Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 2

message: As of today, we have "Notables" and "Others", each one divided into "Contemporary", "Modern" and "Pre-modern".
Another possible division would be
*activists/reformers
*philosophers/scientists
*writers/poets/filmmakers
*entertainers/presenters/actors/celebrities et al.
Solipsist comments:
:With the 'People who have influenced the history of atheism' section, you might try listing chronologically by date-of-birth, rather than alphabetically. In a way it helps illustrate the development of ideas...
:I would caution against deletion of celebrity atheists just because they are celebrities. ... On the other hand, there isn't much wrong with deleting entries and asking anyone who restores them to justify the restore.
::Currently, the division between "notable" and "other" atheists seems pretty arbitrary. Why, for instance, are Isaac Asimov, Mark Twain and Mao Zedong not listed under "notable atheists"? They were certainly notable people who were atheists. The justification seems to be some sort of division between people who made a big deal of their atheism versus those who didn't, without any objective criteria for such a division. In my opinion, this needs to be reworked, perhaps listing them instead based on their professions (compare for example list of Jews and list of Muslims). — Ливай | ☺ 23:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to divide the list

message: *Aziz Nesin Check this one out: yes he is an atheist. He was a popular Turkish humorist and author of more than 100 books. His birth name was Mehmet Nusret.
*John Baskerville (1706-1775) - British printer, openly atheist, requested to be buried in unconsecrated ground.
**His last request is about the only thing worth mentioning? -PDF
*Steve Benson - American Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist, grandson of former U. S. Secretary of Agriculture and LDS prophet Ezra Taft Benson.
**This guy denounced the Church for covering up his grandfather's senility, then became an atheist. Not really important IMHO. On second thought, he may deserve a small place in the Others section... -PDF
*George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron - British Romantic poet
**Undoubtedly notable, but is there something else besides a scandalous life? - Anybody? 
*Ani DiFranco (1970-) - American progressive feminist singer, guitarist, and songwriter.
**Very interesting person indeed, yet her atheism should be confirmed. Do her lyrics mention it?
*Paul R. Ehrlich (1932-) - American entomologist, more known by his book The Population Bomb, and a founder of the Zero Population Growth group.
**Yet another unconfirmed.
*T. E. Lawrence (1888-1935) - (Lawrence of Arabia), British guerilla soldier and writer
**No idea about this.
**I'm 100% sure he wasn't. In a book he wrote (The Mint), he says that only the first four words of the Anglican creed remain, which are "I believe in God."
*H. P. Lovecraft - American author of fantasy and horror fiction
**Confirm this. The article says he had mystic beliefs, though it might mean he was *interested* in mystic beliefs (anthropologically).
*John McCarthy - AI researcher and inventor of Lisp programming language^
**Looks important, but not relevant. Quotes suggest a skeptic. Apparently a talkative guy, yet didn't say much on atheism.
*Henry Morgentaler (1923-) - Canadian medical doctor and abortion rights activist. Founder of Humanist Association of Canada.
*Roy Neuberger (1903-) - financier and art collector, his preference of wealth over spirituality estranges him from his son, who wrote a book on the need for spirituality in his life and rediscovering Judaism.
**Interviews? Anything on the record? At best an "Others".
**Found that some of his lyrics may be influenced by or discuss religion.  I'm not familiar with his stuff, though, so I'm not sure to what extent.
*Christopher Reeve - American actor, director, and writer
**Confirm atheism. Seems like many people were included in this list only because they were non-Republican or not willing to thank God in public at every opportunity...
**As a Unitarian, not likely he was an atheist. See the Reader's Digest interview not long before his death - "RD: You went nearly 50 years without religion in your life. What made you recently join the Unitarian Church? Reeve: It gives me a moral compass. I often refer to Abe Lincoln, who said, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion." I think we all have a little voice inside us that will guide us. It may be God, I don't know. But I think that if we shut out all the noise and clutter from our lives and listen to that voice, it will tell us the right thing to do. The Unitarian believes that God is good, and believes that God believes that man is good. Inherently. The Unitarian God is not a God of vengeance. And that is something I can appreciate." --KillerChihuahua 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious or in the process of checking

message: You can find source information on several of these people on the List of atheists talk page and its archive... oh right, that's here. Philip Pullman for example already has several references. 
Simon Bolivar would be worth some further investigation. He was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, in part for being an atheist (although this may be referring to his masonic connections, and it may have been politically motivated). As a founding farther of several Latin American states, he is potentially very notable as a counter to the history of the Conquistadors under the Catholic Church. -- Solipsist 18:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The net is awfully lacking in this respect. All I've found is rumors. Some say he was a mason, others say he was an atheist, most say he was accused of being an atheist by the Catholic Church (politically motivated as you say), and some Catholic revisionists say he was a devout church-going guy. I'm inclined to believe he was indeed a mason, which would put him in line with others at the time (cf José de San Martín, Argentina/Chile/Peru Libertador). I find it extremely unlikely to believe that he was a mason and a covert atheist --Pablo D. Flores 14:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. One of the better online references for this one in terms of credibility is , but it doesn't really say why or give details on any of the people mentioned. It might take a book to resolve it. -- Solipsist 23:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: My thoughts on this are that if the net is ambiguous on the topic, or there is insufficient information, he should be scratched off.  A person like this would only be considered again if someone could provide sufficient information to back a claim of atheism or whatnot. --Comics 21:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Some quotes purportedly authored by Roddenberry:
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
:Adraeus 19:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene Roddenberry

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

message: Should we add a section on Non-atheists commonly, or often, presumed to be atheist? I am thinking of Einstein, Hume, Ingersoll, and such - who have been ON and OFF this darn article so many times it boggles the mind. If there were a short list of the 10 most commonly added non-atheists, with a short word of explanation, it might reduce the number of times they have to be deleted again, with corresponding evidence, quotes, and links to back up the decision. 
--KillerChihuahua 18:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you ask me, part of the problem is that these lists are separate. That tends to lead to incompatible views being expressed on different lists. The real trouble is that there are several different interpretations on what an atheist/humanist/agnostic/deist really is, and many people meander between them during their life time. Hume is a good case in point as an unresolvable figure who straddles the atheist/agnostic boundary. If anything, the answer might be to merge several of these lists. -- Solipsist 19:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me, this on/off thing should stop, for a while, until everybody has checked their sources. This
biography of Ingersoll says that he was an agnostic atheist, which is a perfectly accepted and acceptable term, since (like someone else in this page explained before), there's no such thing as an agnostic (unmodified) -- everybody has an opinion on God, even if it is "I'm not interested". Ingersoll was, according to this bio and to everything I've read elsewhere, an agnostic (said he didn't know if God existed) and an atheist (he didn't believe God existed). I respect the point of view of KillerChihuahua, but this could easily lead the problem of the Martian porcelain teapot. Can you deny, with full knowledge, that there's a porcelain teapot in orbit around Mars right now? No, but that doesn't leave you an "agnostic" on the issue (because you most surely don't believe there's a teapot out there). This meta-discussion is all very interesting, but it helps no-one if the Talk page becomes ten times as large as the main article. --Pablo D. Flores 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of NON-Atheists often presumed to be Atheists? 

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

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

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

message: Lots of people on this list either have no evidence present to support the claim which would put them on the list of atheists, or their nonbelief is simply unimportant/irrelevant.  As it says at the top of this page, "If you need to dig out endlessly into interviews and public appearances of someone to find one instance of professing or implying atheism, then that person doesn't belong in here."  I think a lot of people ought to be removed or moved to the list of possibles until more relevant evidence is found.  
The list of people are some that I deleted (though I should have probably made discussion about it on here before doing it, but nevertheless, they were subsequently reverted anyway) and includes, but is not limited to:  Bill Gates, William Shatner, Richard Burton, and George C. Scott.  There is no evidence in any of their articles that suggests they are or were atheist, and even if they are/were, in none of their cases is it relevant to the work they have contributed to the human race.  I also deleted Trent Reznor because, though I have seen several quotations that suggest he is anti-religion (specifically organized Christianity), I have seen none that suggest he's atheist.  However, his anti-religion stance is clearly relevant to his music, so I can see how we might justify including him - though I'd rather see something more concrete than just "religion sucks" quotes.  Tons of people, celebrities and the like, have made public statements about religion, belief, or what have you, and have been completely misconstrued as to implying their respective theological stances.
Like it says, this isn't a list of what people may or may not be anti-religion, atheist, agnostic, acrostic, or whatever.  This is apparently supposed to be a list of people whose non-belief manifested itself in their work.
I also deleted Thomas Edison, because, as I posted in the Thomas Edison article (it is still on the page about him), I found several sources claiming he was a deist, albeit one distrustful of religion.  One rather clear source is linked to from Edison's page.  Regardless, even if the claims that he was a deist are mistaken, Edison was an inventor, and I don't think he published anything about theology or religion, so that makes it irrelevant, so he clearly does not belong on this page for two reasons.  --Othersider 07:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree with you more.  When we reorganized this list and added the inclusion critera a while ago, I closely followed this page in order to ensure all additions were justified after we had cleaned it up.  I stopped following it for a while and now that I look again, there are many names that do not deserve to be here considering the criteria that we had agreed upon.  I have no problem with any of these changes. --Comics 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Several deletions that we might consider making

message: He's on this list and List of Catholic authors as a convert.  Can someone explain this to me?  If he later became an atheist, he should be listed as a "late-life apostate".  If vice versa, then a "late-life convert".--HistoricalPisces 18:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little complex.  See this and this.  He did indeed convert for the sake of his third wife, who was a devout Catholic herself, but his religious views are generally described as ambivalent at best.  This news article on his death notes that he was once a practicing Roman Catholic, implying that he lapsed, and several other sources seem to say similar things.  Our Wikipedia article on him makes no mention of his religion beyond his upbringing one of his wives.  A lot of places (like this, search for Hemingway) note him as being ambivalent; I suspect he would be best described as an agnostic of some form. --Aquillion 19:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernest Hemingway 

message: i've heard that these people are atheists but cannot confirm. (UPDATED)
*Woody Allen - 
*Björk - seems she was an atheist but now believes in some sort of pantheism.
quote from wikiquote: 
"It's a big question. Getting rid of religion would be a good start, wouldn't it? It seems to be causing a lot of havoc."
When asked "Given the chance, how would you change the world?" (Independent, 18 March 2005.)
*Linus Torvalds  - "Hmmmm, completely a-religious -- atheist. I find that people seem to think religion brings morals and appreciation of nature. I actually think it detracts from both. It gives people the excuse to say, "Oh, nature was just created", and so the act of creation is seen to be something miraculous. I appreciate the fact that, "Wow, it's incredible that something like this could have happened in the first place." I think we can have morals without getting religion into it, and a lot of bad things have come from organized religion in particular. I actually fear organized religion because it usually leads to misuses of power."
should we add?  --Phil
:The only one I would add is Woody Allen who is quite a strong atheist and it is often discussed and reflected in his work.  I don't see how atheism could have influenced Björk.  Same goes for Linus.  He has not contributed anything to the field nor is his work influenced by atheism. --Comics 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes but isn't the point of the article to list atheists? does it necessarily have to be people who have contributed to the philosophy? --Phil 22:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  If we are simply to list atheists, this list would be hundreds of pages long.  I don't think it's especially notable that any celebrity who has said "I am an atheist" or something of the sort should go on this list because, keep in mind, that is not necessarily encyclopedic content.  I we determined a while ago a certain criteria set out by if a person has contributed to the advancement of atheism or that atheism played a large role in their lives and influenced their work dramatically.  --Comics 14:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The other section is for famous people who just happen/happened to be atheists, and whose unbelief is/was relevant in their life, but who do not/did not actively fight for its cause.
Torvalds seems to fit this criteria, yes?  The Bearded One 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When we first established that criteria I think what we meant was that it was relevant in their life and especially for their work.  I don't think this is the case for Torvalds.  The fact is that simply listing famous people who happen to be atheists is not really encyclopedic content and is exactly what this list USED to be, but we are now trying to avoid.  Imagine if we were to list all famous people who just happen to have declared they are atheists how long (and ultimately useless) this article would be.  That type of info should be reserved for their individual pages as it is biographical and little else.  Also about stigma in many parts of the world, I don't think it's really relevant in Finland, where Torvalds was born.  --Comics 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: I wanted to make sure that there was at least a brief discussion on the Talk page about the potential inclusion of Torvalds (in the second section, obviously).  In many parts of the world, there is a significant stigma attached to the label "atheist".  So even people who are not activists, who are famous in other areas, should possibly be noted in the List.
:The other section is for famous people who just happen/happened to be atheists, and whose unbelief is/was relevant in their life, but who do not/did not actively fight for its cause.
Torvalds seems to fit this criteria, yes?  The Bearded One 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When we first established that criteria I think what we meant was that it was relevant in their life and especially for their work.  I don't think this is the case for Torvalds.  The fact is that simply listing famous people who happen to be atheists is not really encyclopedic content and is exactly what this list USED to be, but we are now trying to avoid.  Imagine if we were to list all famous people who just happen to have declared they are atheists how long (and ultimately useless) this article would be.  That type of info should be reserved for their individual pages as it is biographical and little else.  Also about stigma in many parts of the world, I don't think it's really relevant in Finland, where Torvalds was born.  --Comics 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: Bachelet is a rare head of state in a staunchly Catholic country, and as such a particularly noteworthy example; all the more because she has been outspoken about her atheist views. Her role as a public example of atheism has also been celebrated in the writings of Christopher Hitchens. She deserves designation as a "major" atheist. - Reaverdrop 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure of this.  Most of the reports I have seen have said that she is agnostic, however there are a few who have said atheists.  Is there concrete evidence that she is indeed an atheist and not agnostic and, if not, does she deserve to be included here?  –Comics (Talk) 13:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see the references to the New York Times and the Miami Herald in the Michelle Bachelet article that both have her describing herself as "atheist", and see the discussion at Talk:Michelle_Bachelet#Agnostic_v._Atheist. - Reaverdrop 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelle Bachelet as a "major" atheist 

message: he is in :Category:Atheists. should he be listed here? --Phil 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know his work.  Does he often spread the "good word" of atheism or seem important in expressing that POV?  If not, does it seem central in determining his views on other issues?  –Comics (Talk) 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mike Malloy]]? 

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

message: User:Fuhghettaboutit -- Very well, I'll let it stand as a trivial error. However the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, my native language, in the fourth edition is:
(intransitive) 1. To deliver a formal recitation, especially as an exercise in rhetoric or elocution. 2. To speak loudly and vehemently; inveigh. 
(transitive) To utter or recite with rhetorical effect.
Or again, the Oxford American Dictionary...
declaim |diˈklām| verb [ reporting verb ] utter or deliver words or a speech in a rhetorical or impassioned way, as if to an audience : [ trans. ] she declaimed her views | [ intrans. ] a preacher declaiming from the pulpit. • [ intrans. ] ( declaim against) forcefully protest against or criticize (something).
Clearly the phrase "declaim against" is required in this sense. In the example given, "she declaimed her views", we would not ordinarily understand that she spoke in opposition to her own views. The OAD definition shows the phrase "declaim against" as idiomatic in the sense of to forcefully protest against (something). Tex 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I respect is someone who takes the time to substantiate a position with research and argument, although your tone could be less strident. Nevertheless, I took a look at One look dictionary search and found that the weight of authority is not in my favor. Edit reverted. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it's difficult for me to tell how my tone comes across in print. It has also been referred to as arrogant. So I apologize for the stridency, perhaps it is an improvement, though. I am glad to learn of the One look dictionary search and must check into it. Tex 14:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On declaiming 

message: In What Do You Care What Other People Think? (1988), Feynman described himself as "an avowed atheist" by his early youth. "I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn't want it distorted (by miracle stories). And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion." 
I regard this as pretty conclusive, so I have reverted the recent removal of Feynman from the list. Tex 19:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Feynman as atheist 

message: Can we please get some citations for the list of atheist many of the people mentioned seem suspect, if you were to venture to the list of agnostics there is a citation provided for every person mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.137.29 (talk • contribs) 
:I heartily agree that citations are needed, though, as this is a list, I wonder how this could be done in a compact amount of space. I question that some of the people included as atheists really are/were, and inclusion of a (good) source is a good indication that whomever it is attatched to should indeed be on the list.
:Anna Kucsma 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I believe every citation but for two thus far was added by me, but I got discouraged after doing about thirty with no one else helping (it's pretty time intensive). I did reduce the size for the reference section to 90%, maybe it can go down a few percentage points but there's a limit at which readability becomes an issue. In any case, the problem with a massive number of articles is lack of citations. I think proper citation outweighs concerns over space issues. Please help!--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I would like to help on this matter. As long as the Reference section is at the bottom of the article, I don't think the size should be relevant. I think it is very important that citations are used for any and all names in the list, especially any new additions. I would also like to suggest putting the rejection talk page to better use. If we remove names, they should be added to the rejection list with citation as to why they were removed. Druac Blaise 21:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations! 

message: Exactly what are the criteria applied to people to merit inclusion on the first section of the list? Apparently, The first one is for atheists who are or were notable defenders of the cause of atheism, or who advocated views of the human condition, society, economy, etc., that were compatible with atheism. In short, these people are or were important for other atheists, since they contribute(d) to the popularization, understanding, and acceptance of atheism in society, either through their works or through their deeds. I don't see how, for example, Greg Graffin is not a defender of the cause of atheism, or how he fails to advocate compatible views of the human condition and society. He's certainly important for young atheists in recent times, being a popular musician, well-educated and well-spoken, and his writings (in his short pieces, his books and his lyrics) have contributed to understanding (and, arguably, popularisation) of atheism.
Also, quickly noting in case someone thinks he should be removed, I'm about to add Mitch Clem to the second section, as he a) frequently mocks religion in his comics, and b) posted the following on his livejournal:
:I used to be agnostic too. The thing is, I do actively disbelieve in god. I don't see it as feasable in any way. Sure, I have no evidence that he doesn't exist, but I also have no evidence to prove that I myself am not the ruler of all reality. Come on, religion was MADE UP by man. Made up. It's false. It's a man-made entity. God didn't write the bible, did he? You can believe or disbelieve anything you want, and really, I don't care. But I don't like agnostics trivializing the way I see the world just because they still view the existance of god as an option.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SwitChar (talk • contribs) .
:I'll also note that there are several individuals who are included in both sections.  Isaac Asimov and Robin Cook are two that I noted on a quick skim through. The Bearded One 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First/second section 

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

message: Removed:
:*Theo van Gogh (1957–2004): Dutch filmmaker, critic of Christianity and Islam, victim of Islamic fundamentalism.
Although deeply critical of organized religion and Islam in particular, nothing indicates that he was an atheist. If indeed he was an atheist, he doesn't seem to have been "outspoken" about it. Criticizing organized religion is not the same as being an outspoken atheist. JRM · Talk 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theo van Gogh 

message: Don't be afraid to simply cut out and/or move to the talk page anything that doesn't come with a citation (check the main article, there will either be a mention of atheism somewhere (in which case, copy that) or there won't be (in which case, just strip it from this list)). There's a reason the list was reformed into what it is now, and it's exactly because it was growing uncontrollaby and without verification.
The "other atheists" section is a horror to maintain, really. To make matters worse, entries seem to just be duplicated between the sections, and alphabetic order seems to be going out of fashion too.
There's no way any single person is going to be able to keep this list organized and valuable as a reference; just check a few names which take your fancy or who appear particularly out of place. If we all do this we should be able to keep it in check somewhat. The most important thing is that we keep the requirement for references; anyone can slap their favorite celebrity on this list, but unless you can point to a verifiable source where your favorite celebrity actually says "I am an atheist", you probably shouldn't. JRM · Talk 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to the above, I am again asking for help with sourcing the article. I will pick up where I left off, but if all contributors just add two we can get this into shape in no time. However, for a number of the citations I added, I first checked the Wikipedia article and found no mention of atheism, so I do not agree with that portion of the above. A simple google search should at least be tried. --Fuhghettaboutit 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in the list 

message: I think that most of these people should be taken off (at least among the Greeks with whom I am familiar) as their writings are for the most part only known through secondary sources and many were accused of atheism merely for holding unpopular beliefs.
:Please don't hesitate to do so, or (which may be even more useful) to annotate the entries with sources that show how they were only attributed atheists. I think this list is much better off if the burden of proof rests on those who want to add people to it, not on those who want to remove them. JRM · Talk 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Classical Atheists"

message: There is a similar discussion on going about Laplace form his own wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Confused
I believe there is some doubt regarding his true stance on religion and God, so he should be removed from the list. Here are the links and quotes from the other discussion, any other references would be very helpful:  
http://www.nndb.com/people/871/000031778/
“Expressions occur in Laplace's private letters inconsistent with the atheistical opinions he is commonly believed to have held.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08796a.htm
“Laplace was born and died a Catholic. It has been asserted that to Laplace the Creator was an hypothesis. The origin of this assertion lies in the misinterpretation of a passage of the "Système du Monde" (Oeuvres, VI, 1835, p. 480), where it is evident that by "vain hypotheses" Laplace meant the Deus ex machina of Newton and the "perpetual miracle" of Leibniz's Harmony. It is true that Laplace indulges in a frivolous remark against Callistus III both in the "Theory of Probabilities" (Introduction, also separately as "Essai Philosophique") and in the "System of the World" (IV, iv). He partly atoned for it by omitting the remark in his fourth edition of the "Essai". Death prevented him from doing the same in the sixth edition of the "Système du Monde", the correcting of which he had commenced during his last illness. He died at his home in Paris, Rue du Bac, attended by the curé of the Foreign Missions, in whose parish he was to be buried, and the curé of Arcueil, whom he had called to administer the last comforts of religion (de Joannis, p. 27).”
Also I thought I have read somewhere that there are also doubts about Paul Dirac’s atheist views. I know this quote is attributed to him: 
“God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.”
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/god_used_beautiful_mathematics_in_creating_the/342505.html
I am not too sure about Dirac, but I really think Laplace should be removed. Thanks.
Since no other dicussion was added over the last few weeks I am going to remove Laplace because of the possible discrepancy about his true beliefs.
--24.184.179.24 02:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laplace/Dirac  

message: I have noticed a number of recurring problems with this list and the various people who have been added/deleted repeatedly:
#Entries with no source at all.
#Entries whose cited source does not really confirm the person's atheism, but rather confirms such things as a critical or skeptical attitude toward religion.
#Entries of people who specifically deny being an atheist (Darwin, in particular).
#Entries of people who specifically identified themselves as an agnostic, but never as an atheist.
Besides adding sources, there is an easy solution for the sourceless entries: Deletion. We needn't worry that deleted entries will be gone forever.  If anyone is deleted from the list who does belong on the list, those who wish to include them will sooner or later find a source and restore them. As long as sourceless entries remain unchallenged, they are likely to remain sourceless indefinitely. Wikipedia:Verifiability#The_policy is relevant here.
Entries that cite a source that doesn't say anything about a person being an atheist ought to be treated the same as entries with no source at all. Quotes like "Religion is nothing but superstition," or "The church is utterly corrupt" do nothing to indicate whether the quoted person believes in a God or gods. Someone can think that religion is superstition, or that churches are corrupt, yet still believe in God. These entries ought to be deleted until a relevant source is found.
It's inappropriate and anachronistic to apply the broad, modern understanding of the word atheism to people who explicitly rejected the label in their own day. A person's choice of labels ought to be respected. If Darwin said he wasn't an atheist, he doesn't belong on this list. As an analogy, consider how absurd it would be to go back and recategorize historical Republicans (like Lincoln) as Democrats simply because we consider their political beliefs to be closer to modern Democrats' views. Lincoln was a Republican, and a Republican he shall always remain, even if his party's views evolve over time to be quite different from what they were during the Civil War.
Similarly, it's inappropriate to apply the label atheist to living people who have specified an alternative label for their views on God's existence, even if they have never explicitly denied being an atheist. Someone who calls themselves an agnostic is doubtless also aware of the word atheist, and if they never identify themselves as an atheist, this is significant! Clearly, they've chosen agnostic as the label that best describes their position on the existence of God, and rejected others. In popular usage, agnosticism is still widely considered a third alternative between atheism and theism. Not everyone consents to the definition of atheism that makes it the only alternative to theism. It's not our place to decide for others what the "correct" vocabulary set is. My bottom line here is this: Let people define their own identity. Rohirok 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read all that (or rather any of it), but, when it comes to inclusion criteria, we may only have one, and this is the same for ever list and article in Wikipedia. If we have a "list of X", the people on it must have been explicitly described as X by a reputable source, not as anything else that in the opinion of Wiki editors make them X. So, in this case, the source, including of course the person themselves, must describe the person as "Atheist" Mad Jack 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Even if someone says they don't believe in God, we don't know if they consider themselves atheists. I'm all for rigorous criteria. I am eager to begin deleting uncited or improperly cited entries. BTW, what was the point of saying you didn't read anything I wrote? You could at the very least lie out of courtesy--I never would have known any differently. :-) Rohirok 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it's nothing personal. I've just been involved in many "arguments" on many "List of X"s where the editors seemed to believe that if they wrote a long enough piece on their feelings on who should or should not be included, etc. it would make it so. When, really, people either have a source that actually says some "is X" or they don't. I also said I didn't read it in case, of course, that you had some really good point that I didn't comment on in my "reply" (which I wnated to indicate was a reply to the question in the header, rather then your text) Mad Jack 04:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, you may or may not want to move names you remove to discussion. It's sometimes done in "Lists of X". As for citation format, it could resemble something along the lines of List of Italian-American actors or List of Jewish actors and actresses. Mad Jack 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with sources and inclusion criteria

message: I believe this article is too long and ought to be split up into sub-lists with their own articles (perhaps List of atheist philosophers, List of atheist politicians, List of promoters of atheism, and List of celebrity atheists). A similar thing has been done with other lists of people by belief when they get very long. Any thoughts? Rohirok 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than splitting, I think we should be amalgamating. After recent culling of uncited entries the article has shrunk a fair bit, it looks to me, to the extent that the division between 'outspoken atheists' and 'the rest' seems a bit artificial. I've just reinstated a few that were formerly uncited, in their original groups, and the division seems fairly subjective. I know this has been discussed before but personally I reckon we should just amalgamate the two groups into one list of atheists divided only by primary occupation. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's no reason not to make this a general list of atheists, and note in their descriptions or in footnotes whether they're "advocates" or "activists" or anything of the sort, which is a fairly subjective (and in some cases OR) assessment. -Silence 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with no dissenting voices, why don't we go ahead and make it so? 69.23.115.197 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur.  logologist|Talk 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks 69.23.115.197 for consolidating as per the discussion - I think that's a definite improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, good job.  A few names need to be re-alphabetized, and Jean Meslier needs to be deleted from "Literature and art"—he's already under "Philosophy."  logologist|Talk 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted, missed that when I was sorting the lists. Should be sweet now... Cheers, Ian Rose 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the list

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

message: I am surprised at the inclusion of Nietzsche.  Trust me, I'm an atheist - antitheist even - but I do not believe for one minute that Nietzsche was too.  His statement "God is Dead" was never meant literally of course, but to demonstrate that religion no longer enjoyed the influence it had previously.  He did write that Jesus was the only true Christian.  (See the article on The Antichrist - in particular it's title - for why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover also.) Nietzsche was anti-Christian, not anti-religion per se. He was critical of process rather than existence. 86.7.208.240 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my first impression as well. I have always heard and believed based on his writings that he was an anti-Roman Catholic (or Christian), not an atheist.The great kawa 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your point and any further discussion on them I will take to those two pages. The great kawa 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche? 

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

message: "When there is freedom from mechanical conditioning, there is simplicity. The classical man is just
a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself."
:Is this more of a comment on how to understand oneself rather than understanding God (or lack thereof)?  Maybe I don't quite understand the quote if it's supposed to imply atheism... FranksValli 04:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Lee 

message: Hi all, a couple of people have deleted Stalin and Pol Pot from the list today.  I have reverted once, simply asling for citations instead of deletions.  FeloniousMonk's change description was "infamous atheists? Poison the well much." or something like that. I must be a little thick today.  Can someone explain to me why we would delete these two famous atheists from the list, or tell me what is going on?  Thanks heaps.  Leeborkman 05:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the first time since they were unsourced. "Poisoning the well" is pov and thus illegitimate grounds for not listing them, however, a lack of sources is substantial reason to remove any example. If their atheism is infamous then it shouldn't be too hard to find some sources before listing them as is done for every other example. --TM 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin and Pol Pot - what's going on? 

message: Rather than revert a reversion of a reversion, I thought I'd pause and seek consensus on the question of whether the recently consolidated Arts, entertainment and literature category ought to be broken back down. I contend that it is too broad. The category currently encompasses such diverse professions as sports, journalism, literature, fashion design, and music. I believe this broadness makes the list less useful to readers, who might be researching atheists in specific areas, and will not be well-served by this hodge-podge category. "Arts" is certainly ambiguous, but "Literature" and "Entertainment" are less so, and ought to be treated separately. What does everyone think? 69.23.115.197 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  In this case, I would be a "splitter" rather than a "lumper."  logologist|Talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be broken into "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment". That would probably also require a case-by-case basis though; I'm sure if Britney Spears were an atheist, she'd belong in the "Entertainment" section; classical composers would belong in "Arts". They would both, of course, technically be "musicians". In between would be Frank Zappa, who was both an artist and an entertainer (thought I think he would better belong in "Arts"). --Switch 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, in this case I'm a "splitter" as well. The old "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment" were not ideal but probably the best we could do. BTW, take the point about Zappa's cross-over status but reckon the majority view would lean towards "Entertainment" for him. If a few of his works ever make it into the Penguin Guide to Classical then maybe I'd go "Arts"...! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no chance a jazz composer will ever be in certain publications, simply for the fat that jazz is not classical by definition. But as for the separation, I suggest either a separation of songwriters/performers, or a simple old/new. --Switch 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I shall allow no such thing. It is completely open to interpretation and elitism by general consensus, which is a lack of objective reasoning due to subjectivity - personal preference is a nonissue. Verdi was not considered art at one point, yet he is now. The doubt of differences between jazz composers and classical composers is obvious difference between this, and one can merely refer to the wikipedia entry "highbrow", as well as "lowbrow" and "kitsch" to see how much of a lack of consensus there actually is on defining what is art. If one is going to include musicians, all musicians must be included. I will accept only if the category is extremely specific so as to avoid any debate of "art" and "non-art". In this case, every primary career of the persons in that category must have its own category. George Carlin would be under "Comedians", Rimsky-Korsakov would be under "Composers", Ayn Rand would be under "Authors" (and possibly "Philosophers" as well). --68.91.88.159 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever you are (ever thought of being a name, not a number?!) you'll garner far more respect by avoiding telling your fellow editors what you will and won't accept, and instead proposing alternate solutions to a perceived issue. Nor will threats of reverting changes when you don't have consensus on your side help your cause. Most people who have responded in this section contend that 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' is too broad a category. No-one has suggested that the former 'Arts and literature' and 'Entertainment' sections were perfect, but they did at least break down the overall list of atheists. If you'd like to propose an alternate split, perhaps 'Musicians' (including pop, classical, jazz, et al), 'Authors', 'Visual artists', or whatever, then we can all discuss and hopefully come to a satisfactory agreement. Your current 'solution' of one super-category is hardly satisfactory, nor is your belligerent attitude about it. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  Creating a colossal super-category defeats the purpose of having categories at all.  logologist|Talk 07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature, arts and entertainment

message: The Wikipedia articles states that Watson is "an outspoken atheist."  Does anyone know of an authoritative source for this?  Would anyone, perhaps, know how to contact him in order to get it directly from the horse's mouth?  logologist|Talk 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[James D. Watson]]

message: by User:69.23.115.197 seem to me groundless.  Their status as atheists appears well documented at www.positiveatheism.com.  logologist|Talk 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions of [[Steven Weinberg]] and [[James D. Watson]]