Talk:List of atheists/Archive 6

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 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Clarence Darrow

I see Nick has removed my entry for Clarence Darrow. While I can superficially see why... could someone explain on what grounds -- other than historical/cultural convention -- Darrow could be said to be an "agnostic, not an atheist" (Nick's words)? Surely this is both a case of people, in that time, refusing to call a spade a spade, and of what I referred to above, of him (at worst) being an agnostic atheist?

See, I took the trouble (and expense) of downloading the New York Times item I quoted from. The relevant bit reads:

He has not changed his agnostic views.
"I say that religion is the belief in future life and in God," he said. "I don't believe in either."

Don't you just love it? "I don't believe in God", says Darrow... and the journalist calls it agnosticism. Go figure. Actually, there's not much to figure: it is still reasonably uncommon -- well till the Out Campaign anyway ;-) -- for people to actually come out and use that evil, suspicion-inciting word 'atheist'. Anyone wanna argue it was less so in the 1930s?

To be sure, he wrote Why I Am an Agnostic... but note that he defines the term at the start as "a doubter". And he then goes on to list his reasons for doubt. But those are knowledge reasons. He doubted, but he also explicitly did not believe in god. That makes him an atheist -- an explicit one, on the graphic and as described here. He may have been an agnostic atheist, but he was an atheist. Which part of "I don't believe in God" needs further explanation? What should he have done, taken up a full page ad in the NYT? Or do what from now on I'll be calling 'pulling a Shermer', and have to come out with a bald, bold statement before anyone gets the point? If Shermer's position has been misunderstood, requiring an official announcement, then so has Darrow. He can't now make one, but comparing God to Mother Goose is pretty assertive.

Oolon (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First, just let me say that I am impressed with the several sourced additions you've made to the list. Most new contributors to the list (and to Wikipedia in general) do not so quickly begin taking the time to find quality sources for new entries. Second, it was of course not my aim to nullify the trouble and expense to which you went in finding a quality source regarding Darrow's views. I simply thought the material didn't adequately support the case for his inclusion in the list, and edited accordingly. I would point out, however, that even if Darrow does not end up being included in this list, the trouble and expense to which you went need not be for naught, as the informatin found in the article you downloaded can be used to enrich other articles.
Finally, I'll just reiterate what I've said in different ways many times previously: Because of the controversy over the "true" definition of atheist (historically, and to the present day), we cannot definitively categorize Darrow as an atheist, even if he fits the category according to one definition. The term atheist was in existence in Darrow's time, but to my knowledge, he never applied it to himself--which strongly suggests that he rejected that term in reference to himself. He did call himself an agnostic, and was considered a champion for that position. Indeed, he probably ranks among such figures as T.H. Huxley and R.G. Ingersoll as an "Agnostic's Agnostic." Yes, he's an atheist according to a certain definition, but we are not justified in presumptively applying that definition to his case, or any other case. Just to put the shoe on the other foot, and maybe better illustrate why I'm taking this line: Imagine if we chose just the first referenced definition in this article as the criterion for inclusion. Such a choice would lead us to removing quite a few of those listed here even if they specifically called themselves atheists. I think we can all see that this would be an unacceptable outcome. Likewise, choosing to apply the second or third referenced definitions over the first would lead us to the equally unacceptable outcome of categorizing many agnostics (such as Darrow, Huxley and Ingersoll) as atheists, even if they rejected or denied that label for themselves. Nick Graves (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, Nick (even though the first time I read it, it came across as 'thanks, now STFU noob' -- doubtless inadvertently I now think (on re-reading and becoming more used to your style).
So again I return to the Shermer case. He also had a range of words available to him. He had even been specifically avoiding 'atheist'. For that he has his own reasons. We can't in principle know what they are (though he does go on to say). Similarly with Darrow. Similarly, indeed, with Richard E Grant, who I strongly suspect was using 'unbeliever' as a very slightly euphemistic synonym. We cannot (always) know the reasons why people choose or avoid specific self-labels. What we can know is their stance on an issue. If that stance unequivocally accords with the broadest authoritative definition (to deny the broadest is to deny the definition's source's validity), then that's what they are.
Heh. May as well quote Dawkins (TGD, p.50-51):
Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so [...]. Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - 1 am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Now, I'm not regarding Dawkins here as authoritative. Merely sensible. If we were recompiling from scratch, who would not put him among the first ten entries we might think of? Yet he's technically agnostic. He even says so.
Thus it seems to me, this list should include everyone who makes it plain somehow that they are in category 6 (and any stray, strange 7s). If we accept that explicit non-belief in gods is a good, valid definition of an atheist, then on what grounds can we exclude people who unambiguously, explicitly, do not believe in gods?
Oolon (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"22:16, 22 April 2008 Nick Graves (Talk | contribs) (162,937 bytes) (Restored Lenin. Saying "I am an atheist" is not a necessary criterion for inclusion.)"
"Persons listed here have either been specifically identified as an "atheist" by a reliable source, or have expressed a position that is uncontroversially regarded as atheistic (that is, they have affirmed the nonexistence of God or deities)."
So, unless we consider it plausible that Darrow was not affirming the non-existence of Mother Goose (and by comparing them, God), in he goes.
Oolon (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Darrow does not belong, for three reasons: (1) He did not affirm the non-existence of God, or Mother Goose for that matter. His statement is consistent with a scrupulously agnostic position. (2) He was perfectly clear about his position and identity concerning the question of God's existence: he was an agnostic. He stated this repeatedly in various speeches or writings, and to my knowledge, never referred to himself as an atheist. (3) He is overwhelmingly identified as an agnostic in the vast majority of reliable sources concerning the subject. Calling him an atheist is not consistent with Darrow's own statements on the matter, nor is it consistent with what these reliable sources report. Nick Graves (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A bold suggestion - merging the lists

Especially after reading the latest entry where the term "ignostic" was used, I thought that this is getting ridiculous: we can circumvent all these arguments, make life easier for everyone, and produce a more useful set of lists if we simply divide everyone into two categories:

  • unbelievers: basically, all atheists, agnostics and ignostics
  • believers: those who believe in any sort of god, personal or not.

There is nothing stopping us categorising every entry in the first list as "strong atheist", "weak atheist", "agnostic", "ignostic", or any descriptive combination, or simply by a short quote to leave it up to the reader and so we are not making any interpretation at all. For example, "When asked if he believed in God, he replied 'No.'".

As far as the list of believers goes, there should be problem dividing them up into what I call deists versus theists and so on. But trying to divide up the list of unbelievers is problematic, and ultimately doesn't provide any substantially useful information. Instead of shutting people back and forth between these subcategories, a short summary of their unbelief can be attached to each entry. I am not suggesting that we necessarily call it the "List of unbelievers". --David from Downunder (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this suggestion. The combined list for "unbelievers" would be massive (maybe twice as long as the list of atheists, which is already getting kind of long). What would you even call such a list? List of secularists? Then you would run into the problem of what to do about nontheists who are also religious (Unitarian Universalist nontheists, for example). "Unbelievers" are already categorized in lists that link each other in the "See also" sections (List of atheists, List of agnostics, List of nontheists, List of humanists), so whatever benefit would come from a combined list is already present in separate lists that are linked. Making a single, massive list actually reduces the usefulness of the information, since it would indiscriminately intermingle persons who are traditionally separated into identified by different, though sometimes overlapping categories. Your suggestion of identifying someone as a "strong atheist," "weak atheist," etc. presumes that "weak atheist" is a type of atheist, which is a contentious point, and would make the article violate NPOV. The suggestion of including a short quote is already in effect, as many quotes are available for viewing in the footnotes. I'm not sure why mention of the term "ignostic" would make you think that "this is getting ridiculous"; the present method of categorizing would accommodate ignostics just fine in the List of nontheists, and in a separate list if there were ever sufficient numbers to warrant one. Your suggestion for a list of God-believers is not feasible. It would be a gargantuan list, redundant to existing lists of religious believers, and an indiscriminate collection of information (even more so than the list of unbelievers). The List of Christians was deemed by AfD consensus as too potentially huge for usefulness, and this list of God-believers would be many times worse in that regard. List usefuless is increased by breaking large categories up into natural divisions (religion, denomination, flavor of nonbelief, etc.), and your suggestion would have the opposite of its intended effect. Nick Graves (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd probably call it a list of unbelievers actually (despite the fact that Islam for example uses the term to refer to anyone who doesn't follow Islam, or even the right flavour of Islam.)
  • Your statement that "whatever benefit would come from a combined list is already present in separate lists that are linked" is not true: the missing benefits are the advantages of not having separate lists, which are severalfold...(a) one place to look for unbelievers, (b) not having all these debates about which list someone should be on. My categorisation provides very clear demarcation, unlike the present situation which involve both uncertainty and subsets.
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to propose actually creating a list of believers - it was more a way of clarifying how I'd divide up the world, not how Wikipedia should implement it.
  • Your statement that a single list would "indiscriminately intermingle persons who are traditionally separated into different, though sometimes overlapping categories" is self-contradictory: you want something separated that actually overlaps. An example is the case of Michael Schmidt-Salomon, who described himself as an atheist, an agnostic, and an ignostic, all in one breath. --David from Downunder (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say "List of unbelievers" would be too vague--Unbelievers in what, exactly? "Unbeliever" means different things to different groups--for Christians, "unbelievers" are non-Christians, and so forth. Also, many people who are "unbelievers" in God or Christianity or Islam or religion or whatever are believers in something (human dignity and worth, scientific inquiry, etc.) If you would like to create an omni-list for atheists, agnostics, etc., something like List of religious skeptics or List of secularists would probably be better. If such a list were to be created, it would not replace the existing lists, which are natural companion articles to their respective "ism" articles. When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are specifically identified as atheists. Even though the categories might overlap, the terms are different, with different meanings (or sets of meanings). Retaining separate lists is a useful supplement to the various separate nontheist/secularist articles. The "one place to look for unbelievers" you seek is already in existence to some extent here and here. Creation of Category:Religious skeptics or Category:Secularists would also fulfill this role.
As for "all these debates," I don't think the volume of words in our recent exchanges is indicative of a general disagreement over who and who should not be included. It's been relatively uncontroversial to include people who call themselves atheists, or who were called atheists by reliable sources, and those people comprise the bulk of the entries in this list. Consensus to include these people has been pretty stable for close to two years, if I remember rightly. The "debates" for the most part actually boil down to just one main debate, resurrected periodically, about whether mere nonbelievers in God (sans reliable identification as "atheists") ought to be included. This really applies to only relatively few candidates for inclusion, and I don't see it as undermining the general viability and usefulness of the list in identifying the variety of people who are atheists.
What do you think about some of the options I suggested in my first paragraph above? The omni-list is going to be a tough sell to the wider community of editors, and I speak from bitter experience. If we attempt that, I suggest we model it after List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, where list length is managed by having alphabetically organized sub-lists. It would be much better, I think, to start with some sort of category encompassing the other categories and lists of irreligious people/secularists/religious skeptics. Nick Graves (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm undecided how the various lists ought to be divvied up or combined. What is patently clear is that, if people want a list of atheists, they're probably not that bothered about the subtleties and nuances of what the people called themselves (unless it's strongly relevant). What they're after is a list of people with a certain stance on the existence of god(s) -- those who clearly disavow them.
Take the Shermer example. Under the current 'legislation', he'd have been excluded had he not actually called himself -- against his better judgement (cos he has a better term, he thinks) -- an atheist. I'd call such grounds for exclusion nebulous. I refer everyone back to the main Wiki article. "An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong atheism)." The question is, does person X believe in gods? If not, have they openly said so -- are they explicitly atheist? This does away with all the nonsense about whether they prefer to be called sceptics or humanists or rationalists or whatever.
As Dawkins has said: "I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further." All those who go one god further are atheists, and they (and we) can go on to split hairs about what label they prefer afterwards.
We obviously cannot concern ourselves with implicit atheists -- simply too many. Nor does 'unbelievers' cut it, as noted above. How about 'Explicit Atheists', tying in with the chart in the main article? We could note alongside the entry that they prefer(red) to be called X.
Thus, we could include people like Susan Blackmore without having to scrabble around (as I did) for a frankly puny quote that just happens to refer to 'atheism' to prove it -- for a woman who is thoroughly immersed in the scientific process, regards the supernatural as non-existent (kinda rules out gods) and god-belief as a cultural virus. And we can exclude, one way or another, some of those on other such lists (eg CelebAtheists) where the evidence is actually ambiguous.
The obvious subdivision, which, if such a list were becoming unwieldy, would then be into 'weak atheists' -- those who explicitly disbelieve in gods -- and 'strong atheist', that subset who have argued that gods do not exist. (I stress the 'have argued', because statements about certainty on the matter fall foul of all sorts of philosophical troubles of course. Even Dawkins is only a 6 leaning towards a 7 on his own scale, "agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
How about something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolon Colluphid (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nick...
  • You asked me to comment on options in your "first paragraph above". Sorry, I don't know what options you are referring to.
  • Let's not worry about what the list would be called just now. That's easily solved later. Taking Oolon's lead... "List of people without a positive stance on the existence of god"!
  • You referred only to the volume of words in our recent exchanges, but I recall seeing that type of debate repeatedly on this page. It is a real source of confusion.
  • Re your statement "When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are specifically identified as atheists." - No... When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are atheists.
  • There would be no problem if the lists were database-driven instead of text-based. A query would list all "unbelievers", or all "atheists", etc - including subsets. One problem with the current text-based system is with some of the examples quoted above where the person identifies with three different tags - and they only get included in one of the lists.
  • Like the Gay & Lesbian list, a table column could indicate Atheist/Agnostic/etc (allowing multiple labels) but even then I see little merit as I don't think that most people really care that much one way or the other, and the labels are still going to be difficult to apply (for several reasons.) Also, regarding Oolong's note about labelling them what they prefer to be called - the problem is we very often don't know what that is. As we've seen here, we don't even know what to call them ourselves as our knowledge is often based on an unelaborated answer to an interview question. And as Oolong said, it avoids the need for unnecessary "scrabbling around".
  • I quite like the list as it is sorted alphabetically within profession (even though that can be a tricky one to categorise too as I found out when I set up List of celebrity judoka)
Thanks. -- David from Downunder (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree, David.
But rather than just post a 'me too' ;-) , a couple of minor points.
I'm not sure about the 'alphabetically by profession'. As you say, a database would solve it, but we're stuck with this, I guess. I mean, is Dawkins a scientist? He's not written a scientific paper since (I think) about 1980-ish. Nowadays, he's an author. Is Ben Elton a comedian... or an author (plays, novels)... or a TV bloke? Etc etc. And where the hell do we put Jonathan Miller?! :-D The obvious (if cumbersome-to-impractical) thing would be to put people with a few professions under all those professions (Dawkins under both author and scientist, Elton under comedian and author, etc). I'm not particularly advocating that, but at least it would make more sense than having to do Ctrl + F to find eg Miller!
And, uh, secondly... while I do like a good cuppa tea, it's Oolon, no 'g'. As in Oolon Colluphid; more precisely this Oolon Colluphid. Pleased to meet you. Call me Simon, it's easier. :-)
Oolon... I'm so wrong, and sorry for the lapsang. -- David from Downunder (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Edited to add:
David said: "Re your statement "When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are specifically identified as atheists." - No... When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are atheists."
I think that bears repeating for emphasis. While I obviously can't speak for everyone who might visit such a list, it is certainly why I first came to it. I'm not sure what else one might expect to find on a 'list of atheists'. By all means Nick, have a subcategory for 'self-defined atheists'. Have a whole new page if you like. Or retitle this one 'list of persons who are specifically identified as atheists', and strip out the extraneous entries. But a list of atheists should contain, well, atheists. Your methodology would have, I dunno, maybe Alan Turing, excluded from a gay and lesbian list for never having openly proclaimed his homosexuality. Nope. The thing to do, as with that example, is to see if they can be 'found guilty' of the offence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolon Colluphid (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oolon (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
in my opinion, this discussion only highlights that 'list of atheists' is inappropriate. better to simply maintain the standard wikipedia categories, perhaps expand them, and leave it at that. Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be an idea, Anastrophe. Add (if it's not already there) a bit about it under the person's personal life or whatever, and add 'em to the category.
The disadvantage is, all that produces is a list of names. In itself, it provides no further information. No way for instance to tell whether, on this matter, the person's view ought to, prima facie, carry any weight. (An athlete might also be a great thinker, but you're probably better going to (say) Colin McGinn. It's useful to see the sheer length of the scientist and philosopher sub-lists. Indeed, the category-produced list doesn't even tell you who these people are; to make use of it, you've got to know who they are already, else just click on the name at random.
Furthermore, someone wanting a list of atheists very likely wants to know stuff specifically about these people: how we know they're atheists, and a flavour of what they've said on the matter. I'm not sure a substantial footnote to a separate paragraph in many of these people's biographies is warranted. If they've got a short entry, won't it look odd, or even not unbalance (prose-wise, that is) the biog? Nah, the list has a place I think. Oolon (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be brief

The repeated "confusion" over whom to include in this list boils down to a number of editors assuming/insisting that anyone who does not believe in God must be an atheist. They are right from a certain point of view. They are wrong from another. Any inclusion criterion that incorporates so-called "weak atheists" absent a specific identification as such in a reliable source (that is, the word "atheist" is used with reference to the person) assumes the first point of view and dismisses the other. That's a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. That's a bad thing. Nick Graves (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"... anyone who does not believe in God must be an atheist. ... They are wrong from another."
Then according to the Routledge definition -- "proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief" -- Clarence Darrow is an atheist. "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolon Colluphid (talk • contribs) 08:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No. You must take the whole definition into account to understand what is meant by "positive disbelief": "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God" (emphasis added). Darrow never affirmed the nonexistence of God. He was an agnostic. Nick Graves (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So Darrow wasn't affirming the non-existence of Mother Goose? What can his comment mean, but that "I don't believe in God because God, like Mother Goose, is a fairytale character"? And, "He was an agnostic" -- you are falling for the Bellman's Fallacy: 'what I tell you three times is true'. We all know what he (apparently) preferred to call himself. I expect Hitler preferred to call himself a nice bloke. As with Shermer, we are (or should be) interested in what they are -- as evinced by their words -- not what they liked to be known as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolon Colluphid (talk • contribs) 10:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Going back to your original point...
"Any inclusion criterion that incorporates so-called "weak atheists" ... assumes the first point of view and dismisses the other."
Is the strong atheist position not a wholly-enclosed subset of the weak one? Do strong atheists not 'merely' disbelieve in gods, and additionally assert gods' non-existence? Do any strong atheists assert gods' non-existence, but believe in them?
Are not 'weak atheists', atheists, according to some criteria? (If they're not, why are we calling them atheists at all?) Not according to all criteria, sure. But according to some, yes?
Therefore, any inclusion criterion that excludes so-called "weak atheists" assumes the second point of view and dismisses the first. That's a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. That's a bad thing.
Oolon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be briefer

Confusion is confusion. You are right, but being right is not a solution. That's why a change is needed. --David from Downunder (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

no, the solution is to abide by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If a policy causes confusion, one should... do what? I'd suggest, take a closer look at the policy. If it innately causes confusion, then the policy should be changed. But this policy doesn't generally cause confusion all over Wikipedia (or does it?). Therefore, maybe we are misinterpreting the policy in this case...? Oolon (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have to say it hasn't caused this little black duck much confusion... At the risk of sounding conservative, I can't see a big need to alter the inclusion criteria of this article, or the layout for that matter. I think we need the criteria reasonably strict to keep the list from getting too large. I know a solution for it getting 'too large' is to divide it up like the lesbian/gay/bi article but, having had a look at that one recently, I don't think it's a format we should be looking to emulate. As far as I'm concerned, one list on one page subdivided into professions (not perfect or exact, but no-one has come up with a better option for my money) still works. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ian
"I think we need the criteria reasonably strict to keep the list from getting too large."
I don't get it. If there are a lot of verifiable atheists, then it's a long list. You can't define them out of existence just to keep the page under control. The criteria for evidence should be strict, not our definition -- that is up to how people use the word. If the definition is straightforward, then so are our criteria; if it is not, then it is not up to us to throw out some of the definitions when listing something under that heading. As long as we have strong evidence of a person expressing an opinion, or stating their postition to be, unambiguously in accord with what people mean by the word, then in they go. And it's just tough on us if that makes it a long list. Oolon (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oolon, I didn't start with the premise that the page needs to kept under control, therefore let's employ a strict definition. Quite some time ago the then-current editors discussed the criteria and determined that a number of entries belonged in the List of nontheists page, which I agreed with. It happened to shorten the list, as you can imagine. It was also suggested that perhaps we should only include people whose atheism was particularly prominent or central in their work. I opposed that because I believed it would be too difficult to measure objectively, though it would have shortened the list still further. Don't get me wrong, I can see your point of view re. criteria, but I think there's a perfectly valid case for employing the criteria that we do on this page and using other pages for candidates that don't quite meet it - and, yes, this does have the practical benefit of allowing us to the page to a reasonable size. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay, I see, sorry.
In which case, the page title is misleading. It is not a 'list of atheists'. It is a list of the more explicit or strongly outspoken atheists, plus some self-identifiers. We need links to these other lists (non-theists etc) at the top, so people can easily get the whole picture. Oolon (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, no need to apologise, I probably sounded like the supreme pragmatist the way I expressed myself. I agree those related lists need to be on the page but they are at the bottom in the usual See Also spot. Not sure what people would think about a 'see also' equivalent at the top of the page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I imagine it's not usual, but I think it's needed -- put it this way, I'd looked at this page pretty often before editing, and have now been editing for a while, and I still hadn't noticed it till now. If we're saying 'these are the sorts of people listed here', we need to also say 'sorts like this, this and this are listed here here and here'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolon Colluphid (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be slightly longer

It's all well and good citing the Routledge and Britannica encyclopedias. Being encyclopedias, they can go into philosophical niceties and subtleties. Into details, in other words. But when wondering how people might interpret a word, surely the best people to go to are those who specialise in recording -- neutrally, as we do here -- word usage.

Dictionaries, in other words.

Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
atheist, n. (and a.)
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

While the OED is generally regarded as the, erm, Bible on such things, let's see what other dictionaries say an atheist is...

Dictionary.com:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

American Heritage Dictionary:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

WordNet:

someone who denies the existence of god

Merriam-Webster:

one who believes that there is no deity

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary:

a person who does not believe in God

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

TheFreeDictionary.com:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I think we get the picture. A fairly even spread between it meaning one who asserts there isn't a god, and one who disbelieves (I assume we're agreed that if one disbelieves, it means you deny they exist. I'd have a hard time disbelieving I'm sitting on a chair if I thought I was.)

Or in other words, the OED sums it up nicely. When someone uses the term atheist, they mean someone who disbelieves, or denies, the existence of gods.

This is important, because dictionaries record usage. What, in other words, people are likely to mean when they use a term... or might expect to find in a Wikipedia article on it.

What, then, might the average Wikipedia user expect to find on a list of atheists?

Would it be only those who assert gods' non-existence? Only those who call themselves atheists?

To deny entry to those 'someones who disbelieve' is to deny half the OED entry's meaning.

Oolon (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple more surveys from the archives of Talk:Atheism: [1], [2]. I interpret the use of or in these definitions as implicit acknowledgment of the controversy or divergence in usage here. There would be no need to use or or denial in these definitions if atheism were simply and uncontroversially understood as disbelief, since denial of God's existence is a subset of disbelief.
"Half" of the meaning (singular) is not accurate--"half" of the meanings (plural) is a better way to put it. Atheism could mean any disbelief in God, or it could mean denial of God's existence. I do not choose one definition or the other. It's too controversial. One man's atheist is another man's agnostic (or nontheist, or ignostic, etc.). It's better to just let the reliable sources do that identification. This side-steps the controversy. Nick Graves (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The word 'or' doesn't imply controversy. The word 'or' can be used both inclusively and exclusively. For example, a dictionary definition that says "Apples are green or red" doesn't impicitly acknowledge that there is controversy about what colour apples really are.
So we have a silly situation where Charlie Chaplin's "By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none" and Clarence Darrow's "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose" are clear indicatins of rejection of belief by way of concious rejection (rather than simple lack of belief), and despite dictionary defintion support, and Wikipedia definition support... they do not make it to the list of atheists! --David from Downunder (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Precisely, David. And the point is, the average punter, who knows of these examples, is going to keep on turning up, keep editing them in (with 'Aha! You missed one!' glee)... and keep getting surprised (more likely, amazed, amused, or annoyed) when they're struck down.
The question really is, just what is the point of the list?
Are we to believe that someone, wishing to view a 'list of atheists', would not expect it to include those people who are, according to the meanings of the word, atheists, whether they use that word to identify themselves or not? Sure, one man's atheist is another man's agnostic, nontheist, etc. But by not choosing a definition, Nick is effectively ignoring the definitions. The very definitions, plural, that people will be using when viewing the list. They can argue "That's not really an atheist!" till they're blue in the face... and we can hit 'em with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
In other words, we will perpetually go round and round in circles, with people constantly expecting the list to include people who fit some definitions but not others -- using the broader definition because it includes the narrower one too, and that way does not leave out the atheists sensu lato. These folks are atheists according to some definitions, after all!
Can the atheists sensu lato not simply be identified within the list via their words? Mention in the opening, along with noting the perpetual incompleteness, that these people are atheists according to the broader, explicit (thought-through disbelief) criteria, and that some are also 'strong atheists'.
The only other option I can see is to amend the page title to reflect what it really contains. 'Positive deniers of gods', or something like that. Calling it a list of atheists, but ignoring a lot of atheists because they're not the right sort, seems daft. It's confusing. It confused the hell out of me, and I've been in this game a while now.
Of course, that might mean losing some of the self-identifying atheists... because we don't necessarily know which definition they were using when they self-applied it, and one man's atheist... Oolon (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
David said "The word 'or' doesn't imply controversy." In this case it does--it is used exclusively. If or were used in these definitions in the inclusive sense, there would be redundancy. As I've already pointed out, denial of God's existence is a subset of disbelief in God's existence. There would be no need to mention denial unless there was a sense of the word that had to be distinguished from general disbelief. Your example is not applicable here. Red is not a subset of green. A better example would be the meanings for the word whale: "A whale is a cetacean, or a cetacean that is not a porpoise or a dolphin." Or is used exclusively here, just as in the definitions for atheist. If porpoises and dolphins were universally regarded as types of whales, there would be no need for that second clause. The definition would simply be "A whale is a cetacean." Nick Graves (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In short, there's divergent usages. So why leave out people who are unequivocally members of the group according to some definitions? Silly is too soft a word for it. I'm off to count some pinhead-dancing angels. Oolon (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
well, first off, there's standard WP:BLP issues that need to be addressed for each entry of a living person. back when atheist was pejorative, rather than a badge of honor, quite many people would reject being labeled an atheist by others if they had expressed skepticism in god. what of the not-unfamiliar utterances of those devastated by grief, by a personal loss - who, in those moments of pain, utter rejection of god? are they then fodder to have 'atheist' slapped on them? a curious 'reverso' situation occurs regularly with Jodie Foster's article. She has stated openly she's an atheist. she also celebrates christmas and hanukkah and other religious celebrations, and enjoys reading religious texts. conversely, regarding her sexuality, she has steadfastly refused to state what her sexuality is. because she cohabitates with a woman, many people assume she's a lesbian, and people add her to the LGBT category regularly - while ignoring that her refusal to state her sexuality means that she could be lesbian, bisexual, asexual, or some combination therein. shall we go by people's assumptions of what a persons actions or words "must" mean, or do we stay strictly rigorous - Jodie Foster, while cohabitating with a woman for decades, has never stated explicitly that she's a lesbian (or anything else). it's a WP:BLP, so we must abide by the absence of a strict claim, and leave it out (since this is an encyclopedia, not The New York Post). the same ethos should apply to this list (and implicitly the entries for those listed) - whether an epithet or a badge of honor, we need to be rigorous. sloppy application of the term can't be accepted. (this is what chugging a cup of strong coffee does to me, sorry for being verbose). Anastrophe (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So, Anastrophe, would you say you're in favor of including people on this list only if they've called themselves atheists? Nick Graves (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the repeated confusion? A lot of it has to do with the fact that most of the people who are drawn to edit this article are atheists. Those who consider themselves atheists tend to use the broader definition. Those who do not consider themselves atheists (theists, of course, and most agnostics) tend to use the narrower one. Just to give you an (extreme) example of this divergence, take a look at the definition used by the conservative Christian-oriented Conservapedia. So, when confronted with the notion that someone who doesn't believe in God maybe isn't an atheist, and shouldn't be put into the list until we have reliable and specific confirmation, there can be some consternation--"Doesn't everyone agree that such a person is an atheist?" they might ask. No, not everyone does agree, and the different definitions (containing exclusive ors) document the different usages.

Another cause for confusion is the differences between American and Commonwealth usage of English. Americans tend to be more conservative with regards to the meaning of atheist. In part, I think this is because we're more religious over here, so the religious tendency to view atheism as more narrowly defined is in effect. Another, related reason is that atheists have a poor reputation in the US (more so than in current or former Commonwealth nations). There have been a number of surveys that show that atheists are among the most distrusted minorities in America. It's nearly impossible to get elected to public office as an avowed atheist here. There are only two American politicians on this list: Pete Stark, and Culbert Olson. Now compare that with the number of UK atheist politicians. Wow! Five of them, from a nation 1/5th the size of the United States! There are some high positions too--a Prime Minister even! Since atheist is perceived more negatively over here, those who merely disbelieve in God are more inclined to choose a more neutral term like agnostic for themselves. Try telling an agnostic he's really an atheist (I have) and he'll likely tell you in no uncertain terms that you're wrong. Choice of self-identity is something I think we ought to be sensitive to, regardless of whether someone's position happens to conform with a certain understanding of the label atheist.

In general parlance in the United States, mere nonbelief in God is not considered atheism. As American atheologian Ted Drange observes: "Some writers on this topic take the term 'atheism' to refer merely to a lack of theistic belief... such a definition... [departs] from the most common use of the term 'atheism' in English."

I am not advocating ignoring the definitions. I am advocating taking an agnostic position on which is the right one (note that, logically, they cannot all be "right"). We should let usage in reliable sources dictate who is included, rather than asserting our own point of view. Are Darrow and Chaplin atheists? You say yes. I say no. You say they are atheists because they don't believe in God. I don't agree that they are atheists, because they do not assert that God does not exist. Who can settle this dispute? Not the various dictionary definitions, encyclopedias, theologians, or philosophers. They only document the different ways that the word atheist has been used--they do not dictate how it should be used. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article discusses the various definitions. --David from Downunder (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks David. This brings up again the basic problem. I'd been ignoring it temporarily, but adding Francis Wheen just now brings it into sharp focus.
Thing is, Nick is, understandably but erroneously ;-) , saying we ought to let these guys decide for themselves, unless they make a strong-atheist statement. Thus we've got Carlin with his "There is no God. None, not one, no God, never was", and he gets in; and Clarence Darrow, with his comparing God to Mother Goose and statement that he did not believe in God... who doesn't.
The obvious problem is that this is not, then, as it stands, a list of atheists. It is a list of strong atheists and a rag-bag of self-identifiers. And those self-identifiers will inevitably not all be using the same definition! Many will be using the softer, explicit-weak-atheist definition when they self-describe and get onto the list.
Take Wheen. He never says there is no God. Instead, he says he gradually rejected more and more of what his religious upbringing was telling him. He's a sceptic, he regards it all as 'mumbo-jumbo' and so on. He lacks belief. He might well say there is no god if asked, but that's not how these things tend to come out, and we're stuck with the evidence. Which is evidence of Wheen's atheism (as defined by getting onto this list) being no stronger than we have for Darrow. Wheen makes it on because, and only because, he self-identifies. If he'd just said scientific empiricist, what's the betting Nick would shoot it down?
And there's Darrow again. Compare to Wheen. "I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose." The sentence structure emphasises belief. But what does it -- what can it -- really mean? Are we to think he considered the possibility of Mother Goose existing remotely plausible? Like Wheen, he did not believe in God. By some definitions, that makes him an atheist anyway. Sure, he preferred 'agnostic'. But how can agnosticism that compares God to Mother Goose be any weaker than Richard Dawkins's: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Darrow was agnostic only to the extent that he was agnostic about Mother Goose, surely? That makes Darrow just as atheist as Dawkins, let alone Wheen. But he is excluded because he preferred a different label. So put him in, and note that fact.
Therefore, we must either change the list's title to reflect its content, or amend the rules. As it stands, we are leaving out explicit-weak-atheists because they don't say the magic word, and including others because, and only because, they do. That means this is not a list of atheists.
An interesting aside (though it's less aside than a crucial tangent): Is there any sense in which someone saying they 'do not believe in God' can mean anything other than them thinking God does not exist? Sure, there are other senses of believe ("I don't believe in playing the lottery", for instance), but in this context, doesn't it have to mean more like "I don't believe in Atlantis"? As in Atlantis -- or God -- existing...? I'm genuinely not sure, but I think a postitive statement of disbelief probably has to mean a positive statement about God's existence.
Oh yeah. And how come Arthur Miller isn't on here? He's on the Miller Atheism Tapes, and talked there of how obvious it is that God is merely man projecting all the things he wishes he were, etc. Please tell me he's just been overlooked, rather than fallen foul of not saying the password too?!
Oolon (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Or in short, we are being inconsistent by excluding people who make statements no stronger -- or as strong -- as others we do include, just because they don't appropriately self-label too.
Or else, we're being inconsistent by including some self-labellers when their statements are otherwise no stronger (or even, otherwise non-existent, eg Ben Elton's) than those we exclude. Because those self-labellers may well be using the 'softer' definitions we (well, some of us) deny here as grounds for inclusion.
Oolon (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a list of atheists. If there are any on here who are not atheists, please pull them. Renaming the article is not in order. It is not just a "list of strong atheists and a rag-bag of self-identifiers." Save for a few exceptions, anyone identified as an atheist in a reliable source can be listed here, whether they are strong atheists, weak atheists, self-identifiers, or not. The number of people who are included based solely on expressions of strong atheism (sans the "magic word") is quite low. The proportion of people who are excluded because they explicitly or implicitly rejected an atheist identity is also very low. The list of atheists is much more extensive than the list of agnostics or nontheists. Indeed, the latter list seems to lose as many entries as it gains, since sources are often found that give a more specific identification of persons.
The type of consistency you're after would depend on making a POV ruling in favor of a particular definition of an atheist. You favor the terminology as used by G.H. Smith and others, by which anyone who does not believe in God is considered an atheist. However, a significant contingent of reliable sources and philosophers (not to mention members of the general public) favor the terminology as used by T.H. Huxley, atheologian Ted Drange, humanist activist Fred Edwords, and others, by which not all those who are nonbelievers in God are considered atheists. Who will decide which point of view is correct? For us to do so would run counter to an important Wikipedia policy. It is far better to just neutrally report what reliable sources say. Perhaps this seems inconsistent, but then usage of the term is itself inconsistent. Deferring to identifications made in reliable source is consistent in its own way (with Wikipedia policy, that is), and preferable to imposing an artificial (and POV-based) consistency. Nick Graves (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Who will decide which point of view is correct?" Me! --David from Downunder (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the spirit...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi! --David from Downunder (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and aesthetics

I don't know what it looks like in other browsers, but in mine, the article with the portrait and the atheism infobox has a huge, unsightly gap at the top. Does anyone have any idea how to solve this? It is truly butt-ugly. Sorry, Dave, whatever you tried did not fix the appearance on my end. Nick Graves (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem in IE, but not in Firefox. I recommend you change browsers. I did recently and Firefox is a lot better (apart from the fact that Firefox has some serious memory leak issues.) I've seen other rendering problems with IE. I just moved some things around to fix the problem. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That looks much better. There still is a lot of white space underneath and to the right of the table of contents, but that's much better than white space at the top of the article. Cheers. Nick Graves (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's caused by the {{-}} that I inserted. I like it like that because I don't like heading underlines running into pictures. You can remove the {{-}}. --David from Downunder (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Take Ionescu

Take Ionescu is a possible addition to the list. He is currently called a "self-proclaimed atheist" in his article, but with no supporting citation. The source used in his now-removed entry on the list says: "For three years as minister he worked fruitfully to complete the reorganisation of public education in Romania. He set up a system of inspections, began a series of village school buildings, promoted the development of university education. Then the law on historic monuments but also that on church organisation, for which he was accused of being an atheist making laws for the church. To which he replied, 'No one here has a right to scrutinise my conscience and ask me to adhere to a belief. However, I declare that I am looking out for the church's best interests and that is sufficient'". Many thanks to Biruitorul for the translation from Romanian. Biruitorul removed Ionescu from the list, pending better confirmation. Plenty of people who are accused of being atheists are not. Ionescu did not confirm these accusations in his response, but basically said "my beliefs are none of your business." I did a Google search, but found no reliable sources confirming Ionescu's atheism. For the record, here's the entry that was removed:

Reference

  1. ^ (Romanian) Marius Dobrin, "Take Ionescu - un mare democrat, un mare european. Un om" ("Take Ionescu - a Great Democrat, a Great European. A Man"), in Respiro

Atheist thinkers and activists not listed

Here are some more names that aren't on the list. They come from the atheist thinkers and activists category. Please remove them from the list on this talk page once they are added to the article with a supporting reference. Nick Graves (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Show-off :-D I assume (haven't checked yet) that they're all nicely reference-able? Oolon (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I've dug around on each of them down as far as Kong, and he's the first that should be included. Well, I'd include some more, but others here might not... ;-) Seems other editors are using -- gasp! -- other definitions of 'atheist'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolon Colluphid (talk • contribs) 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A longer Hmmmmmmmmm. No... I believe I'll have to delete Kong. There is no reference to his belief system nor his self-identification as an atheist. Who the heck is this Nick Graves person to decide whether it is correct or not to make such assumptions?! After all Kong could be there as an undercover agent of the Pope or Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps he's working for both of them. Perhaps the Pope and Bin Laden are working together. Anyway... I ask you: Is the Pope a Catholic? That question has been asked before, but, I note suspiciously, it has never been answered! --David from Downunder (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
However, I have it on good authority that bears, you know, do... Oolon (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Come on man. Out with it! In plain simple English!! Bears do do doo-doo. --David from Downunder (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, as Cole Porter would have put it, "the doo-doo that Pooh do so well"... But, unless we can find a bear that states they go nowhere else or self-identifies as an in-the-woods shitter, we can assume nothing. Oolon (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it can be compared with the doo-doo that Pooh do. As Vanilla Ice said when comparing "Under Pressure" to "Ice Ice Baby": "Theirs goes `doo doo doo do do do, doo doo doo do do do' and mine goes `doo doo doo do do do, *do* doo doo doo do do do' – completely different." --David from Downunder (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Atheist philosophers not listed

The following persons, currently included in the atheist philosophers category are not yet in the List of atheists. Please remove them from this list once they are added to the main list. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Robin Dixon - where to put him?

Robin Dixon, 3rd Baron Glentoran

Sportsman, businessman or politician? I'd vote sports, as his most notable achievement would probably be winning an Olympic gold, but what do we think?

Here's the ref to c&p, anyway:

(ref>"There has been legislation in Northern Ireland concerning fair employment, which related to those matters, for many years. It was strictly adhered to and policed. In fact, all recruits to my company and most others had to declare at the time, in a totally confidential envelope, whether they were perceived to be Roman Catholics or perceived to be Protestants. I say that because one has to be a Protestant or Roman Catholic Jew or, in my case, a Roman Catholic or Protestant atheist." Lord Glentoran, Lords Hansard, 11 Mar 2004: Column 1372 (accessed 24 April 2008). </ref)

Edited to add: if it's not already clear, he's alluding to the long-standing Northern Irish joke (except it isn't a joke really), best told by Quenting Crisp: "When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?" "

I'll add in passing that I've not yet tracked down a proper ref for that -- undoubtedly genuine -- Crisp quote. Feel free to try, and we can put him in too.

Oolon (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right: He ought to be categorized by whatever occupation contributes most to his notability. His political career seems more current, and bobsledding isn't a terribly popular sport. Then again, he does not appear to have served in very prominent offices. I dunno. Nick Graves (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm about to put him under sports folks, as that group is a bit thin, and I think the Olympic gold is the main thing: his business stuff looks solid but not too remarkable, and it seems it was those two together that got him into the Lords.
Heh. Just realised I called it 'sports', but it's titled athletes. Any problems with retitling it Sports, or Athletics and Sports? I feel we'd have a hard job putting, say, a darts player under it as it stands!
Oolon (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with renaming the section Sports... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


  • A Irish bobsledding politician?! We have one here in Australia... a Irish/Chinese Australian from the sunny state of Queensland with the curious name of Bill O'Chee is a politician who represented Australian in world championships for skeleton. Due to the rather extreme lack of snow and ice in Australia, he used to practice in the underground carpark of Parliament House, Canberra. --David from Downunder (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasolini, sections...

Again with these multi-talented buggers! I've just put him under authors, as it seems he did a lot of authoring. But I only knew him as a film director.

I wonder if we need some more sections. Maybe one for 'notable in several areas' or some such (Miller as a scientist, anyone?)... perhaps split authors into some sort of, well, real authors, and those who've written books, journalists etc. Might cause more confusion, but it seems odd to have Aaronovitch next to Asimov somehow. Thoughts?

Oolon (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree we'll always have some issues with the multi-faceted folk but I don't know that a separate section for them is the answer (not that I have a better one, admittedly). Re. Pasolini, I think he's best known as a film maker rather than author. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable people without their own page already

As you'll have seen, someone's added Eric Stone. He certainly seems more 'notable' than some of my recently-included politicians, yet he doesn't seem to have his own page yet. (I'll also note that I've left out a handful of politicians because of their lack of page.) If someone -- such as Stone -- really does seem notable, do we consider it okay to leave them if someone adds them? Given the slightly ad hoc, make-a-page-if-you-want-to nature of Wikipedia, it seems a bit tough to leave out people like Stone (or Lord Harrison -- note his 'numerology') just because nobody's made a page yet.

On the other hand, I quite understand using 'do they have a page already?' as a good rule of thumb for someone's 'notability'.

Any thoughts? I don't mind either way, just curious as to what the experts think.

Oolon (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found it's generally a bad idea to leave red links on these lists for too long. Some editors use it as an excuse for adding non-notable persons to the list. Is Eric Stone notable? Maybe. I didn't find any significant, independent coverage confirming notability in a cursory Google search. The sources cited for his discoveries are journal articles written by Stone himself. That's not independent coverage, nor does it confirm that his discoveries are really notable. A secondary, reliable source independent of Stone is needed to confirm that. Proof of notability should come before inclusion, and such proof is best demonstrated in an article about the person. If the article avoids deletion, then we can presume notability on our end. I'll also note that Stone's atheism is not yet confirmed in these sources either. Nick Graves (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was just wondering because I know there are certain -- to me -- obvious omissions, though I don't know enough (feel empowered) to create a page on them myself. For instance, I am friends with the palaeontologist Per Ahlberg. Anyone who knows about early tetrapod evolution (the fish to amphibian transition) knows how notable he is: in the area, he's as big a name as Jenny Clack, and the discoverers of Tiktaalik, Neil Shubin and Ted Daeschler. He's also a staunch atheist. But because nobody's made a page, he can't go in. Which is why I was inclined to allow an occasional red name, kind of on the principle that it's okay if they would / should / strongly might get a page eventually. Certainly, some people with pages seem less notable than some without. But as I say, no probs, and I agree with the reasons :-)
Oolon (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I originally had a policy like that when I was working on List of notable judo practitioners, but I later realised that some of the really notable ones didn't have a Wikipedia page, so I scotched that policy quick smart. I think that you need to judge each entry on its merits. --David from Downunder (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Take this guy. Seems pretty significant to me. No page yet though. Oolon (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should assume too strong a link between notability and having an article. And I don't think we should require the exact same degree of notability for inclusion into this list as for justifying an entire article. A few red links shouldn't be a problem. Ilkali (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
On the principle that, like judo-ists, people who have been important in the (catch-all) freethinker movement might be notable within it, but less so generally... therefore notable atheism activists, like notable judo people, might be too esoteric to have yet gained a 'normal' page... I've added Austin Holyoake. If I get time, I'll try to knock up a page for him from the info in the (quite extensive) ODNB entry. I agree that a case-by-case basis makes sense -- if someone does seem note-worthy, then their already having a 'pedia page is neither here nor there -- presumably in the early days there were countless people without pages (originally, zero!) Oolon (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm finding several atheists in the ODNB without pages here yet. I've left out the really minor ones, and apart from activists (as per above) I'd rather not have too many red links. But, how about Norman Swindin? Seems a pretty important chemical engineer, at least as chemical engineers go (see the George E. Davis entry).
And while we're at it, there's James Matthew Thompson, who's got an entry in the James Thompsons disambig page... which wasn't even red-linked till I made it so. Oolon (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

"Note that, due to divergences in definition and usage, those who have merely expressed nonbelief in God or deities are not universally regarded as atheists"

Firstly, can we drop the "God or deities" thing in favor of simply "deities"? Otherwise we might as well have "God or Zeus or Pan or [...] or deities". I'm not at all convinced that it's even necessary to define atheism on this page - that's what wikilinks are for.

Secondly, if this is a list of strong atheists then let's label it as such. Otherwise we give undue weight to the view that strong atheism is synonymous with atheism. Ilkali (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a list of strong atheists. Nick Graves (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Then what is it a list of? In the broadest reading, atheist means the same as nontheist. The fact that we have two separate lists proves that we're assuming the term has a more restricted denotation. Plus the text in the intro states that weak atheists aren't automatically included.
And why do we even care about whether a reliable source uses the word 'atheist', given that we all acknowledge how ambiguous that word is? Ilkali (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've been through this at length previously, let me offer Nick's answer (but hopefully more concisely, since it took me ages to figure out what he was really saying :-p ).
There are several definition of 'atheist'. Nobody disagrees that 'strong atheists', those who actually deny the existence of god(s), are atheists. That's the core group.
However...
... some authoritative definitions exclude those who, from the diagram, might be called weak explicit atheists. Nick's argument seems to be that it is taking a POV (and hence, un-Wiki-ish) to include here those who do not fit these narrower definitions. Thus, here we only list those about whom nobody could quibble, with the rest, the weak explicit atheists, being 'nontheists'.
So much for Nick's version. It sounds terrific - right up until you give it a moment's thought (to nick, pun intended, a phrase from Dawkins :-D ). The problem is this: in order to be an explicit atheist (the implicit variety being too nebulous and open to guesswork, and note that it includes children not brought up in a faith), one has to say or do stuff -- make their nonbelief explicit. And that suggests some thought has gone into it on the part of the person, that is is not just passive, unconsidered weak atheism.
So, someone says "I do not believe in God". Nickian reasoning says that that person is 'merely' a nontheist. But what does "I do not believe in God" really mean? I submit (again) that it can only sensibly mean that the person does not believe god exists.
An analogy might help. If I say I don't believe in England, there are several things it might mean. To be sure, it's not the same as saying I don't believe England exists, though that is one of the options. But those other meanings, that 'Englishness' is a bad idea, say, or that I consider the national football side to be a bunch of no-hopers, and so on, are generally understood from the context.
But compare that to "I don't believe in God". When might this turn up in any context other than when talking about god qua god, as a real entity? That is, usually when faced with, or in the context of knowing that there are, other people who do consider gods real, not merely a Good IdeaTM. With the possible exception of Martin Rowson (who says that even if god were to appear in front of him he still wouldn't believe in him, as he objects to the ideology -- typical bloody satirist in other words), I don't see how "I do not believe in God" means anything except "I do not believe God is real". That makes it a de facto statement meaning "I believe God does not exist". What else about God is there to not believe in?
Naturally, considering the history of disbelief, not everyone wants or has wanted to be quite so bold about it, from not wanting to be perceived as arrogant, from other proprieties or from sheer survival. So we get lots of circumlocutions, not to mention a plethora of alternative words to avoid the evil one: freethinker, agnostic (in some versions), nontheist, skeptic, humanist, rationalist, bright, and so on. That means that it is easy -- too easy -- to omit from a list such as this those who are, on the Dawkins scale above, de facto atheists, just because they preferred less in-your-face alternatives or didn't want to be on the receiving end of opprobrium (or the inquisitor).
So, contra Nick, my own position is that a firm statement of disbelief (note that Jonathan Miller's series was called Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief) is of equal merit to one about god's nonexistence. This still leaves the 'nontheist' category for the milder, less obvious or maybe ambiguous statements, like Richard E Grant's "I'm not a believer myself, but...". But it means that we would be including, well, atheists, not just the more outspoken or assertive ones.
One more thing about categories. I really do not see the harm of having them overlap. After all, they do. Michael Shermer is a skeptic. But he's also an atheist. Jonathan Miller finds the label atheist distasteful, so he could also go under whatever he prefers if only I could remember it ;-) . As far as I'm aware, all humanists are atheists (though not all atheists are humanists), so those preferring that label should be here... and on a list of humanists. There's surely no harm in noting what the person preferred. But there is harm in leaving out those whose views are/were unambiguously atheist. Because, what might someone be expecting to find if they looked for such a list? Can it be anything other than people whose views were atheistic?
Hmmm. I appear to have written an essay. So I'll shut up now :-)
Oolon (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"I don't see how "I do not believe in God" means anything except "I do not believe God is real". That makes it a de facto statement meaning "I believe God does not exist"". It sounds like you're rejecting the distinction between strong and weak atheism, which I certainly can't agree with. It's as possible to be neutral on the issue of gods - believing in neither their existence or non-existence - as on any other issue. Will it rain here in 596 days? I don't believe it will and I don't believe it won't.
Nontheism is identical to weak atheism. They're both complements of theism - if you're not a theist, you're a {nontheist, weak atheist}. Every person on the nontheist list is a weak atheist, whether (s)he likes that label or not. So by having a "List of atheists" here, and excluding those on the nontheist list, we implicitly assert that weak atheists aren't atheists.
I agree with what (I think) you're saying about including people based on what they believe, rather than what labels they apply to themselves. If a person identifies as an agnostic, but is recorded as saying that he has no belief in gods, he's a weak atheist and should be included on a list of such. The exception might be if he explicitly denies being a weak atheist.
My preference would be for a single list of atheists, possibly divided into strong and weak categories. But if we're not going to do that, and if we're going to have the separate nontheist/weak atheist list, then this should be labelled a list of strong atheists. Ilkali (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and can we drop the crazy notion that atheism is defined relative to God? God is just one god. Atheism is bigger than him. Ilkali (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali, yes, I am "rejecting the distinction between strong and weak atheism"... when it comes to who should be included on a so-called 'list of atheists'! I was deliberately blurring the lines, in order to show that they are blurry anyway. I'll happily defend the distinction next time I come across a list of weak (or strong) atheists :-D
Ref your 'will it rain' point, I'll mention in passing that that is pure agnosticism.
And yes, of course, atheism is (or can be) more encompassing than just God with a capital G. I just used that as a more real-life-like example of what we might actually find someone saying. Not everyone writes books called Against All Gods... but to define atheism as meaning against or disbelieving all gods is to go so far the other way as to produce a near-empty set, at least as far as what someone might say (and therefore we could verify).
Well, that's my page, and you're welcome to join me on the same one :-) Oolon (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Ref your 'will it rain' point, I'll mention in passing that that is pure agnosticism". Agnosticism is a stance regarding knowledge, not belief. It's true that I profess no knowledge about whether it will rain, but that's not the entirety of my position. I could still believe that it will rain without claiming to know that it will.
"yes, I am "rejecting the distinction between strong and weak atheism"... when it comes to who should be included on a so-called 'list of atheists'!". Fair enough. Then what would separate the list of atheists from the list of nontheists?
"atheism is (or can be) more encompassing than just God with a capital G. I just used that as a more real-life-like example of what we might actually find someone saying". Not just "can be". Nobody would say that a Greek polytheist is an atheist. And monotheists might be more likely to define atheism by reference to God, but frankly, that's purely a consequence of small-minded short-sightedness. Ilkali (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oolon wrote: "there is harm in leaving out those whose views are/were unambiguously atheist." To which I respond: Saying that one does not believe in God/gods/deities is not unambiguously atheist, due to the fact that there is significant disagreement about whether that qualifies as atheism or not. As much as I'd like to take the line of saying that all god-disbelievers are unambiguously atheists, we can't avoid the fact that divergent usage in English disputes this. And no, saying that one does not believe in deities does not mean or imply that one believes deities do not exist. Not believing is not a type of belief. Nick Graves (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Saying that one does not believe in God/gods/deities is not unambiguously atheist, due to the fact that there is significant disagreement about whether that qualifies as atheism or not". It unambiguously entails weak atheism though, yes? So omitting them from a list of atheists is a tacit assertion that weak atheists aren't atheists.
My point here isn't that atheism should be interpreted this way or that way, but that you can't pick a set of inclusion criteria for a list of "atheists" without making some implicit ruling on what an atheist is. If your inclusion criteria demand strong, explicit atheism, the list should be labelled accordingly. Ilkali (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Not believing in deities unambiguously qualifies as so-called "weak atheism" only if one chooses to accept such a position as a genuine form of atheism in the first place. For those who regard genuine atheism to be only the denial of God/gods, "weak atheism" is a misnomer, and the position is more accurately labeled as agnosticism, nontheism, or some other alternative. As documented in numerous reliable sources, it is not a settled issue as to whether mere nonbelief in deities is truly atheism.
The basic inclusion criteria that has long been in place here, and which I am supporting now, is that for our purposes, an atheist is anyone labeled as such by reliable sources. It's not a definition-based inclusion criteria, which would depend on editors making their own decision about what the "true" definition of atheism is, running afoul of neutral point of view policy regarding a contentious issue, and possibly running afoul of policy concerning biographies of living persons by mislabeling someone as an atheist based on our own preferred interpretation of what an atheist is. Also, according to verifiability policy and original research policy, or own conclusions and interpretations must take a back seat to what is reported in reliable sources. Nick Graves (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"For those who regard genuine atheism to be only the denial of God/gods, "weak atheism" is a misnomer". Whether it's a misnomer is irrelevant. It's a well-used, unambiguous term with a clear denotation. While using 'atheism' to mean 'weak atheism' might be a POV violation, simply using the term 'weak atheism' isn't.
"The basic inclusion criteria that has long been in place here, and which I am supporting now, is that for our purposes, an atheist is anyone labeled as such by reliable sources". Not true: "[...] or have expressed a position that is uncontroversially regarded as atheistic". So the inclusion criteria are actually: 1) Have been identified with the word 'atheist' by a "reliable source", or 2) have expressed a position of strong atheism. That could be much clearer in the intro.
"It's not a definition-based inclusion criteria, which would depend on editors making their own decision about what the "true" definition of atheism is". Which is a problem we wouldn't have if we explicitly split the list into strong and weak categories. True? Ilkali (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the latest edit - changing "god or deities" to "gods" - adds ambiguity, because it could mean that the people do not believe in more than one god, leaving open the possibility that they believe in a single god. Perhaps it should read "any gods". Actually I'm with the suggestion that this page need not define atheism in too great detail, but instead use wikilinks. Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of wikilinks, Rachel. It lets people decide for themselves. And the main 'pedia page has the added advantage of backing up what I'm saying, with nice pictures an' all. :-D Oolon (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, although I think the principle of charity minimises the problem. I wanted to more heavily restructure the intro, because I think the inclusion criteria for the list aren't very sensible, but that'd have to wait until the above discussion is concluded. "Any gods" seems reasonable for now. Ilkali (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that most of the sources that define atheism aren't clearer on this. Note that two of the definitions cited in the intro to this list (and the intro to the main article) specifically refer to "God," not gods or deities. I suppose this is a consequence of the presumption that modern Westerners are not polytheists. It is assumed that if one does not believe in God ("the God"), then one does not believe in any gods. I do not have a strong opinion on whether the definitions recounted here ought to mention God, deities, or gods as the object(s) of atheists' disbelief. I will note, however, that the latter two options are not in literal accordance with two of the definitions cited here. Also, it seems to me that most people who say they do not believe in God do not take the time to clarify that they also do not believe in deities of any sort. For members of modern Western societies, it seems to go without saying that they do not believe in Odin, Hades, Verminus, or Kali, etc. Nick Graves (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oolon said that all humanists are atheists. This is not so: Fred Edwords is a counter-example, as is Einstein. Nick Graves (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this depends on the definition of 'atheist', doesn't it? <rolls eyes> But, if I may use the... normal ;-) ... definition for now, neither of your examples are counter. I can find nothing -- other than the Wikipedia article! -- to indicate that Edwords is, as it says, an agnostic. He is, in fact, an atheist, and I'll be adding him (with refs, of course) shortly. As for Einstein, I think Dawkins had something to say on that matter, no? But, taking the broader definition, his "I am a deeply religious non-believer" makes him a explicit weak atheist, or at 'worst' a pantheist -- "sexed-up atheism" as Dawkins puts it.
As to the main point, Edwords himself discusses the various types of humanism in What is Humanism?, noting that even so-called 'religious humanism' is "usually without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a "higher" source of moral values". I admit that the "usually" there worries me, but what I get from that Edwords article is that humanism is effectively atheism (sensu lato), but it is mostly indifference to gods and such, focusing instead on people. Gods aren't so much non-existant as irrelevant (since they seem to be non-existent). Humanism is what you would call nontheism (with many humanists being strong atheists too), and what non-Americans (such as myself, David, I'm guessing Ilkali, Terry "I'm a humanist which means I'm an atheist" Pratchett and co) call atheism.
TTFN! Oolon (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should all read this article by Tom Flynn, and ponder it WRT this list. Oolon (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again! This wikipedia article is crap becuase the criteria sucks, so the criteria has to change. (But what's all that stuff about big enders?) --David from Downunder (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What change do you suggest, and why? Nick Graves (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fred Edwords

Okay, so I might have been a little hasty in thinking I had a ref for Edwords as an atheist. He's certainly no agnostic, and seems to always use the term humanist (aka weak, or possibly strong, atheist).

But here, he seems to be using the terms interchangeably. Specifically, the sentence "You know, we atheists and humanists pride ourselves in our skepticism" implies he is happy to be included in either category.

There's also "But looking at our movement as a whole, looking at the atheist, freethought, Humanist movement", "it would leave us humanists and atheists and freethinkers", "In one sense we are all a minority since there are so few atheists and freethinkers", etc.

But I'd like a second opinion as to whether that is good enough evidence of him regarding his (undoubted) humanism as just a different side of the same atheistic coin. I think so personally...

Oolon (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oolon, please take a look at the reference used for the Fred Edwords entry in the List of agnostics: Atheism 101. Fred Edwords considers himself agnostic, not atheist, and believes that denial of god(s) is required for one to be an atheist. In this reference, and in numerous others, the dispute over what constitutes "true" atheism is amply documented. Edwords denies being an atheist, though he would certainly be one according to certain definitions. Russell says he's technically an agnostic, though he provisionally accepts the label atheist. Taking a similar line, even Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Germany's "Chief Atheist" specifies that he's not really a "pure" atheist, but an agnostic. Drange, who calls himself an atheist, makes it clear that he considers atheism to be the assertion of the non-existence of God, and bases this definition on what he takes to be normal usage in everyday English. He does not think that mere nonbelievers are atheists. Einstein admits that he's an atheist from a certain point of view, but makes it clear that it's not his point of view, rejects the label atheist, and says he can be considered an agnostic instead. Huxley, no believer in deities, considered the term atheist inadequate, as he considered it to imply certainty, and felt compelled to coin the term agnostic to better describe his position (note then, that in its original sense, agnosticism is a category distinct from atheism, rather than one overlapping it). More recently, Shermer, who had long held fast to the term agnostic for his position only grudgingly applied the term atheist to himself, saying that "If 'atheist' means someone who does not believe in God, then an atheist is what I am." Notice his use of the word if in that sentence, and his later stated preference for the term agnostic--it's a provisional acceptance of the atheist label, premised on use of a definition that he himself does not prefer. I could list more examples, but I will end there.
My point is this: There is a continuing dispute over whether mere nonbelievers in gods are atheists or not. Owing to policy, it's inappropriate for us, in our capacity as Wikipedia editors, to take sides in this dispute. Furthermore, also owing to policy, it is inappropriate for us to label a living person an atheist when they reject that term for themselves. A living person's self-identity, especially if it concerns religious belief (or lack thereof), must be respected, even if the person has a position that we happen to think is clearly atheistic. For this project, identifying someone as an atheist is not just a simple matter of saying "An atheist is anyone who has position X, Person Y has position X, so Person Y is an atheist." Hence the need for non-definitional inclusion criteria, which for the most part depends on identifications made in reliable sources. Nick Graves (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Fred Edwords considers himself agnostic, not atheist, and believes that denial of god(s) is required for one to be an atheist". He labels himself agnostic. This issue is fundamentally terminological, not ontological. You seem to prefer the list to be oriented around what people call themselves, while I (and, I suspect, Oolon) would prefer it to be based on what they are. If a person is an X, he should be included on a list of Xs, regardless of whether he likes the term. Like I said above, if he explicitly and unequivocally rejects the term then we can make an exception.
In contrast, your inclusion criteria let in an inconsistent mishmash. Persons A and B have exactly the same views, but A takes a broad interpretation of 'atheist' and identifies himself as such while B just calls himself a nontheist. A and B get put into different lists despite being otherwise identical. How is that useful? What information do you think people are looking for when they view this article?
And where would you even put people described as agnostic atheists? Ilkali (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Nick, Nick, Nick... <shakes head sadly> ... I do understand your point. But I cannot get past the problem, as first I (though I suspect I'm not the first) and now Ilkali have said. That is: "Persons A and B have exactly the same views, but A takes a broad interpretation of 'atheist' and identifies himself as such while B just calls himself a nontheist. A and B get put into different lists despite being otherwise identical. How is that useful? What information do you think people are looking for when they view this article?"
You say that there is a "need for non-definitional inclusion criteria, which for the most part depends on identifications made in reliable sources". Would you consider the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a reliable source? I assume so, as you've not reversed any of the people I've included via that source. But how are we to know what criteria the various ODNB authors are using?! We might be safe with anyone referred to as a 'fervent', 'firm' or 'outspoken' atheist. But what of, say, Mary Butts: "By this time she had become an atheist and socialist." Sez who?! Asked her, did they? Rejected the existence of God, did she? Or maybe <he says in a low growl> she was just a non-believer...
Or those seemingly identified as atheists because of being outspoken critics of religion? If they -- as far as we know -- criticise religion only, out they go, like Ambrose Bierce. But if a biographer calls them an atheist, they're in. Suppose a biographical dictionary refers to "Bierce's atheistic views". In or out then? And what're you gonna do if, in future editions of such reference works, authors talk of Francis Crick's views as atheist? As it happens, for him we have his own words. But for all these others, we are relying on other people's judgement calls. Or even personal perceptions.
This is yet another reason why we must judge it ourselves, with justification. Definition says X, person says or is reliably associated with X, therefore person is X, regardless of what they, for the manifold reasons I'm sure you're well aware of (eg Shermer's example) prefer (unless they specifically deny it, naturally). Jonathan Miller is thoroughly on record as being similarly reluctant to call himself an atheist. If he hadn't made a TV series on it, would we have to leave him out? Edwords may be an 'agnostic' by his own preferred definition (though I still haven't found him saying so himself), but would you bet on his 'theistic' views being less than 95% identical to Miller's? Cos I wouldn't. Dawkins is agnostic (to the extent he's agnostic about fairies), so I guess there's some doubt about him too, really. I also refer you to the Tom Flynn article.
What of all the Ayn Rand disciples? How come so few of the folks you got from the categories have gone in? Other Wikipedia editors aren't as anal about it as we are being. What of the firm Marxists, devout humanists, solid rationalists and unwavering materialists? Being any of those pretty much means that one is an atheist according to the dictionary, and so likely to get identified as an atheist. Yet we're prone to leaving them out, unless a hopefully reliable 'someone else' ticks the box for us. Looks like we are abdicating, if not our duty as editors, at least our own brains. 'Let other people decide!' And they are more reliable, how?
I came across a reference in the ODNB entry for Sir John Cowley yesterday: "His early years were spent in a Dorset village, where his father was the rector and Thomas Hardy was a neighbour. He recalled [Thomas] Hardy as a sad, wizened old man who spoke seldom but who occasionally, though an atheist, attended church services, at which he always asked Cowley's father to read the same passage from the Bible—Elijah's vision of the earthquake." If that were the only reference to Hardy's (non)beliefs -- I've not checked yet -- would it be good enough? It's practically hearsay!
I really am starting to wonder what the point of this list is. How about we cut out everyone except those who self-identify in their own words?
Oolon (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali wrote "I (and, I suspect, Oolon) would prefer it to be based on what they are." Me too. I already stated as much in an earlier discussion. Nick said that there is "a need for non-definitional inclusion criteria" - easily satisfied and I'm happy to oblige: we'll just include anyone I say should be included and that's that!
Oolon... you wrote 'the sentence "You know, we atheists and humanists pride ourselves in our skepticism" implies he is happy to be included in either category.' I'm surprised that a genius essayist like yourself could come to such a conclusion. That sentence merely implies that he considers himself to be an atheist and/or a humanist. --David from Downunder (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
David wrote: "Ilkali wrote 'I (and, I suspect, Oolon) would prefer it to be based on what they are.' Me too." That seems fair enough. Now, how do we know whether or not someone is an atheist? I'd say, if they are identified as such in a reliable source, we know they are an atheist. Furthermore, if an otherwise reliable source (say, an article in a reputable magazine) is contradicted by an even more reliable source (say, the person themselves), we ought to go with what the more reliable source says.
Oolon, I have no objection to using that ref for Cowley being an atheist. It's a reliable source, and it says he was an atheist. As far as we know, Cowley never denied being an atheist. That's good enough.
Let me make this clear, as I think there is still some confusion: I do not oppose including weak atheists in this list. What I oppose is the presumption that someone who says "I don't believe in God" must automatically be categorized as an atheist. With regards to this list, I do not take the point of view that such a person must be an atheist, or must not be an atheist. I defer to what reliable sources say on the matter. Furthermore, let me clarify this: I do not insist that persons must self-identify as atheists before they are included. Again, I defer to what the reliable sources say on the matter. Rohirok (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"how do we know whether or not someone is an atheist? I'd say, if they are identified as such in a reliable source, we know they are an atheist". The problem is the lexical ambiguity. We have a single word, atheist, that maps to multiple concepts - minimally, atheist1 and atheist2. The name of the article ("List of atheists") doesn't disambiguate and neither do most people when describing themselves or others as "atheist"s. If the article's inclusion criteria were such that any kind of atheist - weak or strong, implicit or explicit - were included, it wouldn't be a problem. But we have an entirely different list for weak atheists. If somebody identifies as an atheist, how do we know whether to put him/her here or there?
"What I oppose is the presumption that someone who says "I don't believe in God" must automatically be categorized as an atheist". Assuming he means "I don't believe in any gods", and assuming his self-identification is accurate, he is necessarily a weak atheist. What's the problem here? Ilkali (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem, as I've stated repeatedly, is that it is not a settled issue whether a "weak atheist" is a genuine atheist. References cited in this list and the Atheism article, as well as in this discussion page document that controversy pretty thoroughly. Nick Graves (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)