Talk:List of former atheists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Nov 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Everyone is born an atheist

Seriously, isn't this list moot or redundant? Theism is something in which people are indoctrinated into. When you are born, you don't believe in anything. So technically-speaking, everyone is born an atheist. So for this article to even be valid, it should be rephrased to notable outspoken atheists who have embraced theism.

If this article is going to be included in Wikipedia, then we also need a listing of Notable people who previously believed in Santa Claus.

I Agree.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Argeaux (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This again. No, people aren't born atheist. "Atheism as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." Babies are not rejecting theism nor are they affirming anything. The Santa Claus analogy probably makes you sound more juvenile or misinformed than you realize. For one Santa Claus is partly based on a real person so belief in Santa is like a belief in Johnny Appleseed. For another the concept of a monotheistic God has arisen in many cultures and been accepted by people well into their adulthood. This can not be said of the mythological variants of Santa Claus.--T. Anthony 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured a category would be worse though. A list doesn't effect the articles for these people. Although there are categories like Category:Former Muslims or Category:Former Mormons, atheists are seen so badly in the US I figured a category would be meanspirited to the American atheists. Still as we do have several of these "former this and former that" I thought it fit. My only concern is that atheism isn't precisely a religion, but I couldn't find Category:People by former belief or even Category:People by philosophy--T. Anthony 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A category would be worse; this can be annotated and sourced. I'm mostly concerned though with establishing what basis there is for ever identifying these people as atheists; claims of apologists such as Josh McDowell are particularly suspect. There's also the need to specify exactly what atheism meant to these individuals, to make sure the term isn't being equivocated or misused. Postdlf 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think some of these are fairly legitimate in that they were people who explicitly believed God did not exist and then changed their mind. However I may have made some errors on starting and in time further errors crept in while I was away.--T. Anthony 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've now sourced it as well I can. Granted the source on Price just says he converted to Christianity, it doesn't say what he was before then. I removed Gabriel Marcel as most sources say he had been raised agnostic rather than atheist.--T. Anthony 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is quite well sourced now, and it is an interesting list. I hope it's not deleted, especially as there are lists of formerly religious people, because whilst atheism isn't quite a religion, this article does balance the other lists Slackbuie 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Took off unreferenced deal

I think it's fairly well-referenced at present. The reference for Price though just states he converted to Christianity, it doesn't confirm what he converted from. I think he does fit, but maybe I need something more conclusive. Strobel is not referenced, but I think that's acceptable.--T. Anthony 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McGrath?

Was Alister McGrath ever an atheist? (As opposed to just not church-going) His article doesn't mention it.--T. Anthony 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a source ie McGrath himself. (Granted he could be lying, but for the sake of fairness I'm going to say he's not.)--T. Anthony 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I did take Keith Ward out as I couldn't find a source saying he ever was atheist.--T. Anthony 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entries are alleged unless secondary sources show atheist prior to conversion.

It just struck me (prompted by a discussion in another article) that for someone studying religion who would want to know the former religion of notable figures then they would want secondary sources to confirm the former philosophy i.e. in this case "atheist".

Quite a few (all ?) records only show they are on record after the conversion e.g. in books, autobiographies or interviews etc. I know of no atheists who have converted to a theistic religion who are on record prior to their conversion as saying that they are atheists (though please prove me wrong here). I understand the difficulty of getting secondary sources that report that a person is an atheist prior to their conversion but that does mean that at best we say "Alleged" Atheist as we have no secondary sources that are able to record that they were an atheist other than the person themselves. Ttiotsw 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We have no evidence most of the people in List of ex-Roman Catholics ever really believed in Catholicism either, and some of them clearly never did. Still in the case of John C. Wright and George R. Price we clearly have men who were atheist, but then were not atheist. In both cases their conversions came in their 40s so they were on record with atheist statements. In George R. Price's case he divorced his wife partly because he was an atheist who found her Christianity annoying. On further reading I found out he stayed Christian after his conversion, I had said he dropped it but stayed theist, he just became less evangelical/intense about it later. I know more directly in the case of Wright as I read his stories when he was atheist and I first knew him as an atheist writer of science fiction. His conversion to Christianity was slightly surprising to me, I was told of it by a strongly atheist person from Eastern Germany. (The guy who told me of Wright converting was far more surprised than I and he claimed to have never known a true theist. He also found/finds the idea of theism ludicrous) There were also several raised as atheist, but admittedly their atheist statements in youth might have just been parroting their parents. Still the ex-Catholics or ex-Muslims might have just been parroting their parents ideology/belief/faith/whatever in youth too. Likewise a few were former Communist whose atheism went along with their Communism and who abandoned both more or less simultaneously. Still for consistency I decided not to use a stricter standard here than I would see in other "ex" lists. You might be happy to know that I did remove names when I found evidence they'd been agnostic instead. I'd kind of like to remove C. S. Lewis even. I've read his letters from what's called his "atheist period" and I'm fairly convinced he was never atheist. He was just strongly irreligious, but clearly believed in something "spiritual" even then. Deist/Pantheist, leaning toward Neo-Pagan, would be closer to what he was in youth. There are letters from him then that clearly state he rejected the idea of "God as Father" because he felt it was a delusion per Freudian psychology, but I don't think he ever said much that showed he rejected all conceptions of God. Still I likely couldn't remove Lewis without creating objections. I will remove some if you find evidence they were never atheist and I will even remove Lewis if we can get a concensus to do so.--T. Anthony 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In an unrelated reading on Muslims, in a Pew survey, it indicated that most religious conversions happen before the person is 35. I mention this as above I seemed to indicate the ones here who quit on atheism after age 40 could maybe be seen as "more solid." On consideration pf reading on conversions I think that's probably unfair and not a way of thinking that'd be considered in other former/convert articles. If most of the people in this list did not do anything notable before they abandoned atheism it's likely because that's generally true of people who leave/join a philosophy or religion.--T. Anthony 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, T. Anthony. I see you've removed Lewis as "kind of a test", but I'm sure many Christians who got to the article would expect to find him. I suggest we should either (a) Make it clear in the intro that a pre-conversion public record of Atheism is required for inclusion in this list (maybe even mentioning Lewis as a counterexample), and/or (b) Restore Lewis, but with a caveat regarding his inclusion, and/or (c) Restore Lewis until we can find a WP:RS that he wasn't (or was) an Atheist prior his conversion. Your interpretation of his letters, however valid, might violate WP:NOR. --Wfaxon 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I put him back even though I'm not intending to work here anymore. A different problem is I preferred the older name for this list to the current one. I argued about that, but then gave up. Someone insisted everyone is born atheist so everyone is an ex-atheist. I thought and think that's that rather spurious even if you believe it. (Everyone is born illiterate, amoral, and unable to speak by similar logic) Plus "former proponents" sounds like they were supporters of atheism as a cause, but many of these people were just atheists as a personal preference. However as I said I gave up as it wasn't worth it. Still to see Lewis as a "proponent" of atheism sounds kind of POV or misleading as even if he was an atheist he wasn't especially activists about it. (Lepp or Price seem to have been)--T. Anthony 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Ignoring whether I think this should even have an article, I think the title is disingenious. Everyone is an ex-atheist since newborn babies aren't religious. List of former proponents of atheism sounds a bit better to me. Voretus/talk 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you sincerely believe that? If you do this is why you are incorrect. Newborn babies I suppose could be implicit atheists as they have not been introduced to the concept of God. (Although I know people who would reject that) However by the same logic you could call possibly say they're nihilists as well as they have no sense of truth or meaning of any kind yet. It's just not meaningful or useful to place babies in any metaphysical position like that. Still I don't oppose the rename, but I think it was unnecessary and you should've given it more discussion. (Interestingly only Muslims seem more irked by a "former list" than atheists do.)--T. Anthony 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that it was a point of contention. I thought it was a given. Sorry. I wouldn't use the same logic to call them nihilists, though, as normally nihilism is asserted, whereas I've always held that anyone who doesn't believe in God, a goddess, gods, or a goddess is an atheist. I suppose it isn't explicit, as you said, but I didn't think that anyone thought that babies/young children were religious.
I'm also not irked at a former list. If other religious/philisophical views get them, atheism should too, no matter how hard atheists complain about it. It's of the same use. I just didn't like the title. The list just seems to list former active proponents anyway. Voretus 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
For most people I think "atheist" means someone who doesn't believe in God. A newborn has no opinion on the matter, it's just ignorant. I think most people would find the statement "newborn babies are atheists" to be, at best, misleading or incoherent. In fact I'm not sure I'd ever heard such an expression before. Nihilism was maybe not the best example though. It'd be more like saying babies are amoral, non-democratic, and have no respect for the law. All that might be true in a sense, but it's essentially meaningless and possibly encourages inaccurate associations.--T. Anthony 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it. Voretus/talk 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Should Lars von Trier be added? Existing sources say he was raised atheist and Communist, but converted to Catholicism. Judging by the interview in The Age his current beliefs seem uncertain, but they don't seem to have returned to atheism. I'm not sure though.--T. Anthony 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, his conversion is noted as being a rebellious act and he now "enthusiastically endorses pornography", so he's hardly a mainstream Catholic, but I suppose in an attempt at completeness... You can always add caveats so readers of the article won't be misled. --Wfaxon 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Nahh. I mean if it was just rebellion it probably doesn't count. Although if someone else decides he still fits, as some kind of pornography endorsing theist, than I guess they can add him.--T. Anthony 03:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anywho. Do you think Peter Hitchens, Connie Purdue, J. Neil Schulman, or Merle Terlesky might fit? I'm trying not to edit anymore so figured I'd just ask instead.--T. Anthony 11:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifications for inclusion on lists such as this

I have recently started a thread at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Qualifications for inclusion of "List of former (x)s" in which I am hoping we can standardize the qualifications for inclusion in such lists. Any constructive comments would be more than welcome. John Carter 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to be somewhat strict on this to increase its utility. I even took off C. S. Lewis for a time, but I'm open to new ideas so might check this out. Thanks.--T. Anthony 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In relation to Lewis I decided to add Joy Gresham.--T. Anthony 03:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable yotta yotta

I really don't think any of these lists should be called "notable Xs" and I'm disappointed that trend spread here. By definition if they're at Wikipedia it means they've met a notability guideline. Oh well.--T. Anthony 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the titling of the threads may have been to initially forestall allegations that the contents of the pages didn't meet notability requirements. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing shorter titles myself. John Carter 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That might make sense with lists with red-links or that contain articles on the verge of deletion, but those things aren't true here. It's possible that, as a failed candidate, Steve Beren's article could be AfD'd. Jeffrey Lang's could likely fit as well, but otherwise every name here is clearly notable enough to have an article.--T. Anthony 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"possible that, as a failed candidate, Steve Beren's article could be AfD'd." I guess it wasn't just possible, but probable.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Like I said, I wouldn't mind seeing the names changed myself. But, given the previous attempts to delete these articles individually and collectively, I can understand how editors might have tried to forestall some of the more obvious bases for future deletion discussions by sticking words like "notable" in wherever possible. I tend to think that by now maybe (?) those attempts have been curtailed, though, so it might make sense to shorten the titles. John Carter 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nontheists?

Should this be changed to "List of former nontheists"? (Or if you must "List of notable former proponents of nontheism?") That would take Antony Flew and Moses Hess out, but add former deists and former agnostics. I don't know if Schulman's view of God is purely theist, but as he believes he communicated with it I think he would stay in a "List of former nontheists."--T. Anthony 11:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The move

I hope it doesn't anger anyone, but it's more in line with these "former blank" categories and lists plus the name was getting incredibly long. Also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions says "Do not use a title like: Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of noted Xs, nor list of all Xs." Some argue every theist is a former atheist as everyone was born atheist, but this is a disputed notion. Muslims believe everyone is born Muslim while some atheists contend it might be more accurate to say you are born "nontheist" but not necessarily "atheist." Other atheists at Wiki contend that defining infants as theists, deists, atheists, or nontheists is essentially meaningless. See discussion at Talk:List of nontheists.--T. Anthony 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Going by Wikipedia naming conventions the word "notable" should not be here. However I'll tolerate it being brought back for consistency. For some reason none of the other "former" lists are "up to code" yet. Hopefully they will be standardized in time and then this can revert to the more proper name I moved it to.--T. Anthony 07:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move that Rorty be deletet or an explanation added

As the primary source for including Rorty in this article clearly states, Rorty has always been anti-metaphyiscal (p.5), and as such, no such thing as a deity has a place in his thinking, which can perhaps best be described as pragmatist. The section that led to him being included in this article is mainly the following:

"Die andere Gruppe der Philosophen, die sich Atheisten nennen, neigt dazu, das Wort "Atheismus" anstelle von "Antiklerikalismus" oder "Säkularismus" zu verwenden. Ich wünsche mir jetzt, ich hätte bei entsprechender Gelegenheit statt des ersten Begriffs einen dieser beiden letzten Ausdrücke benutzt. Denn Antiklerikalismus ist keine epistemologische oder metaphysische Einstellung, sondern eine politische Ansicht. Die Ansicht, dass kirchliche Einrichtungen, auch wenn sie noch soviel Gutes tun - bei allem Trost, den sie Notleidenden oder Verzweifelten spenden -, doch das Wohl demokratischer Gesellschaften gefährden, und zwar so sehr, dass es am besten wäre, wenn sie endlich verschwinden würden." (p.11)

which translates to

"The other group of philosophers who call themselves atheists tends to use the word "atheism" instead of "anti-clericalism" or "secularism". I now wish that I had used one of the latter two terms instead of the former on relevant occasions. Because Anti-clericalism is not an epistemological or metaphysical attitude, but a political view. The opinion that all ecclesiastical institutions, whatever good they might do - whatever comfort they may provide to those in need -, still endanger the well-being of democratic societies to such an extent that it would be best if they finally disappeared."

The reason Rorty states for wishing that he had not used the term atheist is that since there is no place for metaphysics in his thinking, and "atheism" is according to him a metaphysical concept, his concept is a purely political one.

Furthermore, one of the most notable philosophers of our time, Jürgen Habermas, who was a friend of Rorty's has called (in an obituary, see: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/artikel/953/117824/ ) a "strict atheist".

In conclusion: Rorty did not convert to any sort of belief in anything metaphysical, and certainly not to any religion... In his thinking, as in every form of philosophical pragmatism, there is per definitionem no place for metaphysics. Thus, either should the section on him state that at no time did he believe in anything metaphysical - or he should be removed, since the inclusion in this article (at least without further explanation) gives the impression that Rorty at some point stopped "disbelieving" in deities, which he most certainly didn't.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.84.13 (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I took him out and added some musicians plus an author. Granted I'm thinking the musicians might have just been saying they were atheist in youth to explain their screwed up pasts, but with lists you go with what's verified and they say they were atheists.--T. Anthony 12:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm X?

Someone added him, but I'm not sure he fits. I sourced him as once having a strong hostility to religion and God, but I'm not sure that means he was ever atheist. He could've been agnostic or just angry. Feel free to remove him.--T. Anthony 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this be retooled?

What I mean is there's some reason to prefer it be List of former atheists and agnostics as that would better fit Category:Former atheists and agnostics. What say you?--T. Anthony (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes sense at least from a standpoint of convention. This list is short enough that excluding ex-agnostics makes little sense. aremisasling (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I might move it in the next few days, but I'll give a bit more time in case there's any opposition. Although your's is the first response I've gotten either way. If changed it'd mean I can put Gabriel Marcel back, which is nice.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Non-Abrahamic" category

As a category "Non-Abrahamic" only works if the Abrahamic faiths are in some kind of a supergroup. Even so, with no other supergroups, it suggests that the world is stratified by Abrahamic faiths and everyone else.

Furthermore members of Non-Abrahamic faiths are not primarily Hindus. If anything they'd be more Buddhist than Hindu. Not to mention Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Shinto. Then there are the minority religious groups like the Druze, Unitarian Universalists (started as christian, but fully diverged), Baha'i (Started as Muslim, but fully diverged), Zoroastrians, Western Neo-Pagan faiths, Aboriginal faith groups, Afro-Caribbean religions (Vodun is actually a national religion in Haiti), etc, etc, etc.

Perhaps there would be no debate on the issue, but I posted this as a preemptive justification. aremisasling (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When I started I thought I might find someone who joined some East Asian theistic philosophy. However if such a thing happened it'd be best just to separate them out as Chinese folk religion or Shinto isn't really like Hinduism. So you were right, thanks.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Pratchett?

I saw this, but for varied reasons I'm not sure it's proper to add him.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)