Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Only explicit atheists, right?

Is it correct to assume that only explicit atheists will be listed here, that no implicit atheists will be listed. So everyone listed will have explicitly stated either 1>they do not believe in any deities, or 2>they believe no deities exist. (Thus they are covered by the first two defs in the atheism article, and those nontheists who qualify only under the "absence" def -- because they never thought about deities much -- are not included). Perhaps this could be explicitly stated in the lede JimWae (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the current list criteria, there is nothing to prevent someone who has a mere absence of belief in deities (because they never thought about them much) from being listed. If, for example, someone were to be asked in a magazine interview "Do you believe in God?", and they were to answer, "Well, I hadn't really considered the possibility of any god's existence, so I don't believe in any," they could be listed. I'm not sure what the problem would be with that. But then, simply responding to the question would automatically change them from implicit atheists to explicit atheists. The fact that a reliable secondary source (or the subject themselves) identifies someone as an atheist or nontheist pretty much assures that their position has been made explicit. I suppose some wise-guy might try to list celebrity babies here (or all notable, God-believing adults at List of former atheists and agnostics), under the premise that all babies are born atheists, but then that's a pretty contentious notion. No one has yet tried such a stunt, to my knowledge, so I'm not sure we need to explicitly state that such people are excluded. Way back in ancient history, this list specified that presumed atheists were excluded. I suppose we could slip something like that back in, if you think it would help. Nick Graves (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A call to Action!

I just petitioned to get the two sub articles (surnames E-G and H-K) undeleted. Can we please rally any interested editors and try and get some content into those articles within a reasonable amount of time? Nefariousski (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the proper title: formal proposal to re-name

This csme up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism. We simply can't call people who identify as atheists nontheists. At the AfD a distinction is being argued between the terms but in any case WP:NAME means that an article listing people who call themselves atheists is going to be called a List of atheists. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The name change was agreed to after significant discussion and consensus building. With the reversion to the old name, there are people listed whose inclusion now violates WP:BLP. It is very problematic to list people who have specifically said they are not atheists, even if they admit nonbelief in gods. Your unilateral change is troubling, and should not have been made without first discussing and coming to consensus with other editors, particularly those who already discussed this in depth. Out of consideration for BLP policy, I will commence reverting your renaming, pending forging of a new consensus in favor of the move. If a renaming is approved by consensus, we will need to go through each entry and remove names of those who have denied being atheists, and possibly others, as it is not universally and uncontroversially agreed what exactly an "atheist" is. (See the exhaustive past discussions on the matter). Nick Graves (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN#Lists of nontheists - a list of people identifying as atheists but we call them nontheists. It works both ways. Only those who call themselves nontheists should be in a list of nontheists. Take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism. We shouldn't be giving people any labels if they don't self-identify. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "nontheists" is improper for this article for several reasons: (1) the word does not exist an any reliable dictionary; (2) most readers of this encyclopedia have no idea what "nontheist" means; and (3) most people in this list (all?) did not identify themselves as "nontheists". In the spirit of compromise, how about "List of atheists and nontheists"? --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above. Atheist is the accepted dictionary term for these individuals. Nontheist is more of a marginal term anyway. The vast majority openly identify as atheist and of the rest I can see no one that disputes being termed atheist when referred that way. It should probably be moved back and a short note added saying that atheism is being used to refer to a general lack of theistic belief and that some of the list have not explicitly identified as atheist --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, we've covered this. The Oxford English Dictionary--the most comprehensive and definitive dictionary of the English language--defines the term. Also, it is a term that has been in use longer than agnostic, so it cannot be dismissed as a neologism.

Tmorton, you are mistaken. The claim has been made many times before on this discussion page, and has been thoroughly debunked by reliable sources. Please survey the previous discussion.

I'll repost my message to Doug Weller, as it is relevant. As an aside, I believe previous participants in the discussion that resulted in the renaming to List of nontheists ought to be notified of the current discussion before another move is made. My message to Doug Weller:

I'll check out that discussion. The maintainers of the list ought to have been notified of the discussion prior to the move. There are some people on the list who would identify themselves as nontheists. I'm not sure there is a BLP issue with identifying the others as nontheists, given the verifiable and uncontroversial definition of the word, and the other sources that confirm that they have views consistent with that definition. The problem with atheist as an identifier is that it has a dysphemistic sense that nontheist does not have--hence the nonbelievers in God who object to being called atheists. Also, the matter of whether or not one must assert the nonexistence of deities to truly be an atheist comes down to one's point of view as to how the word should be applied (dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy identify divergent usages, without settling which is the "correct" one). This also accounts for those nonbelievers who assert that they are not atheists (Carl Sagan being a notable example).

If consensus shifts such that one must specifically identify by a term (whether nontheist or atheist) to be so identified here, then a significant purge of the list will be in order, because many of those listed currently have not gone on record as to the label they prefer. Nick Graves (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick: The term "nontheist" is exceedingly rare. This encyclopedia should not be promoting such a rare, unusual word in such a prominent article. The few places that do define "nontheism" define it precisely as one of the meanings of "atheism", so they are synonyms (although, not with other definitions of "athesim"). Since they are synonyms, the notion of purging the article is moot, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. The key point now is: getting a good title for the list of people that do identify themselves as atheists. BTW: what do you think of List of atheists and nontheists as a solution? --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick: can you check the OED and see if it has "nontheist" or "non-theist" ... the hyphen makes a huge difference. The nontheism article says OED uses the hyphen, true? --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the table of contents to see if there had been a name change discussion before I made the move. I still don't see any section heading that gives any clue that it's the one for a name change discussion. I wouldn't have wasted my time doing it if I'd seen such a discussion, and I'm a bit annoyed about that, but never mind. The hyphen issue is discussed at the AfD. Evidently the OED spells it both ways, but I'm not convinced it's a big deal. The big deals for me are the BLP/verification issues.

As for maintainers of the list, (besides not liking the phrase) I don't know who are the most active editors, it isn't easy to tell, and again, this is the page for such a discussion, I assume they read it. Again, I wish I hadn't spent time on this instead of doing other editing, and wouldn't have if I'd seen the name change discussion. I hope someone else deals with any subsequent changes. :-) Dougweller (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick, there are several issues with what you are saying. foremost amongst which is that this is a laymans encyclopedia and nontheism is just confusing the issue. As it is the OED does not define Nontheism, but does list non-theist as A person who is not a theist.. The term is marginal and not really an accepted blanket term for such individuals. Nontheism is not a word so it can't really be used in this descriptive way - non-theist describes a lack of theistic belief, which is very broad and not very useful in this case.

• Where individuals identify specifically as non-theist then they should be on List of non-theists
• Where individuals identify specifically as atheist then they should be on List of atheists (why are we making a choice for them? :))
• Everyone else should probably be on List of atheists (rationale: atheism is a more accepted definition than that non-theist & nontheism is not a word).

If we are insistent on using non-theist then every with non-theistic beliefs (humanists, buddhists, agnostics etc.) should be on there - otherwise you just have a list of, um, atheists :)

I propose that it reads something like This is a list of people identifying as atheists or who hold atheistic beliefs. Atheism can range from simple disbelief in a deity through to active denial of a god. and at the top of the page This is a list of people with atheistic beliefs. For a list of self-identifying non-theists see List of non-theists. Then on the non-theists page: This is a list of people who specifically identify as non-theist (a person who is not a theist). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with what Tmmorton166 says. I think two key questions are : (1) Should buddhists/agnostics be included in this list? because "nontheism" (whatever its definition is) seems to include them, yet "atheism" generally does not; and (2) What do we do with famous people who said "I dont believe in God/religion" (or similar) but never self-described themselves as "atheist"? I contend they should be in the List of atheists since the word "atheist" is 1000 times more common than "nontheist", and readers of this encyclopedia will be familiar with "atheist". ---Noleander (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is already List of agnostics ... so agnostics should not be in List of atheists or List of nontheists, period. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the history of how this article got renamed from "List of atheists" to "List of nontheists": It looks like there was a discussion on the Talk page (above) in Fall 2009, with the section title "People who deny being atheists?". There was virtually no !voting, and a move template was never in the article. One interesting comment in that Talk discussion is: ".... 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." That strongly suggests a re-name back to "List of atheists". --Noleander (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that it is necessary to list Buddhists, if all Buddhists are ex officio nontheists. The question of nontheism arises only in contexts where theism exists.

All atheists (and perhaps agnostics) are nontheists, but not all nontheists choose to call themselves atheists, due to the pejorative associations that commonly attach to the expression. It is unlikely, however, that an atheist would object strenuously at being described as a nontheist. Nihil novi (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Nontheists : List of Atheists :: List of Musicians : List of guitar players

Therefore, in my opinion, a "List of Nontheists" isn't necessary. If we have "List of Atheists", "List of Agnostics", "List of Buddhists", etc.; then a "List of Nontheists" would simply repeat that information and, thus, be needless. Anyone who doesn't directly identify as *BLANK* shouldn't be labeled as *BLANK*, no matter what *BLANK* is. Just because all Atheists are technically Nontheists (and they are), that doesn't mean we can label them as something they haven't previously labeled themselves -- especially in something as touchy as religion. If someone hasn't self-identified as being with any religion (or absent of one), we should not say anything about their religion (or lack of one).  Chickenmonkey  07:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the "List of nontheists" is closed down, where will self-identified nontheists be accommodated? Nihil novi (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Perhaps the "List of nontheists" should remain for those who choose to self-identify as such, but do not self-identify as a certain type of nontheist (i.e. atheist, agnostic, etc).  Chickenmonkey  08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. We can have a list of nontheists for those who self-identify as nontheists. And that's the important point, as Chickenmonkey says, only those who identify with a particular 'concept' should be in a list like this. We don't decide, other people don't decide, what a person's personal ideology or concept of themselves is. Yes, this may mean purging the lists, but that's only because they shouldn't have been added in the first place. That's in line with our BLP policy and I think should also apply to those who are dead. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nihil Novi; that argument is somewhat dangerous. Firstly it is unclear what the precedent of nontheism is, or even how synonymous it is with "little a" atheism. Secondly assuming atheist does === nontheist does not mean we can call self-described atheists nontheists. The only exception there is if nontheist was a widely accepted term interchangeable with atheist - which it is not. Finally; nontheist is a little used word in comparison to atheist; so in the context of the encyclopaedia the latter is more useful to the reader. Where a person specifically identifies as nontheist then they should be on this list. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I did the move, based on the above discussion. I think there is still a lot of work to be done, specifically: Improving the wording at the top of the List article; deciding what to do with people in the list that self-identify as "nontheist", etc. --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not hunt for self-identified "non-theists" in this list and split them out into their own list. If an editor thinks that is a good idea, I have no objection. However, I would limiit it only to people that specifically identify themselves as "nontheist" or "non-theist": if the person does not specifically use the term "nontheist" or "non-theist", the person should stay in the atheism list. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Coming a bit late here it seems. Ho hum. Well to 'skip to the end', in the previous (and exhausting if not exhaustive) discussions, we alighted on 'nontheist' because it is a better term for encompassing these people's explicit position. We regarded that as far less problematic than constant arguing over what the persons have called or considered themselves: a label for their stance, rather than whatever label they may or may not pick from the almost-cognate plethora of terms.

Thus, we could sensibly and unambiguously include persons whose stances are near identical but who for various reasons choose different labels and even reject some in favour of others -- Michael Shermer is the classic example. To go the route of self-identification means splitting the list into separate ones for atheist, non-believing agnostic, sceptic, rationalist, on and on. Shermer is worth quoting on this:

"But I detest all such labels. Call me what you like — humanist, secular humanist, agnostic, nonbeliever, nontheist, freethinker, heretic, or even bright. I prefer skeptic. Still, all such labels are just a form of cognitive economy, a shortcut into pigeonholing our fellow primates into tidy categories that supplant the deeper probing of what someone actually thinks and says."

Given that this list -- all such lists -- are deliberate pigeonholing, how can it be achieved (if we consider it a worthwhile exercise at all)? Surely by using an unambiguous catch-all term, and use sourced quotes to indicate the deeper probing of what the includee actually thinks and says. Does anyone seriously think Shermer and Sagan were more than a hair's breadth apart? Yet Shermer Shermer will (reluctantly) call himself an atheist, while Sagan denied it.

To have a non-inclusive term is to eject (say) Sagan, despite his avowed non-belief. His position was identical to others who have happily called themselves 'atheist'. To include 'happy' atheists but not 'reluctant' ones is to make a mockery of the point (if there is one) of the list. More pragmatically, it means leaving the list(s) open to constant (and to my mind, pointless and redundant) arguments over people's precise positions. Do we have explicit 'weak' atheists because they call themselves atheists, but not 'strong' atheists who reject the precise term? What of those who call themselves 'atheist' but who do not clarify it; those who make clearly 'atheistic' statements but do not use the term (eg Clarence Darrow); those who are only 'caught on camera' talking about the Christian God, yet whose position clearly would apply to gods in general if only they'd been asked (eg Einstein); those who mean it in the more American sense ('strongly') and those who use it in the more European 'weaker' sense… those who reject the label because it means 'strong' to them but who fit the broader definition perfectly…?

We've been there, done that. To paraphrase Dawkins: Splitting non-believers by splitting hairs, such has ever been the way of Wikipedia (at least, until we decided on 'nontheist').

The underlying position, as Shermer makes clear, is simple non-belief in a deity or deities. The rest can be argued by the person more or less strongly, with different emphases or not actually argued (in a reliable source anyway) at all. But to split -- as we'd have to -- a Sagan from a Shermer seems to me to undermine the rationale for collecting these folks together at all. It'd be like a collector of British stamps who only collects simple Queen's head stamps and never pictoral ones, not because it's just his preference but because he does not consider pictoral ones to be proper stamps at all. Well maybe, like 'atheists', they aren't; but most people wanting to find a list of either is -- I submit -- more interested in 'things put on envelopes to pay for postage' / 'people to whom the label in a general sense applies'.

There will always be POV problems here. But it seems to me to be just as POV to separate people on the basis of their preferred labels as anything else -- and means that any identification that's not the person's own is rendered immediately problematic if not ludicrous (witness the British press's happy -- and correct in their own terms -- identification of Sagan as an atheist… they were not wrong, just using the term a little differently… as indeed do the self-identifiers).

Which is why, way back when, we decided on the descriptive category of 'nontheist'. All the includees are that, no matter what subtribe they also are (if we can even tell).

So then. Just a few other bits. Back on 21 July, Noleander said:

The word "nontheists" is improper for this article for several reasons: (1) the word does not exist an any reliable dictionary;

False. (Well unless you consider the OED unreliable.) To wit:

non-theist, n. and adj.

A. n. A person who is not a theist.

B. adj. = NON-THEISTIC adj.

theist

One who holds the doctrine of theism

theism

a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = MONOTHEISM. c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = DEISM. d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

So someone who does not believe in a deity or deities is a non-theist. Simple when you know how.

(2) most readers of this encyclopedia have no idea what "nontheist" means;

Then perhaps they might consult a reliable dictionary. Or even try learning English: sticking 'non' on the front of a word is hardly linguistic esoterica.

and (3) most people in this list (all?) did not identify themselves as "nontheists".

Irrelevant. Nontheist (or non-theist) is a well-attested and hardly indecipherable adjective, chosen for its accuracy and inclusiveness (and euphemism, given the often perjorative sense of 'atheist'). Would you reject from a list of refuse collection operatives all those who 'merely' call themselves dustmen? "Can't include him, he's never called himself a refuse collector." A 'strong' dustman, proud and Dawkinsian about his job, is a shoo-in, while a more reserved chap who only refers to working in household waste removal gets rejected or consigned to a separate list… and a passing reference to "well I suppose you might call me a dustman, but I've always felt that's too limiting a term" will cause no end of argument.

I'm struck by something I heard Stephen Fry say recently, that we are verbs, not nouns. He writes, he acts, he presents; as soon as you use the nouns, you limit the description. The idea behind using 'nontheist' is to collect those with nontheism, whose verb-like position is non-belief. They do not 'believe in god(s)', the rest is splitting hairs and (given what sources are like) counting angels on pinheads. More practically, we can catch non-believers in the act ('verbally' as it were) with far more certainty than we can by looking for nouns of multiple, overlapping and equivocal meanings, especially when attribution of those terms by (suitably qualified or relevant) others is regarded as a valid form of idfentification.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as discussed, we can only use reliable sources which legitimately identify the person as XYZ. So for the list to be acceptable as nontheists you would have to see sources explicitly identify people as non-theistic. Which is problematic. I've been through everyone on the list as of now and every single one is explicitly identified as an atheist - either by themselves or reasonably by a third party. Nontheist would crossover with lists we already have in existence - so that causes issues for inclusion.

':'Then perhaps they might consult a reliable dictionary; this, to my mind, is not acceptable practice for an encyclopedia. It should explain concepts with reasonable clarity using accepted & widespread terminology.

Irrelevant. Nontheist (or non-theist) is a well-attested and hardly indecipherable adjective, chosen for its accuracy and inclusiveness; this (and the section about dustmen after it) is a difficult argument. Because on one hand it has merit; on the other hand there are almost certainly well cited references that show dustmen & refuse collector are synonymous terms - this is not true for atheism (as you pointed out; nontheist is a broader term). I think we cannot, as you have said, choose this term for any reasoning of our own.

Someone on my atheism mailing list (who I've been using to bounce ideas off relating to this) said the other day: you know, nontheist is just another of those terms. Eventually someone will get annoyed that they were called a nontheist and demand they really are just an atheist. To my mind it seems best to stick to the term used in the source; then there is no issues with subjective changes by editors.

I do not think it can be legitimately argued that:

• Nontheist is a completely uncontroversial term
• All of the sourced atheists on this list would be happy to be called nontheist
• That a list of nontheists would consist only of atheists

With the greatest respect I think nontheist is a very poor choice for this list; all the members have been explicitly identified as atheist and, so, the name is surely appropriate :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Why is it that I (and Nick too, I expect) keep hearing the theme tune to The Magic Roundabout in these discussions? :-D

I would agree with you entirely, TM -- in fact I pretty much do -- but for the fact that we've been round and round this matter before, to dizzying and nauseous if not psychedelic effect. I'm only defending 'nontheist' because it seems rather less controversial. The 'a' and 'non' prefixes to 'theist' may indeed make the words synonymous, but only the 'a' version has some significant part of some certain countries' populations reaching for the garlic and crucifixes.

Atheist has a long history as an insult, perjorative and stigma, so it's hardly surprising if some a-theists avoid and have avoided the term.

Then there's the agnostic / atheist conundrum-mixup, and the allied strong-weak atheism equivocation in meanings. Many nonbelievers, especially scientists, are aware of the philosphical arrogance of utterly denying all gods anywhere ever. If atheism is taken (as Sagan surely did) to mean more or less that, then of course they'll prefer another term. Even Dawkins is a mere agnostic in those terms (to the same extent that he's agnostic about garden fairies). They are 'weak' atheists, or agnostic atheists, etc etc.

Then there's historical meaning drift. The NYT Darrow quote, about not believing in god or future life, which nobody at least in Europe would take as anything but a statement of atheism (albeit the weak, non god denying variety), is immediately preceded by the journo's comment that "He has not changed his agnostic views." In earlier times, as I've said, plenty of people were called atheists for being heretics.

So what to do? Shermer would not merit inclusion (Nick and I had much chat about it at the time) but for him having the term pulled, unanaesthetised molar-like, from him, despite being -- and this is the important point -- quite possibly more of an atheist (as in, thought long and hard about it and so more firm in his conclusions) than some random actor who just says he is. (The actor may well have gone into it deeply too, but we rarely know that from the sort of sources these things turn up in.)

For some, 'weak' atheists aren't atheists at all; and the term may be used by the person or by someone about them in either sense; and some avoid it for social or strict philosophical reasons. But the one thing uniting them is their a-theism, their non-theism, their non- belief in a deity or deities.

So I agree, 'atheist' is a perfectly good term for these people. Trouble is, plenty of others disagree, including some of these atheists themselves. Which is how we ended up with a slight euphemism that does the same job.

How about 'List of people who do not believe in god or gods'?

As to nontheist being a broader term, it's only broader if 'atheist' is taken in its narrow form (as some do). Because not all do take it narrowly, we get (and had) a mixed and incongruously incomplete bag. Call yourself an atheist, and you may only be using the broad meaning but in you go; be strenuous and forthright and demand evidence, but reject the term, and you don't make the cut. Which is why a word meaning atheist that wasn't actually atheist seemed like a good idea. Ho hum.

Oolon (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Or in short (ha, a miracle from me, eh?), the problem is this. Call it 'atheists' by all means. But some so-called atheists are more atheist than others. Some less-atheists are nevertheless happy to be called it, while some of the athiest (see what I did there?) refuse to be called it. Some get called it but deny it, some (especially in former times) get called it when it is (by modern definitions) untrue. And so on.

If the only criterion for getting in is being called an atheist, many atheists will be excluded, since the term is inconsistently applied by sources. Which sounds rather inconsistent. If we also use statements consistent with atheism, then we need to use the broader definition, because some sources that do ascribe the term undoubtedly use the broader one -- to use the narrower one means more inconsistency in who's included.

Seems to me that there's only two ways to do this. Strictly according to the use of the magic word, and hang the inconsistency; or by listing those with unambiguous nonbelief. Nonbelief in what? Well, theism, I guess. Which makes it a list of a-theists. Or for clarity, non-theists.

So call the list whatever you like, as long as it's succinct, accurately reflects the contents, and doesn't confuse anyone with average IQ (I'm therefore excluding anyone who can't guess what a non-theist might be, even if they're not sure what exactly a theist is). But having been over these discussions so many times already, a list of non-theists is the only workable (and, I submit, useful) content for such an endeavour, whatever it's called.

Erm, so much for 'short'. Ho hum.

Oolon (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Would an "editnotice" help?

It may help to have an Wikipedia:Editnotice on this page. That may eliminate some wasted time in the future. Perhaps the editnotice could say something like: "Please review the Talk page for prior discsussions on the definition of atheist, and for whether or not buddhists, humanists, agnostics and self-identified non-theists should be included in this list". If this is a good idea, some admin will have to add the editnotice. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I'd like to propose changing the lead to:

This is a list of atheists. Some atheists actively reject the existence of deities but it has also become a wider term for individuals with an absence of theistic belief. The list contains people who have either specifically identified as atheist or where they hold beliefs that are strongly classified as atheist (for example rejecting the idea of a deity). Individuals who identify as non-theists instead can be found in the List of nontheists.

Atheism is contrasted with agnosticism, where an individual believes the existence of a deity is currently unknowable (see List of agnostics).

Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a watering of the specification and will just see more people pushed into the cat. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything that would help reduce "thrashing" of the list would be welcome. See my suggestion above for an "editnotice". My only concern is that this article should not start duplicating the atheism article: atheism article already defines "atheist" ... and the definition is so multi-faceted that it should not be repeated in this List article. So I agree with Off2Riorob: this article's lead should not try to explain the distinction between atheism and agnosticism: that is very tricky, and is best done (and already done!) in those articles. On the other hand: if there are similar list articles like List of agnostics, List of nontheists, and List of humanists, I see no problem with pointedly mentioning them in the lead paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, if we only list those who self-identify, that's not a problem. It's only if we do what this lead revision suggest, make our own determination, that we have a problem. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Doug, many of the people listed do not explicitly identify as atheist - my aim would be remove some of them. I think it is reasonable to say people that state strongly "there is no god" are atheist (with a little a), even better where a third party WP:RS takes that claim and classifies them as atheist. With the self-calssification you mention most of the list would probably have to go :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it is in keeping with the format of lists here to clarify what is included. Especially in this case. The difference between atheism and agnosticism is not, I think, tricky - it is actually a pretty clear distinction. @Rob; my aim was actually to try and narrow the focus to people that a) claim as atheists and b) people who actively reject deities but have not explicitly said they are atheists. It would actually shorten the list (on my quick check) because some of the people have, at most, said "I do not believe in God" or "I am not religious" which, to my mind, is not strong enough to classify them as atheist (I'd be looking for something more concrete such as "there is no god"). I see your point though; my suggested was aimed at clarifying that this refers to the broader spectrum of atheism rather than Atheism (which is what caused the original move in the first place) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As per Doug and Errant, we should require strong and clear declarations from the subjects to include. I have some supporting views on issues related to both, but I wouldn't want sticking in either category. If I did I would come and and clearly say, I am a this or I am a that. A little more definition of the specification and the inclusion criteria can only be a good thing. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to that categorisation at all (and I feel much the same way as yourself); but we probably need to really discuss the bounds of what constitutes a declaration before going forward. For example there are quite a few sources where the subject talks or writes about atheism and their own beliefs - but does not use the term specifically about themselves. There are other sources where a third party is talking about the subject and calls them atheist - so perhaps that needs a more explicit source. And, finally, there are biographies that list the subjects "religion" as atheist - and, again, we may need more explicit sourcing. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This "list of atheists" has - for years - required a Reliable Source to justify the inclusion of a person. No one has suggested including persons who are not clearly identified as atheists (either by their own statement, or by a biographer/academic source). So we really don't need to spend much time re-visiting the requirement for a source. And no one has suggested including agnostics or humanists in this list, so there is no reason to beat that dead horse for the fourth time. About the only thing to debate here is: what is the definition of "atheist" to use for this list, and my answer to that is: it is already defined, quite well, in the atheism article. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard of inclusion?

I've been following (without much interest, since I didn't have a strong opinion on it) the naming discussion, and waiting for that to be resolved before raising an issue that I think is much more important.

My concern is that this list (or should I say 'these lists' since we have it broken up into a bunch of lists by category and surname) is much too inclusive.

For example, we include Bill Gates and yet quote him directly as saying "I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

We have some like Julia Sweeney included quite correctly, I think, due to the notability of her one-woman show "Letting Go of God". But then we have Jan Hein Donner listed on the basis of what is clearly an enigmatic joke: "Well actually, I'm an atheist - but not a practising one."

This issue was raised to my attention when it was pointed out to me that I was on the list, something that I think is quite silly. Not silly based on anything about my personal beliefs, but silly based on what ought to be the purpose of a list like this: not to show how many people are atheists but to guide interested readers to people who have written or spoken extensively on the subject. If an author has written an entire book explaining their lack of faith, that's one thing. But if an author has merely responded to a question in an interview, but never written anything about it, then adding them to the list is merely clutter and not that interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo; in terms of your first point, yes that appears to be the growing consensus actually (see above). In terms of your second - it makes a lot of sense to my mind. The only problem I can see is that it becomes problematic deciding who is to be included; for example how strongly do they have to have asserted being atheist to be included (for example there are authors with books that include interesting atheistic material but who are not explicitly atheists) or, even more problematic, how closely do atheists have to have produced material about atheism for it to be included (off hand; Douglas Adams has not written much directly about atheism - but if you were looking for an interesting atheist writer then he is a great example). It's actually a really good idea if we could pull it off :D (I'd also suggest me might need another name change - something like list of notable atheists etc.) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a standard should be established. But should it require the person to say "I am an atheist"? Of course not. Equivalent declarations like "I don't believe in God" or "There is no God" clearly identify the person as an atheist (and "I am not religious" - though it is a bit marginal - but could be acceptable in the right circumstances). As for Jimbo's question about "how strongly do they have to have asserted being atheists", I don't think there should be a litmus test there. If Daniel Radcliff says in an interview "I am an atheist" (and he did) then he can be included in this list. One of the key points of the list - let's be candid - is to to demonstrate that atheists come from all walks of life: they are normal folk. Therefore, celebrities and non-scholars belong in this list, in addition to academics and philosophers. --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Following up on the specific persons listed by J. Wales above: I removed Bill Gates from the list of atheists, since his statements were indicative of agnosticism, rather than atheism. Sometimes the line is blurry, but Gates' comments were clearly agnostic. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree with Noleander. I don't think the list should have to be exclusively restricted to those "who have written or spoken extensively on the subject". I think that makes the list too restrictive. There is some interest in having people like Daniel Radcliff on the list, because it would help the reader to understand the number and distribution of atheists in each profession. I think thats an important thing for the reader to have on hand. It indicates to the reader the prevalence of atheism in each profession. Here is just one example, lets say I wanted to know if there was a higher prevalence amongst atheist movie actors for staring in comedies as opposed to dramas. Such a list would help me figure that out. If the list was restricted to only people like Richard Dawkins, Michael Martin, etc. then I wouldn't be able to make any such observations. Its for that reason that I think a nonexclusive list isn't silly and actually useful to the reader. Its also why I think having the name "list of notable atheists" is problematic. I don't however agree that the purpose of the list should be to indicate that "they are normal folk". I think wikipedia should only supply non-biased info.Chhe (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict twice) No, that's exactly what we shouldn't do. The only purpose of this list is to "list" people who are atheist. That's it. The list has various uses--for example, finding authors who have written about atheism--but that has nothing to do with its purpose. We can't assume someone is atheist just because they said something that "sounds" atheist (that's completely original research and--for those still alive--in violation of our policy on biographies of living persons). We might want this list to be extensive, but that doesn't mean we should go around declaring people this or that. If a reliable source declares a person "atheist", or what-have-you, then we should use common sense to determine if that reliable source was stating a fact or using conjecture. It's the same as List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people; we can't just declare a person gay, lesbian, or bisexual because they said something that's sounds like it. The same applies here.  Chickenmonkey  19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, remember WP:NLIST says our usual standards of notability for people should be followed for lists of people. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller: concur on Notability, but to me that just translates to whether or not they have an article in WP or not.

Chickenmonkey: I'm not following your point. Are you saying that a person cannot be included in this list article if they say "I do not believe in God"? Are you suggesting that they must say "I am an atheist"? If you are saying that (Im not sure if you are): that doesn't make much sense. The word "atheist" has a definition, and we can apply common sense to determine if a person's pronouncements fit within that definition. Apologies if I misunderstood your point. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're following my point; that's exactly what I mean. A person, especially a living person, must explicitly state their atheism before we can label them as such. In the article on a given person, we can mention their stated non-belief in god, but we can't list them as something we don't know they are. That's original research. Now, if a reliable source takes a quote from someone like, "I do not believe in god" and that reliable source labels that person an "atheist"; then, I think it's fine to cite that reliable source as our reasoning for listing a person here. We can't, however, take the role of a reliable source and interpret a person's words.  Chickenmonkey  20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A person who "doesn't believe in god" might not consider himself an atheist but a nontheist. In this realm we are dealing not only with philosophical beliefs but also, two decades after the "collapse of communism," with sociological phenomena, e.g. the stigma that often continues to attach to "godless atheism." Nihil novi (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey old chap: so a bloke who says "Well it's true that I've had a string of same-sex relationships, and this is my boyfriend Eric", but who does not call himself gay and nobody else specifically does either (perhaps because no sourced commentator found it relevant, as might be true for a scientist), could not be included in a list of gay people?

Do you seriously believe that ascribing

atheist, n. (and a.)

1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God. (OED)

to someone who says

"I do not believe in God and do not think there is such a thing"

... counts as Original Research?

Well I suppose you may be right. But it makes the list, to my mind, completely pointless. We'd have a criterion for inclusion that amounts to 'say the magic word'.

If that is the route of the consensus, for the sake of accuracy I'd have insist the list be retitled List of people identifying themselves with the term, or identified as, atheist. It would not be a list of people who are atheists, just a list of those who've been called atheists.

Indeed, if you throw out, as you effectively are, the simple definition and rely instead on nothing but others' attribution, you'll have to include no end of pre-1900-ish people who have been called atheists, such as Tom Paine. Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, 'atheist' was thrown around at anyone a bit heretical. But atheist they were called by a reliable source, so atheist they were, and into the list they go. Right?

And before you say 'oh but the meaning of the word has changed'… retrospectively applying that to exclude someone would be using only one definition. And that would be Original Research on your part, wouldn't it?

Suppose someone -- a school kid with a summer holiday project, perhaps -- is looking to find out about famous atheists. She goes to a dictionary first, so she knows what to look for: "people who do not believe in gods, or who say gods don't exist", she keeps repeating to herself to be clear in her mind.

Then, on her father's recommendation that Wikipedia is reliable, she comes here. Then she opens another browser window, goes to Facebook, and chats with a friend about the project.
"I've got one here, Clarence Darrow" says the friend. "American lawyer."
"He's not on the Wikipedia list,", says our intrepid investigatrix.
"He said he didn't believe in God because he didn't believe in Mother Goose," says the friend. "And that he believed in neither future life or God."
Our heroine is now confused. "But he's not on the Wikipedia list, which Dad says is the best and most reliable because it's well referenced. Your other list must be wrong."
"But he's quoted the New York Times and everything!"

If, at this stage, they were not to become bored and start talking about R-Patz, they might wonder why someone perfectly meeting the defintion is not included. That is, why an encyclopedia purporting (by having such a page) to list the buggers didn't list a notable one. Surely people wanting such a list want it to contain people who are, not what they've been labelled (or not).

By the same token, Quentin Crisp (oft-quoted as an atheist, by the way, but I can't find a solid source darn it), the self-identified 'Stately Homo of England', probably didn't call himself gay. (Flamboyant, probably, but not gay as in, well, queer.) Is he on the list of gays (etc) though? Surely
Crisp is to Gay
as
Darrow is to Atheist.

Seems to me that one can be as much of a screaming queen or ardent anti-god-ite as one likes, but unless you say the magic word (or someone else calls you it), under this proposal you'll never get on a list with your sexual or philosophical peers. It can look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck... but unless it calls itself a duck, some people would not even consider the possibility that we have a member of the Anatidae on our hands. That'd be an OR too far.

(I wanted to put "walk like a ducky, talk like a ducky…" but thought that'd be pushing the word-play beyond endurance, even allowing for it being a Douglas Adams / Blackadder II mashup.)

So the question for all of us is, is our own application of a dictionary definition to something, and including it if it clearly fits, really Original Research, or is it just common sense? And would such a strict (I'd say OCD) application of the OR principle not actually diminish the list's value as a WP entry? The by-the-dictionary method is at best secondary-level OR. A Darrow entry (for instance) would not say anything that is incorrect, ambiguous or unreferenced, and the reason for including him as a nontheist / atheist (etc) is plain from the meaning of those words.

Interestingly, my wife works in the jewellery trade. She tells me that Faberge do not make watches, they make exclusive timepieces. They don't call them watches, nobody in the trade would dare call them watches, and the fact that these items have a flat dial with hands that indicate the hour and minute of the day and are worn on the forearm by means of a strap around the wrist is clearly neither here nor there. So don't go including Faberge in a list of companies that make watches… or if you have a list of timepiece manufacturers, ditch the likes of Rolex, Casio and Rotary, cos they only make watches.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes:

"so a bloke who says "Well it's true that I've had a string of same-sex relationships, and this is my boyfriend Eric", but who does not call himself gay and nobody else specifically does either (perhaps because no sourced commentator found it relevant, as might be true for a scientist), could not be included in a list of gay people?"

That's exactly how Wikipedia works. Everyone on the planet "knew" Ricky Martin was gay for years, but we couldn't very well include him in a "list of gay people" until he, himself, said it. Wikipedia works on verifiability--not truth. We cannot take on the role of a reliable source. We cannot interpret what a person says. A reliable source must do that, and we cite that reliable source. I am not throwing anything out; this is how Wikipedia works. I'm not very familiar with Clarence Darrow's agnosticism, but if that information is sourced (which it apparently is in our article about him) then he could be included in a so-called "list of agnostics" (which he is in Category:American agnostics). As agnostics, atheists, antitheists, etc. are nontheists by definition, it would be accurate to include all such people in a "list of nontheists", but we must have a reliable source to cite, a reliable source which--following the application of common sense--is found to be using fact (in lieu of conjecture); then, we can list a person as what the reliable source says. It would still be repetitious, however, to include all atheists in "list of atheists" and "list of nontheists" or all agnostics in "list of agnostics" and "list of notheists", etc. The best course of action is still to have: "List of atheists", "List of agnostics", "List of antitheists", and include a link to those lists from "list of nontheists" where we could also list those who have been expressly identified as "nontheists" yet not a particular kind of "nonthesist" (i.e. atheist).

Furthermore, if a person says "I don't believe in god," and a reliable source takes that to mean "I am an atheist," there's nothing wrong with us citing that. However, Wikipedia cannot, on its own accord, interpret "I don't believe in god" to mean "I am an atheist". That's original research. If there is a case where a person has been labeled "atheist" or "agnostic" (or anything else) and has refuted that, then they should not be listed in a "list of atheists" or "list of agnostics"; the information should be included in our article on that person, but listing them would be, in effect, "taking sides". Wikipedia does not "take sides".  Chickenmonkey  22:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"However, Wikipedia cannot, on its own accord, interpret "I don't believe in god" to mean "I am an atheist". That's original research."

[singing]

You say tomayto, I say tomahto

You say original research, I say nuts

Tomayto, tomahto

Original research, nuts

Let's call the whole thing off.

See, until recently, we specifically had in the criteria for inclusion (something meaning, I forget the exact wording) "... or a statement consistent with atheism." For quite some time (and I should know, since I've added a good half of all the entries here), "I don't believe in God" was good enough. Given that 'not believing in God' is the sine qua non, definition and sufficient prerequisite for being an atheist (pace, sensu lato okay?!), calling "original research" the spotting of a dictionary definition coming from someone's mouth seems... a tad overblown.

In what way is "I don't believe in God" not just another way of saying, and interchangeable with, "I am a [insert favourite near-synonym for non-theist / a-theist here]"?

It's the verb / noun thing again: "I have exclusively homosexual relationships" doesn't count (as you stated it doesn't above), but "I am a homosexual" does? Someone can say "I don't believe in God" till they're blue in the face and it'd still be insufficient proof of a-theism and original research to claim otherwise... but say "I am a non-God-believer" and kerching!?

If you're really claiming (with WP approval, as it were) that "I like my same sex" is insufficient to allow inclusion as a homosexual and "I don't think gods exist" doesn't count as an inclusion criterion for atheism... if this is to be, not a list of atheists, but a list of magic word utterers, then bollocks to it. What's the point? Ladies and gentlemen, rational common sense has left the building.

I'm done. Oolon (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise with your point, of course. But the others are right; we can't interpret such statements as meaning "I am an atheist" or "I am homosexual". Someone else (reliable) has to do that for us. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Then the description needs to make that clear: "This is a list of people who have been identified, or have identified themselves, as being an atheist." It'll only confuse future hopeful contributors otherwise.

Or, we could call it List of people who do not believe in God(s). Uncontroversial, simple and descriptive, and relatively easy to spot potential includees...?

Hmmm. No. On second thoughts, that wouldn't work. I was going to say that the above would mean atheists would be de facto included, and would be an alternative to 'nontheist' etc and also capture the verb-like idea. But no, by the same reasoning, someone might say they're an atheist, but it would be original research on our part to high-handedly conclude that they therefore do not believe in gods and should be listed as such. Only if another source also said that they were a non-believer in deities would calling oneself an atheist be enough. So it could only be a list of don't-believers, with atheists listed separately.

Okay, what if a reliable source calls someone an atheist? Unless they themselves specifically deny it -- in, literally, so many words -- on what grounds might we otherwise exclude them without doing original research (of the type that keeps out mere expressions of atheism without using the word)? Thomas Paine, for instance. Did he in fact ever say "I am not an atheist"? He was most certainly called it. Unless he plainly denied the word, why might we keep someone like him out?

See, this level of no-OR cuts both ways. No amount of writings by someone on how they believe in a god can trump being called an atheist unless they explicitly deny the term. "But X wrote about his belief!" won't cut it -- claiming that that means X was not an atheist uses the same logic, and breaches the same no-OR injunction, as claiming that someone saying "I don't believe gods exist" is an atheist.

Ah to hell with it. Oolon (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making this much more complicated than it actually is. Nobody should be on this list (or any list) unless inclusion can be justified by citing a reliable source. If a person has been labeled atheist (or anything else) and have denied it, we should include that in our article on them but not include them in a list. If a person has been labeled an atheist without the use of facts, we should include that in our article on them but not include them in a list. Common sense trumps all; if we cannot clearly discern if a person is this or that, we should not list them.  Chickenmonkey  19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"You're making this much more complicated than it actually is."

No, I'm showing that the sole reliance on the magic word being used is what makes it complicated. We have already removed a good many new additions on the grounds that their quoted words are not a statement of atheism. If it were to be accompanied by a jounalist's comment about them being an atheist however, we could not keep the person out no matter how plainly false the allegation of atheism is.

"Nobody should be on this list (or any list) unless inclusion can be justified […] we should include that in our article on them but not include them in a list."

Yes. I think I may have just about grasped this stuff by now. But it's irrelevant to my point.

"if we cannot clearly discern if a person is this or that, we should not list them."

I think I may have just about got my head round that one too. So, please explain in what way someone being reliably reported as saying "I don't believe gods exist" is not a clear way to discern that they're an atheist. Oolon (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the statement "I don't believe gods exist" is ambiguous in nature and makes no mention of atheism or any -ism; it could mean multiple things. Wikipedia should not serve to interpret the statement "I don't believe gods exist" to mean anything other than "I don't believe gods exist". I posit this: a reliable source conducts an interview with someone, and that someone says "I don't believe gods exist"; then, said reliable source--in publishing said interview--takes "I don't believe gods exist" to mean "I'm an atheist"; and said reliable source proceeds to label said interviewee an "atheist". Now, we have a reliable source interpreting someone's words for us; we can then cite that interpretation as justification to include that person on such a list as this. If the reliable source did not interpret "I don't believe gods exist" to mean "I'm an atheist", we cannot--and should not--create that interpretation ourselves.

A whole new can of worms is opened when a reliable source offers such an interpretation which then is refuted by the so-called "atheist". If that were to occur, we would be justified in including the exchange (Person's words have caused reliable sources to label person an "atheist", but person has refuted such claims) in our article on person; however, listing them as something they deny they are would amount to Wikipedia "taking sides", and Wikipedia does not "take sides". For instance, if female person said, "I like to have sex with women," and a reliable source interpreted that as "I am gay"; then, female person said, "No, I am not gay; I just like to have sex with women," we would be justified in including information on the female person's sexuality, but we could not list that female person in a "list of gay people".

Yet another problem arises, when a reliable source labels someone without just cause. Being that the reliable source is a "reliable" source, this situation should be exceedingly rare; however, if such a situation should arise, common sense is warranted. For instance, if a so-called "reliable source" says something completely out of left field, without any corroborating factual basis for whatever they're saying, we should make an attempt to find further "reliable sources" to make sure the initial "reliable source" is correct. If a source says something that no other source says, it's possible that source is inaccurate--and perhaps should not be considered a "reliable source", anyway.  Chickenmonkey  22:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent cos I'm losing track of all the colons]

"Because the statement "I don't believe gods exist" is ambiguous in nature"

Sorry, I don't follow you. 'Ambiguous' means 'open to more than one interpretation'. I'm really struggling to think what other meaning it has apart from than that the person disbelieves the existence of a God.

"[...] and makes no mention of atheism or any -ism; it could mean multiple things.

Like what, for goodness' sakes?!

I fully agree that as editors we can't go around interpreting stuff willy-nilly. But does that mean we have to be mere reporting automata? In order to do this WP thingy at all, we need to read and understand stuff. Every page here has 'interpretation' of this sort every time it is not directly quoting. Even rephrasing is interpreting, because you can't do it without understanding. Of course we don't rephrase if it alters the meaning. But given that
'atheist' = One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God (OED)
and that
"I don't believe gods exist" = [I] disbelieve the existence of a God
... I still fail to see how it is original research to use the word that specifically means someone who holds that position, for someone who, well, says he holds that position.

Would it be similarly wrong to call someone who says "I make my living coming up with new chairs for Ikea" a 'furniture designer'?

"If the reliable source did not interpret "I don't believe gods exist" to mean "I'm an atheist", we cannot--and should not--create that interpretation ourselves."

And I maintain that it is no more an interpretation than calling someone who says he plays in a band a 'musician'.

We already have a reliable source that very clearly interprets 'atheist' to mean 'not believing gods exist'. It's called the OED. The fact that one version of the idea is contained in one word and the other in a few does not make them any the less interchangeable, any more than 'makes living doing woodwork' and 'carpenter'.

Please, please can you come up with an 'interpretation' of 'he is an atheist' that even vaguely suggests anything less than what our quotee says, for I've racked my brains and cannot. Not believing in [the existence of] gods is what makes someone an atheist by definition. By definition.

Let's try it this way: Suppose someone comes along to here. Sees someone labelled as an atheist. Looks up 'atheist', and looks at the quote. Does anyone think they could derive any other 'inference' than the one we have?
Joe Twitter (he no longer merely bloggs): "He's an atheist?"
WP: "Here's what 'atheist' means, and here's what he said."
Joe: "Oh okay."

Now, we may fairly argue about interpretations if a quote is less clear-cut. What I'm finding incredible is your denying the obvious when the quote is a dictionary definition, practically verbatim. Oolon (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement is ambiguous. "I don't believe gods exist." - Why does that person believe that? Is the person an atheist? Buddhist? Hindu? Antitheist? Agnostic? Ignostic? Hell, some Christians don't believe gods exist. If we take this hypothetical quotation literally as "I don't believe gods exist," then we're left to interpret if the person meant they only believe one god exists, as opposed to the plurality. If the quote were, indeed, "I don't believe god exists," then we're left to interpret if the person is referring to the commonly accepted "God" or any god at all: Vishnu? Zeus? Sol? What exactly does the person mean? Religious fields are riddled with gray areas; that's why it's not a good idea to go around attaching labels to people when we don't have a reliable source for it. If someone doesn't self-identify, or has not had a reliable source interpret their words to identify them, as anything a person might be labeled as, we should not label them (by putting them in a list). If someone speaks openly about their religion--or lack of it--such as making the statement, "I don't believe gods exist", we can document that in our article on them. Everyone doesn't have to be in a list.  Chickenmonkey  21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I hoped someone else would have chimed in here, since the flaw in the reasoning is so clear and I didn't want this to seem just a two-person argument, but hey ho...

"The statement is ambiguous."

Nonsense. The statement relates to purely a binary situation -- literal alternatives from the Latin, meaning one of two: either / or; on / off; having belief in god(s) / not having belief in god(s) -- and answers which of the two alternatives applies: the negative one.

" "I don't believe gods exist." - Why does that person believe that?"

'Atheist' means 'one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of deities'. It does not mean 'one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of deities because…'

The reasons may well be interesting, but they are completely irrelevant as to whether the person is 'one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of deities'. "I don't believe gods exist" tells us about the person's position on god-belief, not the reasons for it.

Now, we could make a set of lists for why people disbelieve in gods. Lists of people who disbelieve for reasons W, X, Y and Z. It's perfectly possible in principle -- because of being persuaded by the argument from natural evil; because of a perceived lack of evidence, because of some claimed internal contradiction, etc -- though harder in practice of course because multiple ones may apply.

But is it not obvious -- serious question! -- that none of those change what is disbelieved?

To qualify as an atheist, all you have to have is a lack of theism. Disbelief in god(s) is the only requirement. It's what the word means, and is all the word means.

"Is the person an atheist?"

Well that's the point. Has the person himself or a reputable source stated that the person disbelieves in god(s)? If so, 'atheist' is the factually correct term by definition, and the person is an atheist by definition.

"Buddhist? Hindu? Antitheist? […] Hell, some Christians don't believe gods exist."

Maybe, perhaps, so what, and who cares? They either believe in god(s) or they do not.

"Agnostic? Ignostic?"

Both of these are positions about knowledge, not belief. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. But be she Agnostic, Ignostic or Bewildered of Llandudno, the person either believes in god(s) or she does not.

"If we take this hypothetical quotation literally as "I don't believe gods exist," then we're left to interpret if the person meant they only believe one god exists, as opposed to the plurality. If the quote were, indeed, "I don't believe god exists," then we're left to interpret if the person is referring to the commonly accepted "God" or any god at all: Vishnu? Zeus? Sol? What exactly does the person mean?"

Two points here. Firstly, it's usually obvious from the context. Nobody (well, nearly nobody perhaps) denies the existence of things which are not generally believed in their culture anyway. Only people like Dawkins bother to mention their disbelief in (say) fairies, and then only to make a point. There are endless ideas and permutations that even Dawkins does not rule out specifically; are we therefore supposed to think he may believe them?

You'll be hard pressed to find many people who specifically, in so many words, deny or disbelieve in the existence of every last deity one might propose. That means that, but for the use of the Magic Word, there could be no 'list of atheists' -- that is, list of people who 'deny or disbelieve in the existence of a deity or deities'.

And this goes to the heart of the purpose of this list, and my second point. If, as I think it should be and has to be for consistency's sake, the purpose is to list notable (because they've been WPed) people who believe in manner X, then those are the people who should be included, if they can be reliably identified.

And the reason I think it has to be that, rather that those merely so (self-) labelled, is because to use just the label is to list blindly, whether it's accurate or not, while excluding many other people who do indeed (dis)believe just as the includees do, but who have not said the magic word.

Or to put it another way, we have no way of knowing whether the ones with the verbal Golden Ticket to listdom are any more god-rejecting than those without. To paraphrase: If the quote were "I am an atheist" but were said in (say) a Christian context, then we don't know if the person only rejects belief in the commonly accepted "God" or any god at all: does he also disbelieve in Vishnu? Zeus? Sol? What exactly does the person mean?

When Sagan rejected the term atheist, did that mean he was in fact the only alternative, a theist? Well, he didn't want to believe, he wanted to know. But if he didn't believe, he has to have been an a-theist. Was Sagan an atheist? Yes according to the British journalists' (valid) interpretation; no according to Sagan's own much narrower (but still valid) one. But it is easily resolved, and easy to note in the entry: yes he was, by definition, but he rejected the term which he took it to mean something more narrow than just non-belief.

Worse though, if the quote is "He is an atheist", what does the reporter mean? European style non-belief, or US-definition denial of god-existence? Or just rejection of what the source considers is theism, as with Paine?

In short, the label 'atheist' is no more use than its more wordy definitional alternatives when it comes to identifying 'People with viewpoint X'. 'Atheist' is just one label for the viewpoint, and there are several others. But remember that labels are just a means of identifying and categorising things, so we can get out heads around them. Sometimes those labels are a single word, sometimes they can be a set of words. I simply say that if the cap fits, people can wear it.

So to repeat myself: If you want a list of people who have been labelled atheists, then the list should called 'List of people who have been labelled as atheists', so that nobody is misled. But a 'List of atheists' should contain people who are atheists. They're easy to spot. They're the ones whose words clearly match what the label means.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oolon, I find it really hard to read your prose. But I will attempt a reply. The term atheist is regularly up for discussion on BLP articles; consensus is almost universally the same - no matter what the person says of their views either them or a reliable source needs to identify them as atheist (Julia Guillard is a recent example) before we can include it. That is simply to avoid issues of WP:OR. Semantics over the name of the list could be discussed; but "List of Atheists" is reasonable based on prior-art (i.e. other lists) where the "[who have been identified as]" is silently implied. I will, however, update the lead to make this more explicit. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Oolon, as I said, everyone doesn't have to be included in a list. We should only include those who have self-identified, or have been reliably-identified. Verifiability outweighs truth. A person may, in fact, be atheist; however, we cannot apply labels. We must allow reliable sources to inform our content. Does that mean every person not on this list is not an atheist? Of course not; it just means we do not have a reliable source to justify their inclusion. To further clarify, a person's words could possibly "clearly match what the label means", but the absence of a reliable source confirming such clarity means we cannot assume said clarity.  Chickenmonkey  21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm afraid my original point is getting lost here. I think it is totally wrong to edit Wikipedia with a "candid" or hidden view that the point is to demonstrate that atheists "are normal folk". That's exactly what it meant by the term "POV pushing". Writing a list from that perspective is not right for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Just to say that I've seen no evidence of trying to demonstrate atheists are normal folk. If that picture is what emerges from simply collecting and collating so many, then that's your own synthesis. But personally, as someone who's added a few to the list, I have not and would have not shy away from including less savoury characters if I've found them. (I suppose it depends what you mean by 'normal folk' though: all here are, of course, notable (and hence somewhat abnormal), and one might argue that the number of scientists and nobel laureates rather distorts the 'normality' even further... ;-) But it's not my problem. Toodle pip. Oolon (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Hadn't read through properly before, and didn't realise we had a celebrity in our midst! I think your (other) original point is a very interesting one. What really is the point of this list? Personally, I've been taking it to be a better and better-referenced version of Celebatheists etc: whatever the point of that is, this is the one where sources are properly cited! I agree that a 'list of people notable for their atheism' might be useful; we sort of have it with the List_of_atheists_(activists_and_educators), but it misses out people like Douglas Adams of course. But there are probably dozens of ways to slice 'n' dice the members of the set (Atheists), any and all of which might be useful. It's why we tried going to simple alphabetical lists that could be sorted.

But as to your comment that the list should be to "guide interested readers to people who have written or spoken extensively on the subject", I'd argue that writing or speaking extensively are not necessary. What many of the quotes do is show these people talking interestingly and thoughtfully, regardless of what they're known for. You need not look further than Natalie Angier and Diana Athill in List_of_atheists_(surnames_A_to_B). On the other hand, I don't know how one might define the cut-off between 'talking interestingly' and 'passing comment' -- like black and white, we can all tell the difference, but will disagree on the grey.

Or in short, I think we're stuck with as inclusive a (group of) lists as possible, but should concentrate on having the relevant quotes from the sources shown here. They're the most interesting, useful and revealing part, IMO. Cheers! Oolon (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

J. Wales: Regarding your statement : I think it is totally wrong to edit Wikipedia with a "candid" or hidden view that the point is to demonstrate that atheists "are normal folk". I was the one that made the comment about using the list to demonstrate that atheists are "just normal folk". A few points: (1) I agree with you that the list should not be skewed in a POV fashion by selectively including/excluding atheists; (2) I do think that celebrities should be included, even if they have not "extensively" written on atheism; for example, consider the following: a movie star, all-star athlete, president of the U.S.: should they be included in this list? of course. (3) Compare with List of vegetarians: 99% of the people on that list have not written extensively on vegetarianism (and 90% are celebrities). In summary: I think we are mostly in agreement: I concur that non-notable people should be excluded from the list; and I concur that the list should not be skewed (for example to present atheism as attractive or virtuous). --Noleander (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.26.30 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP still an issue

BLP concerns were cited as a reason for renaming this list. Specifically, it was thought that identifying living people as "nontheists" when they might not use that label for themselves was a problem. I'm not convinced that's an issue, and I don't believe anyone offered an adequate case that it was. Nontheist, unlike atheist, does not have a pejorative sense. Furthermore, nontheist, unlike atheist, unequivocally applies to all who do not believe in deities, no matter which definition is used.

However, we know of people who have steadfastly refused to refer to themselves as atheists, despite their unbelief in deities, either because they viewed the label as pejorative in some way, or because they accepted a narrow definition of the word, believing that only those who assert the nonexistence of deities are truly atheists. Carl Sagan is perhaps the best example of such refusal to accept the label atheist. We know from reliable sources that he did not believe in deities, and yet he explicitly denied being an atheist.

This example is why I am concerned about others listed here who are still living. Many are listed not because they called themselves atheists, but because a secondary source labeled them as such. Many are listed for having expressed unbelief in deities, but we do not know their preferred label. How many such people would, like Sagan, adamantly deny being atheists? We do not know. If they were to deny being atheists, it would certainly be prudent to remove them from this list as currently named, even if we can confirm with their own words that they do not believe in deities. But in the absence of a documented denial, it is still a presumption to list them here, and a potential BLP violation.

A renaming to something like what Noleander suggested earlier (List of atheists and nontheists) could address this. Nontheist has no pejorative sense, and although it is not as well-known a label as atheist, it is uncontroversially defined. Or should we return to the stated inclusion criterion for this list from years ago, when only people who self-identified specifically as atheists were included? Nick Graves (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the people identifying as Atheists have not identified as non-theist. And although it was argued that non-theism covers Atheists by definition there is enough academic resistance to make that non-tenable (IMO). A preferable approach would be to list only self-identifying atheists. People who state unequivocally "there is no god" I think can be considered uncontroversially as identifying as atheist (little a) on the rationale that they would deny the term if they felt strongly about it. Whereas non-theism is very broad and makes inclusion criteria extremely difficult, i.e. do we include everyone, for example Buddhists, with non-theistic belief. Even worse do we include people who reject the idea of a good AND big-A Atheism? Because the same problems apply. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy does not require that all information come from the subject's own mouth. If a reliable source says that the subject is an atheist, that is acceptable. The essence of the BLP policy is that the source has to be very reliable, and not a gossip-mongerer (for instance, if the source were hostile to the subject, that may disqualify the source). In addition, there is no requirement that the source use the word "atheist": if the source describes the person using words that reasonably fit within a common definition of "atheism", that is sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And, just to clarify for other readers: Carl Sagan is deceased, so there is no BLP issue in that case. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell ya what: I'd be satisfied with this list as currently named if we restored the introductory info more or less to what it was prior to the move to List of nontheists. If we're going to use the most inclusive definition for the term atheist, let's go ahead and let the reader know up front, acknowledge that some listed would not be regarded as atheists according to more restrictive understandings of the term, and that not all listed use the term to identify themselves. We've nothing to lose, and much to gain in terms of clarity. Nick Graves (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go for it. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I would add: there are two distinct audiences: (1) the readers, and (2) editors trying to add a person to the list. It is possible to create a pop-up warning/notice that appears when editors try to edit the page. That latter item is implemented with a Wikipedia:Editnotice. I think you have to be an admin to make that happen, but Im not sure. To see an editNotice in action, go to List of Jewish American businesspeople and click on "edit" and watch what comes up. Anyway, the point Im making is if you want to add informal instructions to editors on what the rules are (and we assume editors are not going to read the Talk page) then a Wikipedia:Editnotice may be more helpful than the words at the top of the article itself, which must be rather formal and encyclopedic, and hence you cannot go into the kind of detail that perhaps would minimize the reverts on these lists. --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: the editNotice in List of Jewish American businesspeople was put in to resolve BLP issues, also. --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT instruction in article? or in Edit Notice?

The information about "living persons" in the article lead paragraph is a bid odd. That seems to be directed at editors, not readers. Do other List article have similar sentences? If the goal is to give guidance to editors, a better solution is a "Edit Notice" or "Page notice". This is a message that pops-up whenever any editor edits the article (it is a block of text that appears at the top while the editor is editing). I would create one, but an admin has to do that: the page to create is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Editnotices/Page/List_of_atheists

And in that page we'd add the guidance about "Persons need to be ... blah, blah". See WP:Page notice for details. --Noleander (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I proposed one here: WP:BLPN#Editnotice and can create it if we are all agreed. --JN466 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)