Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Einstein was no atheist

The afore mentioned section from a letter is about the "word of God" (i.e. the Torah, Bible or what have you), not God himself. The following statements from Einstein shed a little better light on his beliefs regarding God and atheism:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Clearly, Einstein explicitly denied being an atheist, which, according to the article, means his name cannot be included in any list of atheists. 67.135.49.186 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

One can deny being anything, it does not make it true. EchetusXe (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Suppose Hitler were on record denying being a mass murderer? Perhaps, then, the criteria need a slight revision. Something like:

"Generally excluded from these lists are persons who have denied being an atheist: a person should know their own position better than anyone. However, 'atheist' has often been a term of abuse or stigma; and some people undoubtedly consider only 'strong atheism' to be atheism. Under such situations an 'atheist' (as used here) might deny being one. Since the position is more important than the favoured term, very strong statements of 'weak atheism' may override denial, but the evidence must be very strong."

Okay, so the wording might need some work, and maybe relegate everything from "a person should know..." onward to a footnote. But I think we need to be able to include such people as might say: "I don't believe in a personal god, I regard all religions as a lot of myth and nonsense, but I can't actually rule out some vague supernatural thing, so I'm not an atheist." They're plainly more atheistic than many a self-claimed atheist who otherwise only expresses disbelief in the Abrahamic god. Oolon (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC) =

Help on french Wikipedia

Hi everybody, I try to translate these english articles to french articles ; if some of you are speaking french (or just a little bit) and want to help, you can add the name of the famous atheists on the french wikipedia. If they are translation errors (thanks google tools), I'll correct them. The names in french are, for example :

1. Liste d'athées célèbres (films, radio, télévision et théâtre)

for : List of atheists (movies, radio, theater...)

You're welcome on french wikipedia Tibo217 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can avoid red links, it's better Tibo217 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Major rearrangement

Tibo217's note above reminds me, and sort of forces the issue due to what he's attempting...

Ever since we divided the single list into separate ones by occupation, it's becoming harder and harder to check whether someone's already included, and where. For instance, I hunted all over before tracking Natalie Angier down in 'activists'. And we still have the problem of putting -- or in many cases, shoehorning -- people into one category or another. I've found several others who, yet again, are 'known for' several areas -- is Plasterk a scientist, or an author, or a politician?

So, I'm proposing that we revert to an alphabetical list, split over some pages at strategic points in the alphabet.

And that, because the 'posh' version of the tables idea seems to have fallen through, that we go with a variation on my tables set-up above, so it can be sorted in other ways.

We no longer need the 'Self-Itentified As' column -- that's covered in the comments / quotes bit really anyway. The (just about) spare space could be used for their pictures.

Now, that's a lot of work, but I don't mind giving it a go. The simplest other alternative is that we let each separate list run on its own terms, so Dawkins might feature as a scientist and an author and again as an activist. But that still comes down to us putting entries in several places and making judgements on whish list to use. So the table (for sorting) and A-Z list version is my preference.

But, what do you chaps think?

Oolon (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Totally agree. I think this has taken way too long already and I am glad you want to give it a go. I'll be happy to help. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried out a bit: User:Oolon Colluphid/sandbox.

Apart from the obvious question -- how's that? -- I've got two others. Does anyone know if there's a way to get sortable tables to sort a particular column by default when it loads? This would be good so we could add new entries at the bottom (or top, or anywhere)... or do we have to get the 'raw text' of the entries in the right order? And secondly, is there any way to fix the column width by percentage? It'd be nice to have the Name' and 'Who' columns rather wider. (I'll go browse the help pages now...) Oolon (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And thirdly, do we think the pics should be a little bigger? The first one I added -- Ali -- seemed fine, as it is just her face, but some of the others look a bit too small to be of use. Oolon (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've solved the column width thing, though it may require some more playing with to get it just right. Oolon (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a late kvetch, just 'cause I'm bitter: the List of nontheists AfD nomination was crude, and inadequately discussed, and the article's sourced info (regarding the lists of deity-believing nontheists) was not understood by some of the participants less familiar with the topic.

Ok, now that I've got that bit of gall cleared from my throat, on to the matter at hand: The alphabetical list is good for keeping things tidy and avoiding some problems with having to decide what profession to list someone under. However, it would be a shame to eliminate such lists as Atheist philosophers or Atheist scientists. There are comparable religion-based lists, such as List of Christian thinkers in science and List of Jewish scientists and philosophers.

Also, I think a combined list of nontheists is still a good idea, since the important identity here (as I believed editors have agreed in the past) is with regards to a person's lack of belief in deities, rather than their preferred or predominantly assigned denomination (atheist, agnostic, humanist, etc.). There are good reasons to exclude such persons as Einstein or Bart Ehrman from the list of atheists (primarily because of WP:OR and WP:BLP), but in the end, their views on the matter of God's existence are identical, or practically identical, to most or all of those in the list of atheists. The position, not the denomination, is what we're after here.

I like the columns, and the space for a portrait for each entry is nice--makes it easy to pick out a familiar face and read more. They ought to be a touch larger, I think. Good work, Oolon, as always.

That's my two cents. Now I'll go back and crawl under my rock. Nick Graves (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Nick, good to see you here again, thought you'd gone off in a huff cos I'd revamped the inclusion criteria! ;-)

(Para 1): Agreed.

(Para 2): So, what do you suggest? Keep just the Philosophers and Scientists, in their original format, and delete the rest once they're in the tables? Fine by me. It does mean keeping an eye on two different places for amendments... but then again, not all of Wikipedia's left hands know what the right hands are doing anyway: see for instance the existence, and opening text of, List of Dutch atheists. (Not that there's much to actually disagree with there, as such, but it would be nice if we were all singing from the same non-hymn sheet -- their definition there is at odds with the definition we'd had here till I redid it.) So: Philosophers and Scientists keep their own lists (as well as being included in the big one, obviously)... agreed?

(Para 3): "...in the end, their views on the matter of God's existence are identical, or practically identical, to most or all of those in the list of atheists." Absobloodylutely! So then. The definition of atheism in the List of Dutch atheists actually works equally well as a definition of nontheism:

'A typical nontheist is someone who has made a conscious decision that (s)he does not believe in any form of deity. It's a popular misconception that all nontheists deny the existence of God or gods. While a miniority of them certainly do, most nontheists would strongly disagree with this definition: they don't entirely reject the concept "God", but would rather argue that the term God has no importance, and possibly no meaning, to them.'

So... what? Use the table I've started for nontheists? Can do... anyone else want to chime in... please?!

How about I re-include a sortable column for the person's (self-)identification? Or, as that'll make it cramped, doesn't the reference/details do that job anyway? If we title the page List of nontheists, then the ref shows their 'denomination', and what's more, puts it in context to show nuances, rather than us deciding what the person is if they've not specifically said.

(Para 4): I've upped the pic size to 70px, and think it looks better for it. And, thanks!

Anyway, whatever we decide on this other stuff, I'll carry on feeding people into the tabe then.

QUESTION: Does anyone with more experience have any ideas how best to go about this? Should I set up a load of sandbox pages till we're ready to go live, is that best/simplest? Whatever, it'll take a while... but when we're ready, we'll need to have decided what to call the list: is it atheists, or nontheists?

TTFN, Simon (Oolon) Oolon (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How many sources are needed?

How many sources must be cited before it is accepted that an individual be an atheist? I notice that most cite only one. I think that some atheists, especially ones who subscribe to political ideologies such as communism, can be taken for granted. However this does not allow for degrees that can exist just as easily in the beliefs of religious people. Additionally what about people who were believers in their early life and became atheists as they grew older, and vice versa. Wikipedia needs to ensure that there are at least two satisfactory references for each entry and that the person died as an atheist. Without further verification this list could be confusing. For example, though he was baptized Catholic, and technically remained one until his death, I would not include Hitler in a list of Catholic politicians, well, not unless I was trying to be mischievous! Liamfoley (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One reliable source is sufficient. Purported atheists can be (and have been) removed when more recent or more reliable information is discovered. Whatever ambiguity that exists for certain persons' status can be noted in the entry. I see no problem with listing Hitler as a Catholic, if it can be confirmed. Of course, the lists of Catholics may have different thresholds than the atheist lists, and that determination is up to those who edit those lists. 75.87.109.190 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I claim that personal statements by individuals known or likely to be in the confidence of the proposed atheist ought to be acceptable. For example, if (hypothetically) the father of Jack Black, who knows Jack to be an atheist, wants to enter Jack into the list of atheists, he ought to be able to do so, with himself as a reference. Then, it is just a matter of being reasonably sure that the father really did make that statement. Imagine, then, that there is a wikipedia member whose name is mrblack, and who adds Jack to the list, and claims to be Jack's father. What should the protocol be to establish that mrblack really is Jack's father? -- Jcandy (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin

While I wouldn't go so far as to accuse anyone of leaving him off intentionally so as to disassociate an embaressing name with a certain ideology, it seems a bit funny that, until I just added him, Stalin was missing from the Politicians page. He is, if nothing else, listed on his own page as an atheist. Corbmobile (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalin was a long-standing entry in the list. He is periodically removed or challenged, for POV reasons (eg. "Stalin was evil, therefore, he couldn't really have been an atheist!"). Thanks for noticing that he was missing and putting him back into this mixed bag where he belongs. 75.87.109.190 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful list

Here is a helpful list of agnostics, atheists and freethinkers who do not identify themselves with any sort of religion, along with quotes from them (which will help verifiability issues). A lot of them seem to be missing in the current lists, and I'd be glad if someone would help add them as I don't have the time for it now. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't give the source for many quotes, so they are not very verifiable. In fact, the very first quote is a highly questionable Lincoln one I discussed here. I pretty much gave up on the website after reading that quote. Madridrealy (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And also this book. ROK (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since it is already on his main page, Im going to add Rob Flynn, lead singer of Metal band Machine Head. I think it is pretty much already done, just not put on there yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.57.240 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Signing Concordant

The part about Benito Mussolini signing a concordant with the Vatican should be removed as it is a red herring. While obviously a leader with many Catholic citizens would be more likely interested, one need not be Catholic himself/herself to sign a concordat. In fact the Imperial Russian government signed one at a time when Catholics were living under ongoing anti-Catholic measures that were put in place by the Russian government itself. There is no reason to think Mussolini's willingness to deal with the Vatican in his official capacity supplies any evidence of his personal belief or disbelief in a god. If there are no objections I will remove that part. Madridrealy (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rosenburg

The info says, "Bio says main author of key Nazi ideological tenets, including "the persecution of Christian churches", and also that Hitler appointed him head of the Centre of National Socialistic Ideological and Educational Research. Yet Hitler also wanted religious instruction and fought atheism (in speeches at least)."

What does the last sentence have to do with Rosenberg? Yes, it is no secret that Hitler was trying to defend himself from criticism that he was anti-religious. It was Hitler himself who said, as Ian Kershaw put it, "the north German Protestants had labelled him a hirely of Rome and south German Catholics a pagan worshipper of Woden..." and as Kershaw further wrote, 'this negative image of "neo-heathanism"' was one the "...NSDAP could not shake off" The "Hitler myth" page 36. While Hitler did say he wanted religious instruction (just before he secularized countless schools in direct violation of the Concordat ,see here, here, and here, for example) it was not in line with Rosenberg's suggestions.

Anyway, what does Hitler's feigned support for Christianity have to with Rosenberg's beliefs? Rosenberg was under Hitler's power, not vice-versa. I think the speculation should be removed. A contemporary (1934) Time article here has more information about Rosenberg's beliefs, and there should be a lot of information in books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridrealy (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

what a weird article

Is this artcile remotely encyclopedic or even usefull in any way shape or form? --71.131.27.5 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think it belongs here, be bold and nominate it for deletion. Nick Graves (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is, presumably, as encyclopedic and useful as most of the other 'List of' articles. I suppose there's some question about its 'encyclopedicity', given that it can never be complete.

On the other hand, it contains plenty of important and useful information about the people in it that is useful if you're interested in that aspect of people, but which is not worth including in the entrants' biographies, because it is tangential. That is, many of the people in it have only small entries, and the fact that they're atheists is far, far from being the most important thing about them, so it would unbalance their articles. It may be worth noting that Richard Dawkins is an atheist, but of what general relevance is mentioning it -- with a nice supporting quote etc -- about, for example, Diane Farr, Skandar Keynes, Allan Pinkerton and so on? If someone doesn't have a 'personal life' section, creating one and having nothing but 'was an atheist' in it would skew the whole thing. Sholto Douglas, 1st Baron Douglas of Kirtleside was a very notable character, but his disbelief in gods is probably the least notable thing about him.

In other words, it's a way of hiving off a minor point about a lot of people into a place where it can be found by those who are looking for such information.

We've already considered using categories instead (heh, it'd certainly solve the 'are they a TV person or a comedian?', 'a writer or a scientist?' etc questions!)... but that again runs into the problem of needing to include a reference in the main article.

No, this works quite well in an encyclopedic sense for corralling certain information that does not always have another suitable home. Put it this way: if Celebatheists is useful, then so is the WP version (not least because ours is far better referenced). And of course ours links to their biographies for further info.

Then again, I might well be biased, having contributed a third for certain, possibly by now a half, of all the entries. So by all means nominate it for deletion. But I'd have thought that any logic that deleted it should be applied to a lot of other lists here too.

Oolon (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Nick Graves (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If its notable enough to be said here its notable enough to be in the main article and if its not notable enough to be in the main article its not notable enough to be here... I am saying this for list of any religion if we really want to list it it should be a category because either a fact/person/place/idea etc is notable or it isnt --71.131.27.5 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, if you don't think this article belongs here, do something about it. There is an AfD process in which the larger community participates, and you are free to nominate this article. There is no way that Oolon and crew are gonna get on board with erasing this article after all the work he/we have put into it. Lists and categories perform different functions, and cannot replace each other. Nick Graves (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to a reponce that made it sound like I was picking out atheism on some anti-atheism agenda also the AFD process is convoluted I do not understand it. --71.131.27.5 (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"If its notable enough to be said here its notable enough to be in the main article and if its not notable enough to be in the main article its not notable enough to be here."

That's simply not true, because the reason it -- a lengthy quote etc -- is said here is to substantiate someone's inclusion in the list. But that information is not relevant -- not significant enough to bother mentioning -- in the main article. For many people, it's of no more relevance than "had a pet rabbit called Miffy". It is, however, notable enough in the context of listing people who are atheists.

Now one might dispute whether there is encyclopedic relevance in having such lists at all. But for instance, I note that my copy of The Encyclopedia of Fantasy devotes several pages to listing operas that have supernatural and fantasy elements, so we're not the only ones to think lists are useful and 'encyclopedic'. And I can find nothing in WP:Lists to suggest ours isn't a classic of the genre.

As for the AfD process being convoluted... it looks straighforward enough to me.

Oolon (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is straightforward in theory not so much in practice.. As for notability that arguemnt means that we could have a list on people who have had pet bunnies. Also a few listings contain no quotes or anything. Also I would say the man standing on the corner carrying signs spouting his religion or atheism has more business being here than someone like Bree Olson who from her article and the interview doesn't seem to ever talk about it, or even want to, so it is minor/trivial about her. --71.131.27.5 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As trivial as it is, Bree Olsen athiest gets 4690 hits on google. Seems like quite a number of people take it pretty seriously. In fact, my favorite is Atheist Mind’s Top 10 Sexiest Female Atheists. Of course, it's a blog, so the people listed there shouldn't be added on that evidence alone, but the same interview that was quoted here seems to have made its way around the web pretty well. In any case, an AFD for this list would not be based on any one person, but on the whole list, and there are certainly quite a large number of people on this list that are notable, and even for whom their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is notable. Edhubbard (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was citing an example a listof people notable for something is one thing but a list of people in a category no matter how trivaly is the problem. I mean clarly there are people exceptionaly notable for religious beliefs just thats not what this list is and thats why i find it unencyclopedic--71.131.27.5 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

People who deny being atheists?

Section 1

Should someone be on the list if they deny being an atheist, but nonetheless we have evidence that they didn't believe in god (and hence fit the most inclusive definition, that we are using for this list)?

A long running debate on List of atheists (science and technology) is whether Einstein should be included (see the Talk page there), and it seems to me that this is a crucial point (in that Einstein said he didn't believe in a personal god, etc, but there's also a quote where he denies the label atheist). Furthermore, I note that the criteria were changed at [1] and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion (although I guess that also means there weren't any objections to it either). So I thought I would ask what people's views on this point - is there consensus for this new version? Mdwh (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I had been a pretty staunch defender of more restrictive criteria, which limited the list only to those who either (1) expressed a strong atheist position, or (2) were identified in reliable sources specifically as "atheists," regardless of whether they were weak or strong atheists. I also favored excluding those who denied being atheists, even if reliable sources had identified them as such. It wasn't a popular line that I held, and I'm surprised the old criteria lasted as long as they did, as I found myself increasingly a lone voice in the wilderness. Anyway, the criteria were effectively changed during a period in which I was taking a break, and I conceded upon my return, and went ahead and changed the stated criteria to match what had become the de facto criteria. Under the old criteria, folks such as Einstein and Darrow would have been excluded. I'm not fully comfortable with the current arrangement, but I'm not prepared to mount a defense of the old way, given the difficulty with which it was maintained against the preferences (and, I think, to some extent, misunderstanding) of so many other editors. Wikipedia is not consistent with itself on this atheist identity issue. You'll notice that Einstein is not in any atheist category, and that the religion section in his main article emphasizes his "Spinoza-God-belief," without touching on his agnosticism, or on his latter-day dismissal of the word God as a product of human weakness. Good luck convincing the editors there that he ought to be categorized as an atheist. Nick Graves (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mdwh, Nick and I had quite a discussion on Einstein in particular once upon a time, under the old rules, where I argued for inclusion, and he eventually convinced me that Einstein should not be included. The issue is exactly the one that you're seeing now. It's very difficult to classify Einstein's religious beliefs into a neat little box, as he certainly sounds like an atheist in some places, but in other places sounds clearly like he has some sort of Spinoza-like belief and he explicitly rejects the label atheist (albeit in his own day, when it carried a lot of other baggage). I see that 8bit is citing most of the quotes I had used in my original defense of including Einstein, while the IP is using many of the quotes that Nick had before. Of course, we can all speculate as to the degree that he might have allowed himself to get comfortable with the label atheist had he lived today, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't, and so he said atheist-like things, and Spinoza-like things, all the while still rejecting the label atheist. With the new rules, Einstein should be included here. I think that, despite the misgivings about our favorite shock-haired physicist, the new criteria might be better, so long as they are explicitly acknowledged as such. No matter what criteria we use, Einstein's beliefs will forever elicit controversy (one way and the other!). Edhubbard (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What's controversial about it? Einstein said he didn't believe in a personal God, he admitted to using the word 'God' to signify (impersonal) Nature, and he called himself an 'agnostic' multiple times. So, he's a nontheist-slash-pantheist-slash-agnostic. The only reason there's any controversy is because we have a POVed, unverifiable listing of "atheists", the problem being that 'atheist' is a term with about thirty-seven and a half radically different definitions. A verifiable, NPOV list (like List of people who have denied the existence of God) would be much less exciting, and much more encyclopedic. -Silence (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Einstein is very clearly a naturalistic pantheist; thus, if naturalistic pantheism is defined as a branch of athiesm (which it is) Einstein would be an atheist. His multiple claims of a 'Spinoza's god' and his general love affair with Spinoza's philosophy is evidence enough for this.

Also, the issue with a 'list of people who have denied the existence of God' is that, not only is it overly wordy, but it might also deny inclusion of, say, Einstien who does not deny the existence of god, but instead defines god as the natural world. As Nick suggested, a list of 'nontheiests' would be another option, even if it is essentaily an exact synonym for athiesm. 8bit (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with defining 'naturalistic pantheism' as atheism is that it presupposes two things: first, it presupposes that when one says "I believe in deities, but not in the supernatural", that (a) that is coherent enough to parse, and (b) the "deities" parts (theism) gets effectively jettisoned, but the "supernatural" part (naturalism) is retained. I fail to see how this is self-evident, much less definitionally correct; even if one assumes that gods must be supernatural (and the very fact that one can apparently speak meaningfully of 'naturalistic pantheism', 'pantheism' meaning "belief that all is God" seems to contradict that), it doesn't follow that someone who professes belief in a non-supernatural God is an atheist (presumably on the grounds that he's somehow mistaken about this "God" being a true "God"—but is it not equally possible that this person is mistaken about this "God" being truly "natural", since we're apparently reading so much into a person's metaphysics based on so little data?). In Einstein's case, it simply seems to be that he was someone who'd be willing to say "I don't believe in (a personal or supernatural) God", but that he was averse to being called an "atheist" because the word "atheist" does not simply mean; it connotes. (Hence Einstein says "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic." not out of uncertainty, but out of deference to cultural mores and the stereotype of atheism as antagonistic/harsh.) That is the hazard of having a list of people called a term which is widely perceived as negative. The mere fact that someone can say "Oh, sure, I believe there's no God — but an atheist?! That's going too far!" suggests that this listing is something that can't be both meaningful/significant and verifiable in our cultural matrix.

"Einstien who does not deny the existence of god, but instead defines god as the natural world" - The problem here is really that there's more than one "God". Einstein denies the existence of 'God' as commonly conceived ("I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."), while affirming the existence of his own 'God' ("I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"). This is problematic for all the current atheist/agnostic listings, since they presume a false dichotomy rather than a polychotomy for every possible deity; but at least a more clarified listing like "List of people who have denied the existence of God" (or some even more precise permutation, like "List of people who have denied the existence of a personal God") could explicitly address that issue. I could see a table, for example, noting which aspects of God each person on the table addressed, e.g., supernaturalism, interventionism, etc. Only a list that can either accomodate shades of gray, or stick precisely to people who are explicitly called "atheists" (thus no original-research synthesis of people who we conclude to be "atheists" from their statements), will be encyclopedic. -Silence (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also strongly support a List of nontheists. This would be a perfect solution because it would resolve many other lasting difficulties, such as incorporating Betrand Russell's "agnostatheism", and since 'nontheism' has a completely unified, uncontentious definition ("anyone who doesn't believe in any gods"), we would for such a listing be justified in accepting entries that merely say "I don't believe in God" and the like, without running up against Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. (Also, even if the title didn't use contentious terms like "atheists" and "agnostics", we could very clearly denote which of the nontheists on the list self-identified with which terms.) -Silence (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I also support List of nontheists. Renaming all the sub-pages too is probably quite a bit of work, so I guess we had better make sure there is a reasonably consensus :) The point was raised on Talk:List_of_atheists_(science_and_technology)#Removed_Sagan about agnostic theists, which I agree with, so "nontheists" is better than "atheists and agnostics". Mdwh (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support- A list of nonthiests would sidestep a lot of these issues, as well as the agnostic theist issue. I also like the idea of a chart showing what kind of nonthiest they are. 8bit (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like everyone who has chimed in is ok with the idea of a name change to List of nontheists. It really shouldn't be too difficult--renaming articles is not a complicated process, and the criteria and contents of the lists would remain pretty much the same. However, it would be a good idea to open an RfC on the proposal, as we want solid consensus to avoid reversions of the move. We also need to consider the consensus in a previous discussion, such as it was, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists (2nd nomination). Nick Graves (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the idea of this list would encompass also merging the (relatively very short) List of agnostics into this page, so we should bring the issue up on Talk:List of agnostics as well, and see their views on the matter. Also, if anyone has a copy of the 'best version' of the proposed Lists of nontheists that were apparently floating around before their untimely deletion, I might be able to soup up a version in talkspace to demonstrate to people, in preparation for the broader RfC. For example, I could show some of the options a table could provide, like providing a separate column (or just a bold listing) for the 'common names' each listed entry preferred, e.g., 'secular humanist', 'agnostic', 'atheist', 'bright', 'militant atheist', 'antitheist', 'skeptic', or what have you.

Incidentally, I don't agree that we need to much heed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists (2nd nomination). In addition to being 15 months old (that's a lot of time for our editors to come to realize the endless number of verifiability and NPOV problems in trying to identify who is or isn't an 'atheist' for this listing), the creator and voters don't even seem to realize the definition of 'nontheist', which is unitary and uncontroversial: every atheist can (without any hint of appeal to editorial opinion) be classified as a 'nontheist', whereas the exact opposite is true for classifying nontheists as atheists, where a huge number of iffy judgment calls are needed. Delete votes complaining stuff like "article that inexplicably mixes atheists and agnostics with people who practice Eastern religion" demonstrate an ignorance of theological diversity (no, not all religious people are theists! yes, some are nontheists! moving on..) rather than anything substantive about the encyclopedic virtues of listing non-theists (which has self-evident meaning) rather than 'atheists' (which has a slightly different meaning for every editor who's ever edited this list, I'd wager). -Silence (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose merging the list of agnostics into this larger list. Obviously, many of the persons listed there would belong in a list of nontheists, but not all (there are theistic agnostics). Agnosticism and nontheism/atheism are different things (one a position concerning lack of knowledge, the other a position concerning lack of belief), even if similar. List of agnostics is a natural companion to the agnosticism article, and its utility would be lost if its contents were merged into the massive list of nontheists.

I don't think any demonstration version based on the deleted version Lists of nontheists is necessary. The only "demo" we need is right here with Lists of atheists, which is pretty much what the Lists of nontheists was on its way to becoming. Like I said, the move/renaming of Lists of atheists to Lists of nontheists does not involve any significant change in criteria or content. It's all about using a more inclusive, less loaded term so as to avoid the problem of listing atheists who deny being atheists. "Atheist" is considered an objectionable label by some, whereas "nontheist" is not so burdened. As for the table format, we already have that in the alphabetized lists.

The definition of "nontheist" is not unitary. Depending on which definition of "theist" is being referenced, "nontheist" can mean one of two things: (1) one who believes in no deities at all, or (2) one who does not believe in a singular, personal God. Atheists and most agnostics fit the former definition, whereas Deists, polytheists, and basically any god-believer who is not an adherent of Western monotheism fit the latter definition (an addition to atheists and most agnostics). The advantage of using "nontheist" as opposed to "atheist" is not that it has just a single definition, but that it is not as loaded a term as atheist, and there is not a great controversy between camps who insist that their preferred definition is the true definition. If this name change were implemented, we could make the editorial decision to use definition #1 for our purposes (just as the current list uses an inclusive definition of "atheist" for its purposes), while acknowledging the other definition, and linking to such lists as List of deists in a See also section to accommodate the reality of differing usage.

The deleted List of nontheists did something like this. I took the trouble of providing references backing up the different usages of the word, and did my best to make sure nontheists of type 1 were distinguished from nontheists of type 2. Despite my best efforts, the old list lost out in the AfD in part due to participants who did not understand this distinction, and who came to the false conclusion that the list was just an indiscriminate mixture of atheists, agnostics, Deists, pantheists, Buddhists, Jains, etc. It was not. Its main part was (or would have been) non-God-believers (in other words, atheists, inclusively defined and regardless of their preferred label), while its other "part" was nothing more than a See also directory pointing to other lists of people belonging to groups identified by reliable sources as nontheistic.

Anyway, it's always a good idea to at least check with the closing admin of an AfD before putting content back into a name space subject to a previous AfD. I'll see if I can dig up the old List of nontheists to show how the distinctions were made. Nick Graves (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just found the old version, and I was mistaken about its format. The old version listed various persons who were non-god-believers, but who did not fit the old, more restrictive criteria of List of atheists. After this section was a section linking to other lists of nontheists (of either type): agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, deists, humanists, Jains, pantheists. This was the result of a compromise effort, but I do not now much care for it. Nick Graves (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 2

I'm fine with only moving List of atheists to List of nontheists and leaving the agnostics list out of it, as long as we leave a window open to a possible future merger. The only reason I think a merger viable is because, based on looking over the agnostics list, it seems like all of the people listed are nontheists (i.e., are not theists), in spite of the supposed existence of agnostic theism. This suggests a possible bias or incompleteness (probably because of the social associations of the term 'agnostic') which would be remedied by merging the lists. A merger would also prevent repetitiveness, since most or all of the entries would be cross-listed (and a great number already are, being both "Atheists" and "Agnostics"). But it's not urgent, I'm fine with just handling the move for now and considering the agnostic issue later down the line, when things have settled down and we can see things like degree of overlap.

I should also note that a merger would have nothing to do with agnosticism and nontheism being 'the same thing'. It would only suggest that the two terms are relevantly related, such that a single article could convey pretty much all the same information, but in a more unified manner. I would recommend noting on a List of nontheists, not just whether the person believes in god, but in many cases also their stated positions on whether it's knowable (i.e., agnosticism), on religion (whether they belong to one, whether they're pro- or anti-religious...), etc.

As for whether we should treat the theism in non-theism as "belief in gods" or "belief in God" (which is normally considered a form of monotheism), scholarly consensus seems to prefer the broader definition; it would look strange to classify most "poly-theists" as "non-theists", in addition to making the list unmanageably large. However, even if we change our minds in the long run, it makes the most sense right now to use the broader definition of theism (hence, the shorter list of "non-theists") simply because a non-theist in the broad sense is also necessarily a non-theist in the narrow sense. In other words, people who believe in deities, but not in a capital-G 'God,' are "nontheists / theists" depending on definitions; but people who don't believe in any deities are "nontheists / nontheists", thus belong on the list regardless of terminology. It sounds like we'd agree that this is an adequate compromise, and still infinitely less open to abuse and personal interpretation than the many-meanginged "atheist". -Silence (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose many windows are really closed around here, given the nature of this project. You did not address my second and third justifications for keeping a separate list of agnostics (agnosticism and nontheism/atheism are different things, separate agnostics list is a useful supplement to the agnosticism article). Even if most agnostics are nontheists, it makes sense to have a different list for this different "flavor" of (mostly) nontheism, as it is a notable subset of nontheists/atheists in its own right, much as is humanism. Redundancy of information is ok as long as that information is presented in ways that are differently useful--indeed, the current lists of atheists are redundant to each other, as they list the same people by profession, and by surname, but both arrangements have their own utility, and add to the overall utility of the encyclopedia. Finally, on surveying the agnostics list, I notice there is a substantial representation of people from what could be called the "golden age" of agnosticism, roughly from 1860 to the mid-20th century--providing historical perspective on agnosticism, and demonstrating how a separate list of agnostics provides a concentration of a certain type of information that can be useful and demonstrative.

But I agree we can set aside that issue for now to concentrate on a renaming. I am definitely in favor of using the broader definition of theism in the new lede (and hence, the narrower definition of nontheist, thus excluding Deists, etc. from the list), as long as we acknowledge the other, less-used definition, and point readers in a direction where they can find information on those types of nontheists. Nick Graves (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did address your second point (two things needn't be identical to both be covered on the same page), but I didn't want to get into the utility issue because I don't want to start a long debate about the problems with the term "agnostic" itself, which, while much clearer than atheist, still has enormous potential to mislead and confuse readers, because its usage on Wikipedia is so radically divergent from its usage by the layperson masses (where it usually signifies "someone who hasn't decided whether to be a theist or atheist", not some odd and rather vague footnote concerning epistemological issues like standards of evidence and definitions of knowledge). I don't think that's a problem if we stick to only listing people who call themselves "agnostic", but the second we start interpreting answers, we raise the question, "Who isn't an agnostic? Who claims to know such matters, especially with certainty?" Surely 99% of nontheists, and indeed very many theists, would qualify by all but the strictest standard for 'agnosticism'. (And those strict standards would exclude most self-described 'agnostics', since most agnostics at least slightly 'lean' one way or the other!) So I simply don't think the topic lends itself to 'list' format, having such potential to mislead people used to non-academic definitions of 'agnostic'. But, again, hashing this out can wait.

I'm also not sure we need separate 'profession' and 'surname' lists, especially if these can't be done automatically (and thus require double the work for our editors). Ideally we would settle on one format or the other, or find some compromise version (e.g., trim all but a few of the profession 'categories'). But that's another side-issue. -Silence (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Silence, I agree we can leave those other issues aside for now while focusing on the move. I've created a sandbox here to work on a draft for this move. It occurred to me that naming it Lists of atheists and nontheists was a good idea, for several reasons: (1) Most persons listed are identified as atheists, (2) "atheist" is a term with much higher currency and recognizability than "nontheist," and (3) the list is rightly part of the series of articles on atheism, and it seemed odd to have a list name that didn't at all use the term "atheist." A list so named still retains the advantage of sidestepping the contentious defining and loading of the term "atheist," leaving "nontheist" as a suitable alternative for listed persons who object(ed) to being called an atheist.

I've left out for now information pertaining to nontheist/theists, as I've not decided how best to present it. Please feel free to mercilessly edit the draft. Also, since this draft is nearly identical to the current list, and does not much resemble the old List of nontheists, I agree that the arguments in the AfD for the old list are pretty much mooted, especially if we decide to go with the List of atheists and nontheists name I suggested. Nick Graves (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a move to Lists of atheists and nontheists, because it implies that "atheist" and "nontheist" are mutually exclusive, when in reality every atheist is a nontheist. It would be like having a 'List of Labradors and dogs.' Also, I'd think it's "List", not "Lists", since it's just a single listing divided into multiple pages for space reasons.

Yes, "atheist" is a term with higher currency than "nontheist", but that's irrelevant since it's a list that won't only include atheists (unless one thinks everyone who doesn't believe in a deity is a confirmed 'atheist', including people who say "I'm not an atheist!"). Likewise, the 'Atheism series of articles' is irrelevant because that's a poorly-named listing anyway, that already encompasses articles without the word 'atheism' in them: Nontheism itself, Antireligion, Antitheism, Secular humanism, Metaphysical naturalism, Criticism of religion, Irreligion, etc. If those articles don't need to be changed to 'Antireligion and atheism' and the like, then our list doesn't need to say 'atheism' either. The lead section will make its scope clear either way. -Silence (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you Silence for the message at the project page, which drew my attention. As I read the talk above, I found myself thinking "why not call it 'List of atheists and nontheists'?" and then I came to where that was discussed. I'm in favor of that option. Rather than shoehorn persons who do not want to be called by one term into that term, it makes sense to me to use both terms. I agree that agnostics should be separate, and I prefer list (singular) over lists (plural). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, 'List of nontheists and atheists' is misleading because it suggests that 'nontheism' and 'atheism' are two distinct things, that one is either a nontheist or an atheist (or neither), when in reality every atheist is by definition not a theist (hence, a non-theist). It would be like calling a list of religious people "List of Christians and religious people."

No matter what title we choose, we can't include every possible self-designation someone might choose; some groups will always be excluded from the title, and if we make it 'List of atheists and nontheists' we'll just get complaints from secular humanists, naturalists, etc. who want their preferred terms represented. Better to address them within the article than to stuff every redundant, overlapping term we can into the title. Our goal with the term we use for the title itself should be clarity and neutrality; nontheist on its own fulfills both goals ideally, since the term itself is unambiguous (thanks to the absolutely clear derivation, "non-" always meaning just "not") and devoid of substantial connotation. Some non-theists might (and vehemently do!) object to being called 'atheist', but no 'atheist' would claim to not be a non-theist. :) -Silence (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it implies that they are two different things. But I don't care that much. This strikes me a little like arguing about angels on the head of a pin. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone would interpret it that way, but some certainly would. And the utility of repeating a near-analogous term doesn't make up for that confusion. -Silence (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, but if there are BLP concerns about labeling people as atheists despite clearly-professed nonbelief, what about people who object to being called nontheists? Powers ^T 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone says "I'm not a non-theist" (or anything else to the effect of "I'm not not a theist", which is exactly synonymous), then obviously they don't belong on this list. It really is that simple. :)

(The only exception to this remarkably clear rule would be if there's strong evidence that they were (a) joking or the like, or perhaps (b) a highly noteworthy nontheist at some other point in life (e.g., Antony Flew).)

But fortunately, unlike 'atheist', there seem to be no actual cases that have ever occurred of people who don't believe in deities claiming that they aren't 'non-theists' (or 'not theists'), to my knowledge; if they are in fact out there anywhere, they must be so rare as to constitute a trivial editorial concern at best, whereas the 'is this non-theist who doesn't want to be called an atheist really an atheist?' problem is absolutely ubiquitous in the current List of atheists. It's not just a theoretical quibble, it's a practical obstruction in our making the list both comprehensive and NPOV. -Silence (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, then, anyone who says "I'm not an atheist" must believe in a god and therefore doesn't belong on this list? Powers ^T 14:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because most people don't understand "atheist" to simply mean "anyone who isn't a theist / anyone who doesn't believe in any gods" and nothing more. (This is also why people commonly think of 'agnostics' as being 'neither theists nor atheists, but in-between', which is an absurdity if theism and atheism exhaust the options.) We might disagree with their definition of 'atheism', but if someone says "I don't believe in gods, but I'm not an atheist", it is far more useful, and far less problematic, to list them in a List of nontheists than a List of atheists. No one in the history of the world has, to my knowledge, disputed the equation "nontheist = not theist", whereas the overwhelming majority do reject the equation "atheist = not theist", whether justifiably or not. That's the difference between the current and proposed listings. -Silence (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of 'atheists and non-theists'. This just seems far too redundant and, as already pointed out, confusing. Atheism and non-theism are essentially synonymous, and by including both terms we make it look as if one is seperate from the other, or that they may even been mutually exclusive.

As far as merging agnostics into a list of non-theists, I'd support that, so long as the list of agnostics only includes atheist agnostics right now, and not both theist and atheist agnostics. If the latter is true then perhaps we can split up the atheist agnostics and the theist agnostics, and add atheist agnostics to the non-theist page, and theist agnostics to the theists page. (There is a theists page, right?) 8bit (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any theistic agnostics on List of agnostics, but there are probably several agnostics whose non-theism isn't explicitly confirmed in a reliable source, which will mean we can't include them using our current rigorous standards (just like we can't include humanists or naturalists whose stance on deities hasn't been explicitly discussed). Though the list is short enough that nothing of great significance would be lost if we do go with a merger. (And there will always be categories of agnostics, regardless of the standing of the list.) Still, we can discuss this idea at greater length later. -Silence (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please focus on just the proposed renaming for now. I have very strong objections to dissolving the agnostics list, but I can "burn that bridge when we get there" :-). For now, how about if we see if any significant objections to the move are raised in the next week, and then go from there. Also, would it be overly-cautious to open an RfC on this, and/or contact the closing admin for the previous List of nontheists AfD? I just don't want to go ahead with the move, and then have a bunch of people go, "Hey, what the heck is this all about?!" But I'll admit to probably being too conservative on this. In reviewing the archives, I discovered that I had put forth the idea of a List of nontheists just over 3 years ago. We probably could have avoided a lot of the tussling over terms by implementing that idea much sooner. So much for being bold. :-/ Nick Graves (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, an RfC might be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC would be excessive at this stage, IMO. If there are complaints later, we can always appeal to the wider community's opinion then. We've already discussed this at length here, and cross-posted this multiple times to a major article and project, all without a single objection yet; RfCs are meant to resolve stalemates, not resolve landslide support for a move. :P Feel free to contact the original AfDer though, if ya wish. -Silence (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, you are right. I take it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• If there are no significant objections by the weekend, I think a move would be justified as the next logical step. Actually performing the move is the best way to generate feedback anyway, since it will get the most attention. :) Fortunately, even if consensus shifts, moves are easy to reverse on Wikipedia. So, I say we simply give it a shot. -Silence (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm ok with moving forward as Silence proposes. I just contacted the closing admin on the previous List of nontheists AfD, as a precaution. Nick Graves (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 3

• I'm going to object. It's a pointless renaming to an almost-synonym because of a misunderstanding. Powers ^T 12:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not because of a misunderstanding, it's because of different understandings—of the same term. The term atheist is probably understood to be at least partly dysphemistic by 99% of the people on these lists. Some of those people, like Darwin or Einstein, endorse the dysphemistic element by shunning this stigmatized atheism; others embrace the dysphemism, deliberately picking a word perceived as 'negative' in order to be provocative toward certain people; and others try to change the dysphemism and rehabilitate the term atheism; but I'd be surprised if anyone is totally ignorant of these connotations, and it radically skews our list of List of atheists. Everyone who uses the term is responding in some way to its connotations, even if only to combat them.

The reason this is a problem is because a huge number of people we have listed on List of atheists have never called themselves atheists. Our 'List of atheists' is really a List of nontheists already (incidentally reflecting our own editors' noble, and POVed, efforts to try to spread the anti-dysphemistic view of 'atheism'), because it treats 'atheism' an exact synonym for 'nontheism'. Quoting our current article: "Persons listed here have either been specifically identified as an "atheist" by a reliable source, or have expressed nonbelief in deities." This is not a tenable status quo, when it would be so much easier and more NPOV simply to use the word that we're clearly talking about. So we have two choices, to retain NPOV and eschew OR conclusion-drawing: Either cull the List of atheists of dozens or hundreds of entries (everyone who hasn't actually called him/herself "an atheist", but has just said stuff like "I don't believe in gods"), or simply make the name-change and retain every single iota of content our editors have worked so hard to gather and format over the years. I think the latter is much preferable; as you yourself just said, it's an "almost-synonym", really a trivially easy move to make for how many entries we'll be able to avoid mass-deleting as a result. -Silence (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would remove people who have never called themselves "atheists", if we would not also remove people who have never called themselves "nontheists". If "I don't believe in God" is sufficient to include them in a list of nontheists, it's also sufficient to include them in a list of atheists. Powers ^T 14:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(Another problem is that "nontheist" appears to be a neologism not included in most major dictionaries.) Powers ^T 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Powers, I don't think you're grasping the controversy and connotations loading the term atheist. These controversies and connotations are not a problem for the term "nontheist," which is purely descriptive. Calling the article "List of nontheists" is equivalent to calling it "List of people who do not believe in deities," just not so unwieldy. Coinage of the term nontheist predates coinage of the term agnostic by at least 8 years, and I don't think anyone would call agnostic a neologism these days. Also, the term is getting increased currency as an umbrella term for atheists, agnostics, humanists, and others who reject theism, but who may not adopt the term atheist for themselves, for reasons already spelled out by Silence and others. Nick Graves (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling it "List of atheists" is also equivalent to calling it "List of people who do not believe in deities." And it has the advantage of being a word recognized by all dictionaries. (See, for instance, [2].) Powers ^T 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, the closing admin for the previous List of nontheists AfD, responded to my request for input, and does not see the proposed move as a problem from an AfD standpoint. Naturally, the usual requirements for consensus, verifiability, sourcing, etc. must be met, but I think we've got that covered.

I second Silence's reasoning concerning LtPowers' objection. I think the strongest reason for the move is out of concern for maintaining WP:BLP. That alone shows that there is a point to the move. And even if the move were merely pointless, the only thing really lost in moving would be the time it took to make the move, which is negligible, and which editors here have no problem expending. Nick Graves (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Powers, I agree completely, however, we must consider public understanding. While most people understand what 'nontheism' means, there are a lot of misconceptions about atheism, despite it being a synonym. By going through with this move we'll avoid A LOT of controversy, which will allow this article, and all related articles to improve at a much faster rate. Yes, one look at the 'Atheism' page with breakdown these misconceptions, though we can't assume that every editor will read and understand that page, nor do we want to give the image of bias to readers who don't fully understand what Atheism means.

We will have 'Lists of athiests' route back to 'Lists of nontheists', obviously, so this really shouldn't be an issue for people who don't recognize nontheism as an english word.

Yes, in an ideal world everyone would understand what 'atheism' means, but unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. 8bit (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would basically echo exactly what 8bit says, except that I would phrase it as "in an ideal world everyone would understand what 'atheism' should mean'"; one of the few things I'm not a philosophical realist about is word meanings, because meanings are directly determined by usage. Words can, and do, have multiple meanings. And while one meaning might be preferable (e.g., on ethical or pragmatic grounds) to another meaning, it's much more difficult to establish that one meaning is more correct than another, especially when the allegedly "less correct" one is closer to the term's original meaning, and closer to the term's most common meaning for the whole of its history. So, while as a human being (and as an atheist) I support popularizing the 'nontheist' definition of 'atheism', as a Wikipedia editor I am obliged to acknowledge the connotations that exist for words, rather than only the ones that I think should exist for words — I am forced to acknowledge, for example, that Einstein wasn't just being a crazy weirdo when he said stuff along the lines of 'oh, personal Gods are just childish nonsense — but I'm not some crusading atheist, fear not!' I think Einstein was wrong, but I don't think he was far off from mainstream usage. Nontheism is not a dysphemism (i.e., no one would ever say, "I'm not a theist, but a non-theist!" that's going too far!); atheism, to most people, unfortunately is. (And, yes, that does make this issue relevant to WP:BLP.) -Silence (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other case in which we use a word of questionable validity to avoid offending a segment of the population? Seems like borderline censorship to me. Powers ^T 01:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It would only be censorship if we were suppressing information. Since you think nontheism and atheism are synonyms, it's impossible to consider switching one for the other 'censorship'. The word you're probably looking for is Political Correctness (which, admittedly, is something I quite detest — but sometimes Wikipedia policy does force us to go with uncontroversial synonyms). And the point of avoiding 'atheist' in this context isn't to avoid offending a segment of the population; it's to avoid offending living people we've included on this list who haven't called themselves "atheists". We don't give a crap about the masses, we give a crap about WP:BLP. As for other examples of Wikipedia being outright terrified to call anyone by a potential dysphemism, see what's become of our good old List of cults or List of terrorists, etc. (Honestly, it's difficult to find examples for you because every potential dysphemistic list has already been deleted. :P I can't believe they even got rid of List of virgins! Tragic.) -Silence (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But what about living people on this list who haven't called themselves nontheists? Why treat the two situations differently? I don't see why we can assume someone is a nontheist but not assume they're an atheist, just based on their comments. Powers ^T 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We can infer nontheism because nontheism has only one meaning: "not theism." We cannot infer atheism because atheism has multiple meanings (and 'not theism', the definition you're advocating for atheism, is one of the least common of those definitions). It's that simple. -Silence (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In modern usage, "not theism" is a valid definition of the word. All other modern meanings are incorporated within that one. What does it matter which one is most commonly used, if they're all subsumed by one that is entirely valid? Powers ^T 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On a list, the most specific, restrictive definition, not the most general and encompassing one, is preferred, because the most specific definition will make sure we only include people who everyone agrees is a so-and-so, whereas employing the most general definition will ensure that we include people who most people wouldn't consider a so-and-so. For example, if there are three definitions of atheist, and one means "group A", one means "group A and group B", and one means "both group A and group B and group C", by far the most preferable definition to use (assuming the 3 defs were about equally common) is the one restricted to 'group A', because everyone, regardless of which definition they use, will agree on group A, whereas if we use the most encompassing one, we'll have the worst of all worlds, since we'll then list group-C people (who people using the first two defs will disagree with including) and the group-B people (who people using the first def will disagree with including), in addition to the uncontended group-A ones.

But that aside, it's patently obvious that choosing the 'most encompassing' definition is an especially bad idea when you're dealing with potential dysphemisms. Imagine if we used the 'most encompassing' definition for cult, which would require that we list every religion on a List of cults. In contrast, using a restrictive definition of cult ensures both that reliable sources will agree on the entries we've included as "cults", and will ensure that the list itself is much more useful, since it isolates people who are different from others, rather than being treated so vaguely that is conflates countless different subtypes. -Silence (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Powers, I agree that "not theism" is a valid definition of atheism. Unfortunately, that term is also regarded by many as a dysphemism (thank you Silence, BTW, for that word!). And actually, the term originated as an epithet used against theological rivals. Only later did it acquire its broad, merely descriptive sense. Unfortunately, for many, the term still retains its dysphemistic baggage. That's a reality we need to recognize here, no matter how much we would like it to change. Nick Graves (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Silence already addressed this concern. We do not have evidence of people objecting to being called "nontheists," despite their not believing in deities, but there are real cases of similarly non-believing people objecting to being called "atheists." The problem Silence and others see with respect to BLP is known to be real, whereas the problem you bring up is, as yet, purely hypothetical.

To that, I would add that, though there may not be controversy over who qualifies as an atheist among editors here (I'm pretty sure we all agree that all nonbelievers in deities are atheists), there is controversy in the wider world as to whether such people are truly atheists. There are competing definitions for the word, and we know through reliable sources that an atheist is often regarded only as someone who takes the position that no deities exist. Those who use the term in this way only regard strong atheists as true atheists--weak atheists are not seen as atheists at all. Just off the top of my head, I can name three people (none of them intellectual slouches) who have taken this approach: Ted Drange, Fred Edwords and Michael Shermer.

On the other hand, by all recognized definitions of the term nontheist, all nonbelievers in deities are nontheists, regardless of whether they make the further claim that deities do not exist. That makes it a less potentially controversial term to apply to those currently listed here. Nick Graves (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What sorts of recognized definitions have you found for "nontheist"? I've been having trouble finding any except in Wiktionary. Powers ^T 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary definition for non-theist: "A person who is not a theist." This is the most authoritative and complete dictionary of the English language. Nick Graves (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 4

Just for the record, Oolon Colluphid (who, incidentally, is probably responsible for adding upwards of 2/3rds of the entries to this list) has voiced his support for the move. Nick Graves (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya! <waves at Nick>

Firstly, I'd like to apologise if I've been doing this 'ere 'pov' thingy. I didn't think I was, but I clearly might have been! Ho hum.

A brief background for those who weren't there at the time... The 'strong' vs 'weak' (= nontheist) atheist thing came to a head with Clarence Darrow. Nick and I disagreed that Darrow's "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose" meant that he was an atheist; we agreed, though, that it was evidence only of 'weak' atheism / nontheism.

The problem, of course, is that people with stated views no stronger than Darrow's have called themselves atheists (eg Ben Elton). So 'weak' atheists (nontheists) were being included anyway... and could not be excluded, because otherwise we could not include most of thoes claiming 'atheism'. Many a self-labelling 'atheist' has merely disbelieved (or said no more than that anyway), but these buggers were trying to sneak in despite their weakness, simply by using the magic word!

In other words, because 'atheist' can mean either 'strong' or 'weak', to be consistent in terms of the list's content, we have to use the 'weak' definition. While one could have a separate (much smaller) 'List of 'Strong' Atheists', that's not what the list is called. The title doesn't say what variety.

So the move to 'nontheists' seems entirely sensible, and far less likely to cause confusion.

Oolon (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the other option is to include a disclaimer at the top of the page stating that we're including both strong and weak atheists, which can include agnostics, humanists, pantheists, naturalists, materialists, etc... and why we're doing so, though I can imagine that might just get ignored, and it also makes the article far less ellegant.

On another note, this section is getting so long that editing it is bogging down my browser. Perhaps it's time for a 'Part 2'. 8bit (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the 'strong and weak atheists' idea is that most readers won't be familiar with the strong/weak typology (which, incidentally, has next to no academic support because of the already-existing preferred 'positive/negative' typology, in addition to its lack of popular usage except in specialized online atheist communities), whereas every reader will be familiar with what 'non-' means (in addition to surely knowing what 'theist' means, unless possibly they're a non-native speaker or very young reader). Moreover, it still wouldn't resolve the central problem of NPOV and living author treatment: we would still be forced to list people as 'atheists' who have vociferously denied being atheists, on the basis that "well, they say they're not atheists, but we've decided to appeal to this obscure terminological 'weak atheist' loophole to classify them as 'atheists' anyway!" It is in every respect simpler to simply use 'nontheist'. It allows us to retain all the same content, while completely diffusing every potential non-factual controversy. -Silence (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. 8bit (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, 'pantheists' are not weak atheists, at least as commonly defined. -Silence (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some are, I believe. Naturalistic pantheism. Also, thanks for splitting this up. :D 8bit (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Silence... "The problem with the 'strong and weak atheists' idea is that most readers won't be familiar with the strong/weak typology". True, of course. When I've used it here, it's as a shorthand for the situation. It's really more a matter of sets. All non-believers are nontheists (call 'em N). By some definitions that makes them 'atheists' too. But, a subset of N go beyond 'mere' non-belief to god-existence-denial and are what one might call full-blown atheists (by anyone's definition; call 'em A), while another subset, overlapping with that subset, actually want to be called atheists... another subset reject the term atheist, but some of them nevertheless have beliefs near-identical to those in A, while many self-claiming atheists do not (necessarily) subscribe to the 'hard' beliefs of members of A... if you had to draw the Venn diagram for all the permutations, you'd probably need to do it in three dimensions!

But one thing seems clear to me: while all A are N, and members of N may or may not be / want to be called / etc 'atheists', not all agnostics are N. Just as most nontheists are technically agnostic (some explicitly so), many theists are agnostic (again, some explicitly). Which is why I am strongly opposed to merging this list with lists of agnostics. These waters are already turbid enough, without dragging the "namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters" into it! ;-) Oolon (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this pretty thoroughly. While not unanimous, we have a pretty strong consensus to move. I will commence. Nick Graves (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The move is complete, except for the science and technology list, which is still protected, because of some Einstein controversy. There are still some things that need tidying. Also, we really ought to get to completing the surnames lists. I've put it off, as I've found the prospect of putting the info in table format daunting. Perhaps a quick and dirty non-table list would be ok for now. Nick Graves (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Next step: Start going over the lists in detail to avoid fixating exclusively on 'atheism', and to integrate nontheists who are not called 'atheist' per se. We can also simultaneously continue discussing this issue with people who have concerns about the move; just because we are moving forward doesn't mean that the issue is closed.

Also, another issue I'd like to seriously discuss soon is the possibility of merging the alphabetical and topical lists. It is simply too much work to manually keep all the lists synchronized, and I think we can reach consensus on which mode is better. (This will be aided by the fact that it's impossible to make a good non-alphabetic categorization that neither hides anyone nor introduces redundancies; how can we segregate "activists" from "philosophers" from "politics and law" from "authors"?!) In particular, it strikes me that the 'table' format offers a perfect opportunity for keeping most of the current functionality, while only having one 'version' of the lists: try clicking the arrow under "known as / for" on any of the surname lists. Voila, a categorized listing. -Silence (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical seems fairly obvious. I've always thought the current mode of organization was rather strange. Also, like you said, by using tables we can include a section for 'type of largest contribution' or something, and even color code them based on that section. (Of course, we should use something far less awkward for the label of that section....)

Also, are we going to merge in the 'list of agnostics'? That list seems... a bit redundant, as it emcompases almost everyone who would be included on this list... 8bit (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Durr, huurrr- 'profession' for the row in question. That seems... fairly obvious. :P 8bit (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of eliminating any of these lists. The profession and alphabetical lists present the information in their own useful ways. Yes, there's the possibility that a name on one type of list might not immediately make its way onto the other type of list. A certain amount of incompleteness is inevitable in Wikipedia. I also see no problem with listing the multi-talented on more than one of the profession lists. Al Franken? Comedian and politician. So put him on both lists (edit: if he were a nontheist, of course). No big deal. If we do eliminate one of these types of lists, I'd much rather see the profession list retained. It's fairly standard for lists of people by (ir)religious identity to be broken down by profession, and I see the profession-based nontheist lists as a natural complement to other lists of the type. Nontheists in politics, nontheists in science, and nontheists in philosophy seem to me particularly notable groups of people who deserve their own sublist, given the relationship between these areas and matters of religion/theology.

It occurs to me that there must be some sort of way to keep a master alphabetical list of nontheists that can be sorted and linked to in such a way that those interested in breakdowns by such things as profession, nationality, etc. could access that information easily. Within each alphabetical sublist, it is possible to sort by profession, but is there no way for all nontheists of a certain profession to be presented all at once, without having to go to each sublist individually?

I absolutely hate the idea of dissolving List of agnostics. Even if all or most agnostics are nontheists, it is a notable subset of nontheists, as are humanists, who also have their own list. What can possibly be gained by eliminating that list? Nick Graves (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Incompleteness is unavoidable, but inconsistency is both easier, and more important, to avoid. My recommendation is that we let things sit for a week, since we just made such a big change. After a week or two, if it looks like the list will be kept at "Nontheists", then we can bring up the possibility of a merger at List of agnostics, Agnosticism, etc. However, I fully expect most of the editors there to oppose the merger, though I agree with you that it would be a good idea eventually. So for now I don't think it's a top priority; there's no rush.

On the other hand, I do think deciding on just one system of ordering for the 'nontheists' list is important in the short run. (We should decide on this before we start really extensively rewriting the lists, because we could waste half our effort if we don't.) The profession list's utility can largely be preserved using only the alphabetical list, by adding text to the pages noting that you can hit a button on the table to make the entries listed by profession. It might even be possible to use a template trick (like the one I implemented a few years ago when I created List of Latin phrases' table system) to automatically generate, without requiring any extra work by editors, a listing that has all the same info as the alphabetized lists, but on a single page — which might make it possible to simply hit one button and organize the entire page. I think the best solution, ultimately, will be some automated system like this. It's simply too much work to include hundreds of thousands of nontheists (and, yes, the list will eventually grow to the thousands — within 5-10 years, I'd guess, cf. our massive LGBT lists) twice, manually. Listing them four or five times in some cases, as is required by our current system of having separate pages for 'writers', 'activists', 'politicians', 'philosophers', etc., despite the maaassive amount of overlap, just makes it truly untenable. So if we do keep separate listings, at the very least we need to totally reorganize the actual pages we've chosen. (Part of the reason I recommend just using the alphabetized list is because I couldn't come up with any short, non-overlapping titles that would be useful and not overlong.) -Silence (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, it is possible to transclude all of the alphabetized pages into a single 'omni-nontheist' page, automatically, using template syntax. See the wikicode in List of Latin phrases (full). So it's already very feasible, and very easy, to have an automated system that allows for all the alphabetized pages to be cross-listed while also letting each section be organized, at the click of a button, by profession; the only thing I'm less sure of is how we could make all the sub-tables operate as a single table on the 'all' list, so that the single click of a button would make all the sub-pages' tables, not just the A-B ones and such, organize by profession rather than surname. (But clearly it would also be possible to use some other method, like a bot or just an editor with a tiny bit of free time, to copy-paste all the alphabetical tables' contents into a single omni-article allowing the aforementioned integration.) (Also, obviously, there is the problem of such a page being extremely long. But I think this is still preferable to the sheer amount of work needed to maintain two separate listings, particularly with the aforementioned redundancies in having to cross-list dozens of people who are 'Authors' as well as 'Politicians', 'Philosophers', 'Activists', etc.) -Silence (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to voice in. I do not belive that replacing the list of atheists with a list of nontheist is a good idea,clearly those who identify themselves as atheists should be referred to as that,the list could with ease be spit up into Atheists, Agnostics, and Other Non Theists. Honestly I as an atheist would take offence in being labeled a non theist, as most christans would likely not appreciate being cathegorized as theists.Rhbjorn (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted above "nontheist" is merely descriptive; why would that offend you? Powers ^T 13:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Any term is descriptive, but in this case two issues apply. A non-theist is not the same as an atheist. Non-theism is a less common but more inclusive term including hummanist, brights and maybe even agnostics and deists. This means in effect that a lage group is labelled as something against our will. Secondly there is a historical element, atheists have fought long and hard for recognition, not that many years ago it was common to claim that atheists did not really exist as anything but an unimportant fringe group. When the Brights were created, it was one of the goals to make a possitive term for atheism, not long after you could be a christian bright, the term had been watered out. The same applies to humanism and will without doubt also apply to non-theism if the term is pushed by non-atheists as a term for atheits. Elimination by termonology is a common problem for atheists and we will react against it. Rhbjorn (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope those who argued for the renaming of this page to "list of nontheists" are paying attention. So much for their assertion that this was a non-controversial term. Powers ^T 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How is 'athiest' not a synonym for 'non-theist'? How do the terms mean anything different? Can you define non-theism in a way which does not apply to atheism? And yes, non-theism include agnostics and secular humanists. So does atheism.

And no, I don't think deism can not be considered 'non-theism'.

"Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity."

Deism's focus is on the belief in at least one deity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The8thbit (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini again

There is currently a difference of opinion at one of the sublists regarding whether Mussolini ought to be included. This came up earlier, and the consensus at the time was to not include him. I'd appreciate it if some other editors could take a look and see what they think. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pleasantly surprised

I've largely been away from this subject for a while. Today, when I looked for "List of atheists," I was pleasantly surprised that it has recently been renamed "List of nontheists." I had once suggested such a renaming, having myself created (so I thought, at first) the neologism "nontheist." Not the first time I've invented a neologism that had already been anticipated!

My compliments to all who participated in the last several years' lively discussions of the subject! I hope (and trust) that the present name will stick. Nihil novi (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

MARK TWAIN NEW

Why isn't Twain on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foozy101 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states he was a non-theist? Powers ^T 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Redefinition of atheism?

Moved from Talk:List of nontheists (science and technology)

I truly do not understand why atheism is sought redefined.

There are comments like 'the modern, broad definition', this seems at odds with the dictionaries I have seen.

As far as I know there are 2 non-overlapping definitions of Atheism.

1. Ignorance of theism (as in newborn, not having been confronted with theism). 2. The belief that there are no gods.

The desire to lump agnostics together with atheists is worrisome. The English language is fairly concise and expressive, lets try to avoid muddying the waters. Unomi (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The English language is not monolithic. Words can be used in divergent ways, and there is often no consensus on a single definition. Often, meanings change over time. The "modern, broad" definition is well-attested in multiple, reliable sources. Please see the Atheism article's definition section for pretty thorough coverage of different meanings of the word. The two you put forward do not exhaust all usage. If you're concerned about "muddying the waters," it's too late. The English language, by its decentralized and flexible nature, is impossible to nail down for all time. The best we can do is acknowledge reliably-documented usage, and in certain instances, choose and specify a particular meaning for our purposes, acknowledging that others may use the term differently. Nick Graves (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In wikipedia we tend to let let articles reflect usage in sources, as I have now stated on the Atheism talk page:

Atheism is the belief that, or the philosophical position according to which, deities do not exist. Atheism has also sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist.

This reflects dictionary sources such as:

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

I don't know what 'multiple, reliable sources' you are referring to. Perhaps there is some confusion with 'agnostic atheism'. I see very few sources which try to comingle atheism and agnosticism in their unadulterated form, namely by creating 'weak atheism' Unomi (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to play the Argumentum Ab Lexicon game, Unomi, you need to remember that dictionaries describe, not prescribe. But more to the point, I see you have a number of... rather strange... dictionaries there. Italian, Japanese, something called the Ism book, Yahoo, a PBS glossary... the only one that one might call authoritative is Merriam-Webster.

I don't really care whether they support your position or not; quantity is no substitute for quality.

But anyway, the good old OED -- which, along with M-W is about as authoritative as there is, is admirably concise:

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.

It also fits pretty well with the M-W version.

So what we've got -- as the M-W and Oxford teams' best attempt to reflect usage -- is (a) denial of God's existence (ie a positive position that 'He' does not exist), or (b) disbelief -- absence of belief -- in God's existence. The difference is between saying "god does not exist" and "god might exist, but I don't believe he does". It's a subtle but important distinction.

So (a) is similar to your own definition 2 above; (b) is somewhat like your definition 1. However, it seems pretty obvious that anyone who is in position (a) / 2 ("gods don't exist") automatically is also in position (b) / 1 ("don't believe in gods").

The distinction between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism may or may not flow from this automatically (I think it inevitably does), but either way, I'm baffled as to how you suppose your two definitions are non-overlapping. Methinks you've been reading too much Gould.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am somewhat surprised that you would call 'Argumentum Ab Lexicon' when we are in fact in the midst of writing an encyclopedia, one which has a stated position of following information found in reliable sources. If you wish to argue that the sources are unreliable, please do so.

The sources listed were picked from onelook which is used as a source in the article. One that I overlooked was from cambridge dictionary which states, as its only definition:

“ someone who believes that God or gods do not exist. ”

I absolutely agree that The difference is between saying "god does not exist" and "god might exist, but I don't believe he does". is an important one, and I would not call it subtle at all. The latter is captured by the position of agnosticism; there is no proof that god exists, and I do not believe that he does.

Consider that if you took the position there is no proof that god exists, but I believe that he does you would likely be theist ;)

Consider also that this is a binary choice (barring the agnostic position). I believe that Atheists and Theists alike accept that either gods exist or they do not, if they accept that they are not in a position to know either way they would be agnostic.

I believe that definitions such as 'an absence of belief' encapsulates the 'innocent' position as one of the current sources state:

“ A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. ”

I believe that the minority position, which I believe it to be, that atheism is the disbelief, not the positive claim or statement of belief (which seems to me as being positively evasive and unlikely to be representative of the atheist 'position') is invalidated by material that speaks to the contrary, take Baggini who states

“ Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment. ”

Anthony_Kenny

“ The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism … a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed. ”

As an aside, I find it remarkable that the OED has no room for the 'innocent' position. I also accept that we will likely not end ignorance by this discussion, but it would be nice if we could atleast have the article reflect wikipedia policy and available sources as they are weighted by them. Much love, Unomi (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The OED does cover the "innocent" position, as it is contained in the disbelief in deities position. A "head count" of the most common definitions in dictionaries has little connection with how dominant a particular usage is today. Nor is meaning exclusively covered in dictionaries--it is covered in depth by many philosophical sources, which provide a more substantial backbone on the subject than mere dictionary definitions.

Among nontheist philosophers or spokespeople these days, you'd have to search far and wide to find very many who use the assertion of--or belief in--the nonexistence of God/deities definition. You'll find Ted Drange, Fred Edwords, and Michael Shermer, but even these latter two have softened their adherence to that definition, and Drange recognizes the broader definition as a popular one--he just finds the narrower definition more useful for his purposes. In the broad definition camp, you'll find plenty: Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, George Smith, Michael Martin, Antony Flew (a deist now, but one who still uses the broad definition of atheism) etc. The notion that agnosticism is a middle path between atheism and theism (the latter two being defined as beliefs) is a relic of the late 19th century. Ever since Flew (and maybe even before), the trend has been toward the broad definition of atheism. Even popular, mainstream media are falling in line with this trend, with multiple sources identifying such people as Representative Pete Stark as an atheist, even though he never called himself one, and even though he only acknowledged his disbelief in deities, without asserting their nonexistence.

Regardless, this is a list of nontheists. That means it includes people who assert the nonexistence of God, and also those who merely withhold assent to the assertion that God exists. Whether you or anyone else prefers to only call the former atheists, and the latter agnostics, it remains beyond debate that both such types of people are nontheists--quite literally, those who do not believe in deities. The nuances of their positions and preferred terminology can be acknowledged in individual entries. Nick Graves (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the 'unbelief' definition is more appealing and certainly understand why, as you say, nontheist philosophers or spokespeople prefer it. I also accept that 'popular, mainstream are falling in line with this trend', this does not automatically confer prevalence. We have plenty of examples of fringe / minority positions that prefer labels of one or another; contrast 'truth movement' with '9/11 denialism'. Per WP:NPOV we are forbidden from choosing which is correct, merely reflect prevalence of sources. I agree that if you pick only 'atheist apologists' then you will find 'broad definition' to be well represented, likely in exclusion to the definition given by other sources.

Michael Martin in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification asserts that

"I have chosen to remain neutral on whether there is a presumption in favour of atheism; for even if there is, theists have put forth reasons for believing that religious language is cognitively meaningful; and they have given arguments that an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being exists. Negative atheists must show that these reasons and arguments are inadequate. ... Thus even if Flew is right about the burden of proof, this does not affect to any significant extent what negative atheists must do. They must undermine reasons and arguments produced by theists before their position is secure."

I would also say that although Flew stated that he desired the word atheism to be understood in a certain way, that by itself does not automagically make it so.

While on a certain level I think that this list has the encyclopedic value as List of people that do not have red hair, my deeper concern is that list of atheists redirects to a list that includes agnostics who, by default, that is unless specified in the sense of Agnostic Theism, do not have positive belief in gods. I have to make clear that my objections arise from my position as an agnostic, not a theist, comingling the skeptic position of agnosticism with the beliefs of atheists (who may well believe in pink unicorns) is somewhat disconcerting. Unomi (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The premise of your objection is false. At no point does this list take a stance on the "correct" definition of atheist. It clearly acknowledges divergent usage in its lede. List of atheists redirects here because atheist can be used as a synonym for nontheist, and such is well-documented in reliable sources. The distinction between atheists and agnostics is not so clear-cut as you would have it be. Many identify themselves by both labels, and atheists and agnostics are united in countless secularist organizations or movements, such as the Secular Coalition for America, the Brights movement, Humanist organizations around the world, not to mention many organizations that have both atheist and agnostic in their very name. This is a list of nontheists (those who do not believe in deities), and that fact is documented rigorously in each of its several hundred entries.

Unomi, what would you change about this list? Why not be bold and make that change yourself? Unless there's some specific change you're willing to make for other editors' consideration, I'm going to retire from this discussion. There's little point in me continuing to make apologies for the list unless the status quo is challenged in the form of an edit to the article itself. Please show us how you think the article could be improved. Nick Graves (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I do hope that you don't abandon our discussion just yet. I much prefer achieving consensus for edits which might be perceived as controversial, rather than have it devolve into some BRD -> mediation -> BRD -> RFC time sink.

First, it does adopt the definition introduced by Flew, this is taken from the 1984 print as presented here :

“ The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.

”

Flew does not present this as an accepted 'broad definition'; he presents this as a novel interpretation. To what extent this has since changed is not clearcut and I fail to see where this claim is substantiated.

Second, I think that atheism is a meronym of nontheism rather than a synonym. Atheism is, I believe, neither synonymous with nor a holonym of Buddhism even if the relevant branch of Buddhism could be considered nontheistic. This is precisely why having [list of atheists] redirect to [list of nontheists] is problematic. I think the encyclopedic value of a true list of atheists would be much higher, and then we can have list of nontheists contain links to those separate lists, if we wish. Unomi (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If, in proposing a "true list of atheists," you mean a list in the List of atheists namespace that includes only those who assert the nonexistence of gods, then I'm afraid you're running into POV issues. The view that only god-deniers are true atheists is disputed. Such a list would also lead to a rather awkward consequence: quite a few self-identified atheists (even leaders of atheist movements) would be excluded for not having denied the existence of gods.

The current list of nontheists is a result of consensus among several editors, developed over a fairly lengthy period of time. Any major restructuring should be undertaken with the input of more editors than just you or me. An RfC and solicitation of input from the atheism and philosophy Wikiprojects would be a good place to start. I doubt you'll get much support for such a major change, but you're certainly free to try. Nick Graves (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is this 'disputed'? I don't disagree that the term has seen use other than it was intended, as it were, but are you suggesting that Antony Flew was ignorant of the contemporary interpretation and 'established common usage' of atheism? How about Michael Martin? When he states : Thus even if Flew is right about the burden of proof ... does this not suggest to you that he considers Flew to be the originator of that vein of thought? He was not discussing Flew, or his work, he was discussing the position of an atheist in isolation. I have shown you 2 experts in the field that seem to point to 'positive atheism' as the common definition. Unomi (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See Atheism#Definitions and distinctions for coverage of divergent usage. Note Baron d'Holbach's use of a broad definition way back in 1772. Here, you'll find links to two articles by notable and knowledgeable scholars (Drange and Richard Carrier), each presenting different definitions for atheism. There's the dispute. Here's another article documenting the dispute. And here's yet another.

Regardless, this discussion does not have a direct bearing on this article, as it is a list of nontheists. Were there any misinformation in the article regarding the commonly used definitions of atheist, a redirect here from List of atheists might present a problem. But the (very real, well-documented) dispute is clearly spelled out in the lede (ie. some view nontheist as a synonym for atheist, other don't), and the article does not take a stand one way or the other as to the "correct" definition. This is a list of people who do not believe in deities, whether you want to call them atheists, agnostics, humanists or brights. Nick Graves (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that Baron d'Holach's use is within the common definition, he is using the definition of 'lack of belief' as it seems to be intended, ie. the situation of 'innocents'. This usage is explained by your source: "A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion."

I also accept that a number of proponents of atheism are trying to build the argument that rejecting one side of a binary proposition is not the same as accepting the alternative, yet does not yield agnosticism. But by their own statements assert that this is a minority definition:

"If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not" - Martin 1990.

"Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter. " - Baker 1992

yet another source for it not being the commonly understood definition.

What it seems to come down to is the reinterpretation of the greek roots of a word that never existed in greek, and never had the meaning which is now attributed; when its etymological ancestor atheotēs had currency its meaning was godlessnes, taken to be impious. The connotation is captured by Plato: "No one believing, as the laws prescribe, in the existence of the gods has ever yet performed an impious action willingly, or uttered a lawless word.".

When an article states that a minority position, frankly a fringe position, as a broad definition it is problematic, especially when being supportive of it to the point of stating that atheism is synonymous with nontheism. While I agree that for the wider discussion this article talk space is likely not the best venue, I hold that the raw redirect from list of atheists to list of nontheists is untenable. Unomi (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This article makes no such assertions. It presents two divergent usages of atheist neutrally, without making a judgment for or against either. I'm not sure what great problem could possibly be created by a redirect from List of atheists to List of nontheists. This list is, after all, predominantly populated by atheists. I think the average reader can figure out that, even though List of atheists redirects to List of nontheists, not all those listed here are necessarily atheists. All that would be needed to surmise this would be to actually read the lede. But you're free to try something different with the List of atheists namespace. If you make a change, I'm sure we'll see what others think soon enough. Nick Graves (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)