless disregard" as to whether religion is true or not. Unless something more specific can be found for Marx, he should be taken off as well. ---Zathras 5 June 2006
Marx was a noted opponent of organised religion for some time. He was, for example, a member of the Young Hegelians, and he made his opinions on religion explicit in his own published works. He later left his Feurbachian materialist stance on religion, but maintained his disbelief and opposition to it. Hitler never said any such thing in public, only (allegedly) privately, and his published works are counter to that point if anything (Even in "Hitler's Second Book"). His religious beliefs are unclear. Marx's are not. --Switch 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting video at YouTube - "Was Hitler an Atheist?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-KWAwDJox4 Plus, I read Mein Kampf in A-Level history: I can tell you that it's chock-full of references to God and doing God's work. Hitler was a Christian, without any shadow of a doubt. 86.17.246.29 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that you are quite mistaken.
"It is important to be able to identify the difference between Hitler's public speeches and writing and what he really thought. A devious politician leading a nominally Christian country like 1930s Germany will say lots of Christian-sounding stuff to maintain popularity. Mein Kampf illustrates Hitler's views on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)"
from http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html (who phrased it much better than I could).
Also, some of Hitler's comments on Christianity:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)
from Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953) No Christian would make these comments. SparrowsWing 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Page revision needed?

This page is constantly being edited and re-edited, with many changes going back and forth. Obviously there is a lot of controversy inherent in the subject matter which (most of) the people on this list purport to stand for, but that doesn't mean that care can't be taken to accurately represent the contents of this page.

I'm not an atheist, but as someone who's interested in theology in general, I think I share as much interest in this page as anyone else. Obviously, there have been people listed on this page who aren't atheists, but perhaps may be against organized religion, or simply outspoken against any number of things. I think this has, among other things, led to the great amount of discrepancies and arguments about the contents of this page - at least, more so than pages specific to, say, adherents of particular religions. Generally if someone declares themself as an adherent of said religion, or makes strong references thereto, that's pretty much a slam dunk as to assigning them to that group. Unfortunately, a lot of atheists never speak out about their personal convictions, so we don't know about them. Likewise, a lot of people speak out about various things, which may sometimes be contorted into suggesting they are an atheist (or something else) when they actually aren't.

A recent example like this might include Bill Maher. It seems to be the popular contention that he's not an atheist, but is apparently outspoken about various things, including organized religion, which obviously has led some people to believe he is. Likewise, Jesse Ventura is listed as an 'outspoken atheist', when he might in fact not be one at all. From what I've read, the only thing I can determine is that he's decidedly against organized religion. That doesn't mean he's an atheist; lots of theists are against organized religion, and many are outspoken about it.

I know there are various suggestions listed on the page which suggest careful consideration when posting someone's name on here, but it seems some people have either ignored them or simply are misinformed. For whatever reason, the mechanism doesn't seem to be working quite like it was likely intended to.

Here's another example: Eddie Vedder. Eddie may be an atheist, and he is certainly outspoken, but I don't think he belongs on the list of outspoken atheists. I'm a big fan of Pearl Jam, and I have all their albums. For the most part, their music is decidedly secular. The average PJ fan probably has no idea of Eddie's personal beliefs, but if he were to belong on the list of "outspoken/influential", that would be something most or all of his fans knew.

I could say the same about a lot of the people on that list; I think many of them ought to be either moved to the list of "others" or removed.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Agree/disagree, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. After all, we should all be after the same thing (the truth), even if we disagree. --Othersider 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. I was one of the editors that helped draft the inclusion criteria for this page, and it completely transformed the direction of the page from a random list of atheists (with all kinds of irrelevant celebrities) to something a little more encyclopedic. I haven't been keeping up with this page too much lately, but I think the inclusion criteria needs to be revised, for one, and there also needs to be more discussion and checks surrounding people who are included. In the early days, User:Pablo-flores was very militant in checking and organizing everyone that was included here. However, it seems that the list has been degenerating as of late.
You make a very interesting point about Bill Maher. I, for one, thought that he was an atheist for the longest time. Certainly he is very outspoken about the problems of organized religion and their beliefs, and it is a recurring and important trend in his work. As he stated on Larry King Live the other night when he hosted, he has "no religion". This can be interpreted in many ways, however. One would see how outspoken and determined he is in criticizing religions yet, and I found this out only recently, he has stated himself to be agnostic, and does in fact believe in a type of God.
I would support revising the inclusion criteria for this list, and especially in terms of the "other" section, I have never been very happy with the wording. –Comics (Talk) 05:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As the creator and principal maintainer of 'The Celebrity Atheist List' [6] I've often wondered about the direction of this page. The CAL doesn't pretend to be encyclopedic or focus upon only those people who have been influential in the realm of godlessness. Since 1995, its purpose has been to demonstrate the diversity of atheists, containing both Nobel Laureates and even 'D' list celebs. Do we need two websites doing this? Thus, I'm with Comics in restricting inclusion on this list. --ReedEs 21:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Bachelet as a "major" atheist

Bachelet is a rare head of state in a staunchly Catholic country, and as such a particularly noteworthy example; all the more because she has been outspoken about her atheist views. Her role as a public example of atheism has also been celebrated in the writings of Christopher Hitchens. She deserves designation as a "major" atheist. - Reaverdrop 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure of this. Most of the reports I have seen have said that she is agnostic, however there are a few who have said atheists. Is there concrete evidence that she is indeed an atheist and not agnostic and, if not, does she deserve to be included here? –Comics (Talk) 13:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see the references to the New York Times and the Miami Herald in the Michelle Bachelet article that both have her describing herself as "atheist", and see the discussion at Talk:Michelle_Bachelet#Agnostic_v._Atheist. - Reaverdrop 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed Bachelet from the list. I have reverted the edit, the references and this discussion seem conclusive.Tex 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike Malloy?

he is in Category:Atheists. should he be listed here? --Phil 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know his work. Does he often spread the "good word" of atheism or seem important in expressing that POV? If not, does it seem central in determining his views on other issues? –Comics (Talk) 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hume

I removed Hume again. Here's a challenge: find me a direct quote by Hume denying belief in or existence of God and I'll add him back myself. Like any philosopher, different people interpret Hume differently, and in Hume's case they're not even working from something Hume himself said. So it's clearly biased to favor any one interpretation of Hume over any other. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

On declaiming

User:Fuhghettaboutit -- Very well, I'll let it stand as a trivial error. However the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, my native language, in the fourth edition is:

(intransitive) 1. To deliver a formal recitation, especially as an exercise in rhetoric or elocution. 2. To speak loudly and vehemently; inveigh.

(transitive) To utter or recite with rhetorical effect.

Or again, the Oxford American Dictionary...

declaim |diˈklām| verb [ reporting verb ] utter or deliver words or a speech in a rhetorical or impassioned way, as if to an audience : [ trans. ] she declaimed her views | [ intrans. ] a preacher declaiming from the pulpit. • [ intrans. ] ( declaim against) forcefully protest against or criticize (something).

Clearly the phrase "declaim against" is required in this sense. In the example given, "she declaimed her views", we would not ordinarily understand that she spoke in opposition to her own views. The OAD definition shows the phrase "declaim against" as idiomatic in the sense of to forcefully protest against (something). Tex 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing I respect is someone who takes the time to substantiate a position with research and argument, although your tone could be less strident. Nevertheless, I took a look at One look dictionary search and found that the weight of authority is not in my favor. Edit reverted. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it's difficult for me to tell how my tone comes across in print. It has also been referred to as arrogant. So I apologize for the stridency, perhaps it is an improvement, though. I am glad to learn of the One look dictionary search and must check into it. Tex 14:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard Feynman as atheist

In What Do You Care What Other People Think? (1988), Feynman described himself as "an avowed atheist" by his early youth. "I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn't want it distorted (by miracle stories). And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion."

I regard this as pretty conclusive, so I have reverted the recent removal of Feynman from the list. Tex 19:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations!

Can we please get some citations for the list of atheist many of the people mentioned seem suspect, if you were to venture to the list of agnostics there is a citation provided for every person mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.137.29 (talk • contribs)

I heartily agree that citations are needed, though, as this is a list, I wonder how this could be done in a compact amount of space. I question that some of the people included as atheists really are/were, and inclusion of a (good) source is a good indication that whomever it is attatched to should indeed be on the list.
Anna Kucsma 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree and I believe every citation but for two thus far was added by me, but I got discouraged after doing about thirty with no one else helping (it's pretty time intensive). I did reduce the size for the reference section to 90%, maybe it can go down a few percentage points but there's a limit at which readability becomes an issue. In any case, the problem with a massive number of articles is lack of citations. I think proper citation outweighs concerns over space issues. Please help!--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree and I would like to help on this matter. As long as the Reference section is at the bottom of the article, I don't think the size should be relevant. I think it is very important that citations are used for any and all names in the list, especially any new additions. I would also like to suggest putting the rejection talk page to better use. If we remove names, they should be added to the rejection list with citation as to why they were removed. Druac Blaise 21:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Woody Allen case.

I decided to add Woody Allen. This is one of my first edits so I looked for something easy. I already new Allen was an atheist but I checked his page on wiki anyway, and he was listed as an atheist at the bottom of that page. My edit got reverted, saying he's an agnostic not an atheist, fair enough. Only thing is I look at the talk page, and the only reference to Allen here makes it seem that he actually is an atheist. I know it to be true that Allen is in fact an outspoken atheist. I've heard the man speak he's about as sure as can be that there is no God.

Bertrand Russell on the other hand is on the list although he's well known as an agnostic. I have an article by Russell here saying he's actually an agnostic. There are quotes of Allen saying he's an atheist (See below). I'm not against saying some people are "not atheistic enough". There are many ways of drawing the line betwin atheism and agnosticism (The two deffinitions may or may not be mutualy exclusive), But I can't see how Russell is an atheist and Allen is not.

I'm sorry I but don't get it. Could someone please explain it to me?

Russel's attitude his complicated, but I'd be inclined to agree that he was not an atheist. As for Allen, I could have sworn he was an agnostic. Certainly some quotes attributed to him sound more agnostic than atheist: "If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever." If your sure about this feel free to put him back in. JoshuaZ 01:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article linked to above [7], Russell's position doesn't really seem that complicated. However, it does point to a misunderstanding that has cropped up a few times on this talk page. Atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Russell is an atheist is everyday terms (he doesn't believe in God) and an agnostic in philosophical terms (he cannot offer proof positive that there isn't a God). we ought to be concerned with the former, otherwise we should be working to a much stricter list general restricted to professional philosophers. There's a similar problem in the discussion on Darwin, below, I think--Vjam 18:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

Some Allen quotes that appear atheistic:
"To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."
"I do occasionally envy the person who is religious naturally, without being brainwashed into it or suckered into it by all the organized hustles."
"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"
"I do not believe in an afterlife, although I am bringing a change of underwear."
--Fuhghettaboutit 05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the last one to me sounds highly agnostic, although the others certainly seem pretty atheistic. I guess part of the problem is when someone tries to make a joke out of everything it is hard to tell what they actually think. Do we maybe have some actuall source that confirms it one way or the other? ( the quotes you gave certainly having me leaning to agree with you) JoshuaZ 05:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It is always hard to tell where someone stands if they have only approached the issue obliquely. In this case I doubt any definitive answer will ever emerge. For that reason, I think the answer is that we must first decide the degree of substantiation necessary for inclusion. Allen is certainly either an agnostic or an atheist. Maybe we can include him and draft qualification language for him and other ambigious cases so they are not barred from both lists. I propose the following simple note after the description of the individual: "Note: putative atheist; possibility of agnosticism." --Fuhghettaboutit 06:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a thought. It is possible to be both an atheist (practicly) and an agnostic (philosophicly). I think both Allen and Russell fall into that cathegory. In fact just about every atheist (and I'm saying this as an atheist) can be accused of agnosticism on some deep philosophical level. Isaac Asimov Himself has no problem saying he's an atheist and yet addmiting that one can't know or prove that there is no God, and is quoted as saying the following (see WikiQuote): "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." This is Strictly speaking an agnostic statement, but it begins with Asimov calling himself an Atheist out and out. my suggestion is that if someone defines themseves to be an atheist and he or she isn't obviosly a theist, or if someone says things to the nature of "there is no God", that this person should be considered an athiest until proven otherwise. We shouldn't bother with the "Agnostic or Atheist" problem because it does not exist. It is quite possible for someone to be both. As to Allen, he never denied being an atheist, and has in fact not only implied that he does not believe in God but said it publicly. He is therefore an atheist unless there's any recent evidence that he clearly said that he is not (jokes about underware do not count). The same goes for Russell. He's an atheist in every practical sense and an agnostic in a philosophical one. And if you have to choose one than you must favor atheism becuase otherwise you'd be left without any atheists.
This sort of policy starts to run dangerously close to WP:OR, I think Fuhg's suggestion makes slightly more sense, but I have no strong preference either way. (By the way, you seem to be a level headed, well-educated editor, why not get an account?) JoshuaZ 15:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Can't possibly cram any more passwords into my memory at the moment. All in good time, it's on my to do list. I'm not sure what you mean by "Original research". One has to decide what to do with Allen and Russell. I think if you dig deep enough you'll find that most self proclaimed atheists are "actually" agnostic by the harshest of deffinitions, which makes inclusion in the list a question of how public and clear the statements of "strict agnosticism" that the person made were. One must either put the line somewhere, which means it could be open to interpretation and debate, or decide that the two are not mutually exclusive (This means at least two line to draw), which would mean the same but in a different way. I think that we should decide that the two are not mutually exclusive not because that would be easier on editors (Which it may or may not be), but because I believe they just aren't. Russell is by his own words, both an atheist and an agnostic, and being the prominent philosopher that he is, I think we should take his word for it. In my view an agnostic is not an atheist if he truely has no solid opinion on the question of the existance of God, or tends to think there is one.
You have convinced me enough. Feel free to add Allen back in. JoshuaZ 17:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I did.

First/second section

Exactly what are the criteria applied to people to merit inclusion on the first section of the list? Apparently, The first one is for atheists who are or were notable defenders of the cause of atheism, or who advocated views of the human condition, society, economy, etc., that were compatible with atheism. In short, these people are or were important for other atheists, since they contribute(d) to the popularization, understanding, and acceptance of atheism in society, either through their works or through their deeds. I don't see how, for example, Greg Graffin is not a defender of the cause of atheism, or how he fails to advocate compatible views of the human condition and society. He's certainly important for young atheists in recent times, being a popular musician, well-educated and well-spoken, and his writings (in his short pieces, his books and his lyrics) have contributed to understanding (and, arguably, popularisation) of atheism.

Also, quickly noting in case someone thinks he should be removed, I'm about to add Mitch Clem to the second section, as he a) frequently mocks religion in his comics, and b) posted the following on his livejournal:

I used to be agnostic too. The thing is, I do actively disbelieve in god. I don't see it as feasable in any way. Sure, I have no evidence that he doesn't exist, but I also have no evidence to prove that I myself am not the ruler of all reality. Come on, religion was MADE UP by man. Made up. It's false. It's a man-made entity. God didn't write the bible, did he? You can believe or disbelieve anything you want, and really, I don't care. But I don't like agnostics trivializing the way I see the world just because they still view the existance of god as an option.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SwitChar (talk • contribs) .

I'll also note that there are several individuals who are included in both sections. Isaac Asimov and Robin Cook are two that I noted on a quick skim through. The Bearded One 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov?

The Guardian quote cited is suspect. While Stravinsky DID know RK quite well, it is demonstrably false that RK never wrote any music with a metaphysical content as he wrote several Orthodox liturgies. Thus, I think further evidence should be cited in support of his inclusion on the list.

Whoever you are, I don't think anyone has claimed RK never wrote liturgies, only that writing them is not evidence of belief. I think the Guardian quote is quite sufficient for the purposes of this list but to expand on what Stravinksy said (courtesy of his own words quoted in the liner notes to his symphonies in the Sony 'Stravinsky Edition' CD collection):
I adored Rimsky but did not like his "mentality", by which I mean his almost bourgeous atheism (he would call it his "rationalism"). His mind was closed to any religious or metaphysical idea. I remember someone introducing "resurrection" as a topic and Rimsky drawing a zero on the tablecloth as he said: "There is nothing after death; death is the end." I then had the temerity to suggest that perhaps his was also merely one point of view, but was made to feel for some time thereafter that I should have held my peace...
Cheers, Ian Rose 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin

Why is he on the list with no citations at all? Just because he lived in the USSR doesn't make him an atheist.

How about his famous "I did not see God" quote? --Bonalaw 09:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, although often attributed to Gagarin, whether he actually said that is disputed (see his Wikipedia article). One cosmonaut who did say words to that effect was Gherman Titov [8] - so perhaps we should put him in the list, though I understand the concern with taking as gospel (so to speak!) atheistic statements made by high-profile Russians during the Soviet era. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, if Gagarin didn't say that, I'm sure someone in the government would have said it for him (the USSR OR the American government). Afterall, both states portrayed themselves internationally as defending God or reason. I'm suspicious of the quote b/c it has precedent in the Soviet classes of "scientific atheism" in which they would put devout peasants in airplanes and take them into the sky to show that there was no God there. The bottom line is that I think that there should be a stricter standard and that it should take more a public statement to put a Soviet on the list. I'm sure that atheistic statements were made by Solzhenitsyn and Tarkovsky while they lived in the USSR and neither of them were/are atheists. That said, Khruschev def belongs on the list if he isn't already there.

Likewise with...

Mikhail Gorbachev

I would like to see some quotes of his AFTER his tenure as general secretary of the CP of the USSR regarding atheism. His quotes often refer to the afterlife (of course that doesn't make him a theist). But he also attends Orthodox liturgies and had a church funeral for his wife.


Charles Darwin

Wasn't he an agnostic?

From the article:
In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
Darwin called himself an agnostic and explicitly denied being an atheist, so he doesn't belong on the list. Removed. JRM · Talk 01:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinserting. Darwin described himself as an agnostic and almost certianly was. However, as per the discussion above about Bertrand Russell, this does not exclude the possibility that he was also an atheist. He appears to have disliked the term (which brings a whole debate about Victorian understandings of athesim and agnosticism). But, the weight of evidence is that there's a compendium of quotes from him stating what he does not believe, and (as far as I'm aware) nothing to suggest that he had any spiritual or religious belief (at least during his late life). --Vjam 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with retroactively applying modern understandings of the word atheist to people in the past who specifically refused to use that label to identify themselves. It does not give proper respect to their chosen self-identity. I suppose that if someone found a quote from Darwin where he said he did not believe in God, I would have no problem with his name being added to something like a List of people who do not believe in God or List of nontheists. But I don't think he belongs here because he said specifically: "...I have never been an Atheist..." (emphasis mine). See: The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Ch. VIII, p. 274. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905.
In any case, the previously cited quote did not even indicate that Darwin did not believe in God, and was therefore an atheist even according to the modern, broad sense of the word. A quote from Darwin that indicates he did not believe in God is needed before we even begin to consider whether he ought to be added to this list, despite his rejection of the label atheist.
And regarding Russell: I do not believe his inclusion sets precedent for Darwin's inclusion, since Russell explicitly acknowledge the difference between philosophical and popular senses of the words agnostic and atheist, and therefore provisionally accepted the label atheist for himself, as it conveyed a more accurate understanding of his position on God's existence to the general public. See his quote cited in List of agnostics. Rohirok 23:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dawson

Wouldn't be surprised, but totally unsourced.

Theo van Gogh

Removed:

Although deeply critical of organized religion and Islam in particular, nothing indicates that he was an atheist. If indeed he was an atheist, he doesn't seem to have been "outspoken" about it. Criticizing organized religion is not the same as being an outspoken atheist. JRM · Talk 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in the list

Don't be afraid to simply cut out and/or move to the talk page anything that doesn't come with a citation (check the main article, there will either be a mention of atheism somewhere (in which case, copy that) or there won't be (in which case, just strip it from this list)). There's a reason the list was reformed into what it is now, and it's exactly because it was growing uncontrollaby and without verification.

The "other atheists" section is a horror to maintain, really. To make matters worse, entries seem to just be duplicated between the sections, and alphabetic order seems to be going out of fashion too.

There's no way any single person is going to be able to keep this list organized and valuable as a reference; just check a few names which take your fancy or who appear particularly out of place. If we all do this we should be able to keep it in check somewhat. The most important thing is that we keep the requirement for references; anyone can slap their favorite celebrity on this list, but unless you can point to a verifiable source where your favorite celebrity actually says "I am an atheist", you probably shouldn't. JRM · Talk 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the above, I am again asking for help with sourcing the article. I will pick up where I left off, but if all contributors just add two we can get this into shape in no time. However, for a number of the citations I added, I first checked the Wikipedia article and found no mention of atheism, so I do not agree with that portion of the above. A simple google search should at least be tried. --Fuhghettaboutit 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Freuds entry and its mention of god and the oedipal complex

OK, so as I was skimming the list, I saw the entry for Freud and it originally stated that...

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939): Austrian neurologist, father of psychoanalysis, considered the belief in God to stem from the oedipal relationship with one's own father.

I am no expert (and please don't yell at me if I am wrong), but the oedipal complex is a fixation on the mother not the father so I made a minor edit by changing the word father to mother. But, then I realized maybe the part about mother was correct, and the error was made by calling it the oedipal complex insted of the electra complex (meaning I should have left mother alone and I should have changed Oedipal to Electra. So... I read the Freud wiki, then read (skimmed through both actually) the Oedipal Complex wiki, but I could not find any reference to the belief in god coming from either the Oedipal OR Electra complex. I don't know where the person who made that entry got the information. Can the information be verified... or maybe that part should be removed?

So, now I don't know what to do. I am a real newbie to Wikipedia and I don't want to mess up anyones work so please someone help me out with this issue.

--FiremanJersey 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the oedipus complex works both ways (ooh er) fixation upon the mother means rejection and antagonism towards the father. Certainly it seems wrong to suggest that Freud was an atheist because he thought of the oedipus complex or that he promoted atheism with the theory. This quote from Totem and Taboo seems to cover the idea "At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father." MeltBanana 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about the complex working both ways... in fact, according to a paragraph on the Sigmund Freud page... it states...
"Freud argued that children then passed through a stage in which they fixated on the mother as a sexual object, known as the Oedipus Complex but that the child eventually overcame and repressed this desire because of its taboo nature. (The lesser known Electra complex refers to such a fixation upon the father.)"
I think it's Oedipal for maternal fixation and Electra for paternal fixation, meaning a specific term for specific parent. But I do agree with you that to infer that Freud had a atheistic viewpoint from his ideas or statements on the oedipal (or electra... whatever) complex doesn't seem correct. -FiremanJersey 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)



Francis Crick

I think that "agnostic with a strong inclination towards atheism" should qualify him, in addition to his work in opposition to any non materialstic or vitalistic though.


"Classical Atheists"

I think that most of these people should be taken off (at least among the Greeks with whom I am familiar) as their writings are for the most part only known through secondary sources and many were accused of atheism merely for holding unpopular beliefs.

Please don't hesitate to do so, or (which may be even more useful) to annotate the entries with sources that show how they were only attributed atheists. I think this list is much better off if the burden of proof rests on those who want to add people to it, not on those who want to remove them. JRM · Talk 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


"Aleksander Kwaśniewski"

He is not Atheist. He had ,,back" to catholisism after John Paul II death.

Laplace/Dirac

There is a similar discussion on going about Laplace form his own wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Confused

I believe there is some doubt regarding his true stance on religion and God, so he should be removed from the list. Here are the links and quotes from the other discussion, any other references would be very helpful:

http://www.nndb.com/people/871/000031778/

“Expressions occur in Laplace's private letters inconsistent with the atheistical opinions he is commonly believed to have held.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08796a.htm

“Laplace was born and died a Catholic. It has been asserted that to Laplace the Creator was an hypothesis. The origin of this assertion lies in the misinterpretation of a passage of the "Système du Monde" (Oeuvres, VI, 1835, p. 480), where it is evident that by "vain hypotheses" Laplace meant the Deus ex machina of Newton and the "perpetual miracle" of Leibniz's Harmony. It is true that Laplace indulges in a frivolous remark against Callistus III both in the "Theory of Probabilities" (Introduction, also separately as "Essai Philosophique") and in the "System of the World" (IV, iv). He partly atoned for it by omitting the remark in his fourth edition of the "Essai". Death prevented him from doing the same in the sixth edition of the "Système du Monde", the correcting of which he had commenced during his last illness. He died at his home in Paris, Rue du Bac, attended by the curé of the Foreign Missions, in whose parish he was to be buried, and the curé of Arcueil, whom he had called to administer the last comforts of religion (de Joannis, p. 27).”

Also I thought I have read somewhere that there are also doubts about Paul Dirac’s atheist views. I know this quote is attributed to him:

“God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.”

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/god_used_beautiful_mathematics_in_creating_the/342505.html

I am not too sure about Dirac, but I really think Laplace should be removed. Thanks.


Since no other dicussion was added over the last few weeks I am going to remove Laplace because of the possible discrepancy about his true beliefs. --24.184.179.24 02:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut

I'm not so sure if Kurt Vonnegut would consider himself an atheist. I read somewhere that he said when he hears music it convinces him that there is a God. It seems that this is a common problem in this article, we shouldn't label someone an atheist until we have a direct quote. dhawk1964

I agree, he never explained himself in such simplistic terms. Chapter 21 of Timequake is particularly amusing on this matter. MeltBanana 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am Honorary President of the American Humanist Association...
Are we enemies of members of organized religions? No. My great war buddy Bernard V. O'Hare, now dead, lost his faith as a Roman Catholic during World War Two. I didn't like that. I thought that was too much to lose. I had never had faith like that...
writing to a released, long term prisoner:
"Join a church." I said this because what such a grown-up waif needs more than anything is something like a family.
  • Those statements don't explicitly deny the existence of God. Dhawk1964 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Atheists don't explicitly deny the existence of God. Absence of belief is not belief in absence. --Switch 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, those statements don't explicitly deny his own belief in God.Dhawk1964 19:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Why is Castro mentioned if, as claimed, "he declares himself a believer"?

Problems with sources and inclusion criteria

I have noticed a number of recurring problems with this list and the various people who have been added/deleted repeatedly:

  1. Entries with no source at all.
  2. Entries whose cited source does not really confirm the person's atheism, but rather confirms such things as a critical or skeptical attitude toward religion.
  3. Entries of people who specifically deny being an atheist (Darwin, in particular).
  4. Entries of people who specifically identified themselves as an agnostic, but never as an atheist.

Besides adding sources, there is an easy solution for the sourceless entries: Deletion. We needn't worry that deleted entries will be gone forever. If anyone is deleted from the list who does belong on the list, those who wish to include them will sooner or later find a source and restore them. As long as sourceless entries remain unchallenged, they are likely to remain sourceless indefinitely. Wikipedia:Verifiability#The_policy is relevant here.

Entries that cite a source that doesn't say anything about a person being an atheist ought to be treated the same as entries with no source at all. Quotes like "Religion is nothing but superstition," or "The church is utterly corrupt" do nothing to indicate whether the quoted person believes in a God or gods. Someone can think that religion is superstition, or that churches are corrupt, yet still believe in God. These entries ought to be deleted until a relevant source is found.

It's inappropriate and anachronistic to apply the broad, modern understanding of the word atheism to people who explicitly rejected the label in their own day. A person's choice of labels ought to be respected. If Darwin said he wasn't an atheist, he doesn't belong on this list. As an analogy, consider how absurd it would be to go back and recategorize historical Republicans (like Lincoln) as Democrats simply because we consider their political beliefs to be closer to modern Democrats' views. Lincoln was a Republican, and a Republican he shall always remain, even if his party's views evolve over time to be quite different from what they were during the Civil War.

Similarly, it's inappropriate to apply the label atheist to living people who have specified an alternative label for their views on God's existence, even if they have never explicitly denied being an atheist. Someone who calls themselves an agnostic is doubtless also aware of the word atheist, and if they never identify themselves as an atheist, this is significant! Clearly, they've chosen agnostic as the label that best describes their position on the existence of God, and rejected others. In popular usage, agnosticism is still widely considered a third alternative between atheism and theism. Not everyone consents to the definition of atheism that makes it the only alternative to theism. It's not our place to decide for others what the "correct" vocabulary set is. My bottom line here is this: Let people define their own identity. Rohirok 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read all that (or rather any of it), but, when it comes to inclusion criteria, we may only have one, and this is the same for ever list and article in Wikipedia. If we have a "list of X", the people on it must have been explicitly described as X by a reputable source, not as anything else that in the opinion of Wiki editors make them X. So, in this case, the source, including of course the person themselves, must describe the person as "Atheist" Mad Jack 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Even if someone says they don't believe in God, we don't know if they consider themselves atheists. I'm all for rigorous criteria. I am eager to begin deleting uncited or improperly cited entries. BTW, what was the point of saying you didn't read anything I wrote? You could at the very least lie out of courtesy--I never would have known any differently. :-) Rohirok 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry it's nothing personal. I've just been involved in many "arguments" on many "List of X"s where the editors seemed to believe that if they wrote a long enough piece on their feelings on who should or should not be included, etc. it would make it so. When, really, people either have a source that actually says some "is X" or they don't. I also said I didn't read it in case, of course, that you had some really good point that I didn't comment on in my "reply" (which I wnated to indicate was a reply to the question in the header, rather then your text) Mad Jack 04:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, you may or may not want to move names you remove to discussion. It's sometimes done in "Lists of X". As for citation format, it could resemble something along the lines of List of Italian-American actors or List of Jewish actors and actresses. Mad Jack 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Rename

This list is just as meaningless as a list called "List of people who don't play tennis", or "List of people who can swim". Does anyone realise that more than half of the population of the Western world is atheist? That is simply a) too many people and b) a characteristic that isn't notable enough to warrant a list in the Wikipedia. I suggest renaming it to "List of outspoken atheists", "List of people who promote atheism", or something similar. Klafubra 18:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim that over half of the Western world is atheist? If you were right in this, I think you would have a point. But everything I've seen indicates that atheism is by far a minority viewpoint. And in my country, at least, atheists are a greatly distrusted minority, and admission of atheism is usually a death blow to any chances of holding major public office. That makes atheism a significant identifier.
I oppose renaming the list, as it makes quite clear at the beginning of the article that those listed are included because they are important to atheism or atheists. Even some of those who do not actively promote atheism or who are not especially outspoken about atheism are significant and ought to be included, given the aforementioned distrusted minority status of atheists. No doubt, a lot of the people listed here ought to be cut, since they lack references. I'd also oppose adding any but the most prominent advocates of Communism, since atheism is intrinsic to Communism, and a Communist atheist is anything but notable. Rohirok 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Proportion of atheists according to adherents.com:
Japan 65% Germany 40-50% UK 30-45% France 45-55% Russia 25-50% Canada 20-30% USA 3-9%
Also bear in mind that atheism is overrepresented in the urban middle classes and cultural elites that notable people are likely to belong to. Klafubra 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This only shows it as a majority in one nation, Japan, which is maybe misleading as many Japanese are Buddhists. They may not believe in "God", but believe in Karma or something like Pantheism. Also this is not what most sources indicate. Gallup International listed only three nations: Czech Republic, Sweden, and Norway as having a majority say God does not matter to them. This could include agnostics as well as atheists. In the Eurobarometer report titled "Social values, Science and Technology" none of the European nations they studied had more than 33% saying "I don't believe in any sort of spirit, God, or life force." (France, Estonia, and the Czechs being high as I recall) Further the majority asserted a belief in God in the following European nations: Malta, Cyprus, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Ireland, Croatia, Slovakia, Spain, and Austria. The other European nations had a majority or plurality believing in a "spirit or life force."--T. Anthony 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Distusted minority status?? Are you still living in the 1950s? Klafubra 14:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I live in the United States, which, unfortunately, seems stuck in the 1950s in many respects. See this report about recent findings concerning attitudes toward atheists in the US. I believe the 3-9% figure for atheists in the US helps explain our difference of perspectives as to the significance of someone's identity as an atheist. It is great deal more significant for a US citizen to identify themselves as an atheist than for a Western European to do so. The criteria for inclusion can be tightened without renaming the list, since it is (or should be) assumed that the people in a particular list are there because their identity within the category is signficant. For example, the criterion for List of Telecaster players (another list which I've worked on), had to be tightened up because it was clear that listing every notable musician who'd ever played one of these guitars would give us a massive list of very little value. Instead, the criterion was changed to musicians whose Telecaster use was notable. Likewise, the criteria for this list (which I take to be notable people who are atheists) could be changed to people who are notable for being atheists. Thus, Western European atheists in the modern era would be excluded (except for outspoken promoters of atheism), while some US celebrities or politicians who are atheists would be included, as they are significant within the US cultural context. Their signficance as atheists is relative to the cultural context in which they live. Rohirok 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the list

I believe this article is too long and ought to be split up into sub-lists with their own articles (perhaps List of atheist philosophers, List of atheist politicians, List of promoters of atheism, and List of celebrity atheists). A similar thing has been done with other lists of people by belief when they get very long. Any thoughts? Rohirok 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than splitting, I think we should be amalgamating. After recent culling of uncited entries the article has shrunk a fair bit, it looks to me, to the extent that the division between 'outspoken atheists' and 'the rest' seems a bit artificial. I've just reinstated a few that were formerly uncited, in their original groups, and the division seems fairly subjective. I know this has been discussed before but personally I reckon we should just amalgamate the two groups into one list of atheists divided only by primary occupation. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There's no reason not to make this a general list of atheists, and note in their descriptions or in footnotes whether they're "advocates" or "activists" or anything of the sort, which is a fairly subjective (and in some cases OR) assessment. -Silence 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, with no dissenting voices, why don't we go ahead and make it so? 69.23.115.197 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur. logologist|Talk 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks 69.23.115.197 for consolidating as per the discussion - I think that's a definite improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, good job. A few names need to be re-alphabetized, and Jean Meslier needs to be deleted from "Literature and art"—he's already under "Philosophy." logologist|Talk 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted, missed that when I was sorting the lists. Should be sweet now... Cheers, Ian Rose 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mussolini

I have reincluded him with three references. Hope this will suffice.84.167.140.33 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche?

I am surprised at the inclusion of Nietzsche. Trust me, I'm an atheist - antitheist even - but I do not believe for one minute that Nietzsche was too. His statement "God is Dead" was never meant literally of course, but to demonstrate that religion no longer enjoyed the influence it had previously. He did write that Jesus was the only true Christian. (See the article on The Antichrist - in particular it's title - for why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover also.) Nietzsche was anti-Christian, not anti-religion per se. He was critical of process rather than existence. 86.7.208.240 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my first impression as well. I have always heard and believed based on his writings that he was an anti-Roman Catholic (or Christian), not an atheist.The great kawa 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your point and any further discussion on them I will take to those two pages. The great kawa 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of unreferenced entries

I have deleted all of the unreferenced entries. If anyone wants to find references for any of these so they can be put back in, they can find the deleted names here. Without a suitable reference, these names should stay off of the list, in accordance with WP:Citing sources, particularly WP:Citing sources#When you add content and WP:Citing sources#Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed. Wikipedia:Verifiability#The policy also applies. 165.173.137.13 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

http://www.religionfacts.com/celebrities/angelina_jolie.htm

Bruce Lee

"When there is freedom from mechanical conditioning, there is simplicity. The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself."

Is this more of a comment on how to understand oneself rather than understanding God (or lack thereof)? Maybe I don't quite understand the quote if it's supposed to imply atheism... FranksValli 04:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Asia Carrera

How could you forget about her?! :D

http://www.asiacarrera.com/atheist.txt

Stalin and Pol Pot - what's going on?

Hi all, a couple of people have deleted Stalin and Pol Pot from the list today. I have reverted once, simply asling for citations instead of deletions. FeloniousMonk's change description was "infamous atheists? Poison the well much." or something like that. I must be a little thick today. Can someone explain to me why we would delete these two famous atheists from the list, or tell me what is going on? Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 05:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the first time since they were unsourced. "Poisoning the well" is pov and thus illegitimate grounds for not listing them, however, a lack of sources is substantial reason to remove any example. If their atheism is infamous then it shouldn't be too hard to find some sources before listing them as is done for every other example. --TM 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Deletions of Steven Weinberg and James D. Watson

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)