Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 3

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)
replies: text: Such would be original research, and the information from such contact would also be unverified, by Wikipedia's standards. Both are unacceptable. If a reputable source describes Watson as an atheist or, even better, if a quote is found in which he says he's an atheist or doesn't believe in a God, then that would be acceptable. 69.23.115.197 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[James D. Watson]]

message: Current discussions from Novemeber were kept, all previous discussions have been archived as per archive box on top. The old archive has been reassigned to Archive 1 in accordance with Wikipedia Archival procedure. A list of rejected people can be found at here. Mkdwtalk 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival

message: It seems to say the author is one Jeromy Agel in the reference down there, was this ref just not formatted correctly, was that really Clark's words? Homestarmy 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ref for Arthur C. Clark

message: from http://adamradio.wordpress.com/2006/02/10/adam-with-jeff-probst-and-louis-ck/
Adam thinks that, even though he’s an atheist, we need to flood hell with all of the cool people because then hell won’t be such a bad place. Rachel says that she’s moving on to her next existence in her next life
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Carolla#Adam_on_Atheism
--Philo  06:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I nominate Ann Druyan who won the Richard Dawkins Award in 2004. --Philo  07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam Carolla 

message: I removed Bertrand Russell from the list. He said the following:As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist... None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. He would only have called himself an atheist at popular audiance, because they don´t understand agnosticicm and the philosophical connections of it.--Peter Holgan 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point is that he considered himself both an agnostic and an atheist, depending on the context. That why he's in both List of atheists and List of agnostics, where his entry is accompanied by this quote, which clarifies this nuanced self-identification. Nick Graves 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bertrand Russell 

message: Warren Buffet has described himself as an agnostic, not an atheist. Two sources which confirm this are:
1. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/faces3.html
2. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649&PHPSESSID=71cdf024ed00bc1cfeaa7092bb2e05e5
If there are no objections, I shall probably remove Warren Buffett from this list within the next week or so, and also update the related entries in the 'American atheists' lists and the 'Warren Buffett' article.
:I will remove Buffett to the List of agnostics right now. Thanks. Nick Graves 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Buffett 

message: Logologist suggested that all of these names be rearranged alphabetically or chronologically, rather than by occupation. I support rearranging alphabetically, since it will make it much easier to manage the list and avoid duplication. What does everyone else think? Nick Graves 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I've created confusion.  My point was that some additions within the occupation lists have been out of alphabetical order.  However we do sort our certified atheists, we  probably should be consistent.  I would keep the occupational divisions but, within each, put the individuals into chronological order by year of birth, rather than alphabetically.  (The individuals are not all contemporary with each other; they span a couple of centuries of history.)  logologist|Talk 06:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've viewed a fair few featured lists and some are alphabetic only (e.g. List of Telecaster players), others alphabetic within occupation (e.g. List of notable brain tumor patients, List of HIV-positive people), others chonological within occupation (e.g. List of people with epilepsy), and others chronological only (e.g. List of major opera composers) - and some in tables, some not! The upshot is that while I've seen more alpha-within-occupation, there is bugger-all standard. What I can say after reviewing these other lists is that I don't think any are better organised or more attractive than this one. I support remaining with the occupational division (not out of bloody-mindedness after the battle had earlier but because I think it's a better to have such an abmittedly imperfect breakdown than none at all) and don't see an issue with retaining the alphabetic order within occupation. I'm not against chronological order by birthdate within occupation per se, however I think a list is simpler to follow and add to if its left-most element is what you sort by - and since all lists of people start with their name I think it makes more sense to sort by that. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather dislike the lists not ordered by ocupation; in fact, I'm considering giving the list of anarchists the same treatment this one has had, although it would be a lot of work. I personally would favour chronological organisation within the occupations - it was different being an atheist 150 years ago than it was 50 years ago, and it's different again now. -Switch t 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand what Logologist meant now. The names were supposed to be arranged in alphabetical order within occupation, but Logologist found some that weren't. That's to be expected, as "drive-by" additions are often made at the end of a section, rather than in proper alphabetical order (We might have missed some earlier, too.). Since a lot of such additions are made without a citation, one easy way to deal with them is to just revert them as soon as they pop up. A good reference for each entry is essential if this is to get to featured list quality. I oppose rearranging chronologically, not because it wouldn't be nice, but because it will make managing the list more difficult. It's just a lot easier to shoe-horn someone in by their last name than by birthdate or deathdate. Arranging by occupation can create some problems, because so many people are more than one thing (a comedian can be an author, an author can be an activist, etc.) and a reader might not find someone listed where they expect. However, I'd just as soon see the list organized as it is now (assuming it's still in alphabetical order within occupation). Nick Graves 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of (for now)! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing

message: Frank Zappa and Bill Hicks were almost certainly atheists, but I can't find anything to 'prove' this, other than a bunch of anti-religious quotes, which might not qualify. I think they should be included though, can anyone help out?
203.167.235.136 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure they were both atheists. Hicks might have some evidence for him - I'll have a look - but I doubt if any solid evidence for Zappa being an atheist could be found. Anti-religious quotes do not count, as many people, including pantheists, some agnostics, and deists might be derisive of organised religion or dogma, but without being atheists. -Switch t 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking around, it still seems Zappa was an atheist, but  haven't found a verifiable source. Hicks was a more interesting matter; after looking more closely, he seems to have identified as an agnostic, and was definitely spiritual if not religious - He may well still be an atheist, but I haven't been able to source it. -Switch t 09:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you find the reference and a quote substantiating Hicks' agnosticism so he can be added to List of agnostics? Thanks. Nick Graves 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible additions 

message: Nick Graves inqured me to provide an english translation of Jan Guillous statement in the article referenced. I'm not sure where I should post it, so for the time being I'm providing it here, If I've mistranslated some part, then please correct me.
Title: "It takes a lot to piss me off"
Relevant section:
Atheist
Today is the first of Advent, how are you celebrating?
- I am [an] atheist, but Ann-Marie and I light a candle anyway. I have dedicated "Madame Terror" to her. Since she has helped me much with [my] books, not least with this one, the latest. Much talk on and forth, I've had a lot yellings.
Same part in the original Swedish:
Ateist
I dag är det första advent, hur firar du det?
- Jag är ateist, men Ann-Marie och jag tänder ett ljus ändå. Jag har tillägnat henne "Madame Terror". För att hon hjälpt mig mycket med böcker, inte minst med denna, den senaste. Mycket snack fram och tillbaka, många utskällningar har jag fått. -ramz- 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jan Guillou]]

message: --Nick Mason, Pink Floyd's drummer, is also an atheist. In an interview in 1995 to the British Magazine Q, he said: "No. I don't believe in God. I believe in God Dylan" (unsigned)
:Someone who doesn't believe in God might or might not identify as an atheist. Nick Graves 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should recheck the definition of atheist before you start to comment on it's discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.36.253 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick Mason

message: From the article: "With few exceptions, only those who have called themselves "atheists" are listed. Others may be listed if identified as such by informed and impartial sources, or if they fit the narrowest sense of the word atheist (they have denied the existence of God and other deities)."
How confusing. The normal definition of an atheist is 'someone who does not believe in the existence of god(s)'. The narrower definition (strong atheism) is 'someone who believes god(s) do not exist'. The above (denied the existence of God and other deities) is clearly weak atheism, not strong. The broad definition, not the narrow.
If all people who 'have denied the existence of God and other deties' are included (which, incidently, would be fine with me, but does not seem to be the policy here) people such as Einstein and Jefferson should be included as well.
Diadem 17:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your interpretation of the word deny. As wiktionary shows, denying the existence of deities would entail either not allowing for them to exist (strong atheism), or asserting that they do not (strong again). ~Switch t c g 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All those that lack a belief in deities should be included. That includes pantheists like Einstein.--80.56.36.253 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? ~Switch t c g 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because that's his opinion, and my opinion is that you are doing things right, include people who either self-identify, including people like Russell with appropriate explanations. This is a very good list, near Featured List quality, don't ruin it by getting side-tracked, rely on sources and primarily what label people themselves use. In short, keep up the good work :) --Merzul 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because they fulfill the definition of the term they are to be listed under. Atheists are people that lack the belief or have disbelief in deities/gods. Otherwise change the name of the list to 'outspoken atheists' or 'self-identified atheists'.--80.56.36.253 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrowest sense of the word? 

message: We don't seem to have a suitable section for Pietro Acciarito, a blacksmith whose notability is owed solely to the fact that he failed to assassinate King Umberto I of Italy. He later said he would just as soon have " stuck that old monkey the Pope (Leo XIII.) " (Vizetelly, The Anarchists: Their Faith and Their Record, the source which identifies him as definitely... an atheist). I've put him in "Activists and educators" for the time being, but he doesn't really fit there. I also considered "Politics and law" but that seemed even less appropriate. Thoughts? ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 05:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. How about a Loonies section?! Cheers, Ian Rose 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pietro Acciarito 

message: I would like some concensus as to whether or not we should change: "An atheist is one who disbelieves[1] in the existence of any deities." to 
"An atheist is one who disbelieves[1] in the existence of a deity or deities."  
I propose this modification on the grounds this wording is more consistent with definitions which refer to a denial of God or gods.  This is because one can either reject just a single God (monotheism) or both God and gods (theism). With either case, the persons are considered atheists.Modocc 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start the ball rolling, FWIW. For once, I'm a fence-sitter - not particularly fussed with either wording... Cheers, Ian Rose 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Logically, "one who disbelieves in the existence of (a) deity" would seem to cover all possible cases, singular, plural, and abstract.  logologist|Talk 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grammatically,a reading of "of deity" is best placed within a context, even within an abstract context, and since such context should be supplied retrospectively, and by its usage, its not needed in the definition. The “(a) deity” is also an awkward construction. Also, the plural case is not explicit, and I am not even sure how its inferred here, thus no doubt other readers will wonder too.Modocc 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying intro to include the rejection of either monotheism or theism  

message: The Buddha denied the existence of a Creator God :
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord? 
 
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance 
And he such inequity and injustice create? 
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord 
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta) 
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
Any opinions on adding the Buddha? Arrow740 06:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the philosophy of Buddhism is more or less atheist, I say he should be included. The only problem arise when you name Buddhism as a religion, the problem does although seem to be only semantical. -ramz- 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about the Buddha or boddhisatvas.  If the Buddha either explicitly denied the existence of gods, or tacitly left them out of his belief system, it seems to me he would qualify as an atheist under an inclusive construction.  An alternative might be to set him up as a charter member of a "List of nontheists."  logologist|Talk 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Buddha 

message: Charlie Brooker should be on here. He's an atheist and has said so on quite a few occasions. User:Jbeckwith
:Find a solid quote and cite it, and he's more than welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charlie Brooker

message: I came to this article and saw atheist uncapitalized, and yet when I visited List of christians it even had a redirect to be sure that "christian" was capitalized. Why are theists given special capitalization and not Atheists? Just a thought. CrimsonSun99 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  Could it be due to "atheism" being an abstract concept, while "Christian" is thought of as being derived from what is commonly (perhaps not quite correctly) regarded as a proper noun, "Christ"?  Also, there is some variability in capitalization usage; some people, for example, capitalize "communism," others don't.  Nihil novi 06:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding communism, it is grammatically correct to capitalise when referring to an organisation which is named "Communist" or an individual affiliated with such an organisation. For example, the USSR was Communist because it was governed by a Communist Party, and a member of (just say) the Communist League is a Communist. But someone who just happens to be a communist is not necessarily a Communist... this is discussed more clearly in the communism article. Similar distinctions apply to Christianity and atheism, essentially for the reasons provided by Nihil Novi. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: atheist Capitalized?

message: this is a good website with celebrity atheists  Dwanyewest 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrity atheists

message: I think Hyneman is more of an agnostic than an atheist. That quote says "I'm pretty adamant about the whole god thing... It seems that skeptics are by and large atheists, or something approaching that, which I strongly identify with. ... I've become enthusiastically part of [the skeptical movement]." He says 'atheists or something approaching that'. I myself am a skeptic, but I don't consider myself as an atheist for instance. Sorry for the edit, but I forgot to log in. Cruiserweight 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jamie Hyneman

message: I think that the List of Atheists page should be organized the same way as the List of Agnostics page.  The List of Atheists page should have all of the atheists' names in alphabetical order, with a short description of what they are famous for beside their name.  Also, I think that Neil Peart should be added to the List of Atheists.  The song on Snakes and Arrows, Faithless, seems to say that he is an Atheist.  Does anyone agree? 74.100.0.150 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you start at the top of the page here, you'll see that a long and at times heated discussion was had not too long ago on the subject of structure. Personally I remain happy with the way it is but of course it's always open to review if you're game. Re. Neil Peart, lyrics from one song that imply atheism don't meet the criteria for inclusion here. You would need something more explicit outside the artistic context, for instance an assertion of atheism in an interview. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Organization & Neil Peart 

message: I thought Benito Mussolini was an atheist based on his article's references. Was I mistaken in some way? --Onias 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, cool your jets, I just want to keep things as fair as possible. Did you check out Mussolini's talk page? The section about religion? No need to jump to conclusions because you're passionate about your beliefs. --Onias 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benito Mussolini 

message: I am have added the name of Alan Turing in the List of atheists. Yes! He is considered as the father of modern computer science! Great! User:Devraj5000
:Thanks for finding those references. An excellent addition. Nick Graves 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The father of modern computer science is in the List of atheists!!