Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Unilateral page moves during active discussions are not recommended

Nick Graves, I respectfully ask you revert you recent page moves. Where is the consensus for the moves? There are ongoing discussions about this list in several venues, and I have seen no consensus for this move. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in that discussion has been not to list living people as atheists unless they have publicly self-identified specifically as an atheist, out of concern for BLP. The consensus at this list has been to be inclusive of all nonbelievers in deities, and there are quite a few already listed on the basis of an expression of non-belief in deities, without a self-labeling as an atheist. As a precaution, a more inclusive name change addresses BLP concerns while consensus continues to develop, and is more feasible than the alternative (sorting through several hundred entries). Nick Graves (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1) Your "consensus" is between yourself and 2-3 other editors and the current discussion has involved many, many more. 2) Your "consensus" is from this summer, consensus can change, and the current discussion is, well, current. Your move appears very much to violate WP:OWN, given that others are discussing the topic now in good faith while not going ahead and making "bold" changes to suit their POV. I request, once again, that you revert yourself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Gris, I'd revert myself if I didn't think it would involve a BLP violation. If you'd review the long history of the article, you'd see that the number of editors involved in developing these inclusive criteria is way more than just a few. Nick Graves (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You cannot infer a consensus for your specific and current page move from a very broad general past consensus for inclusiveness. You have no consensus for the move and I will revert you.Griswaldo (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time these lists have been renamed without consensus. The first time was about 6 months ago: renamed to "List of nontheists". And yesterday to "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". These kinds of major changes need lengthy deliberation with strong consensus. My opinion on the renames is "No", for several reasons: (1) Atheism is a very, very significant belief system; (2) Atheism is different from agnosticism; and (3) these atheism lists have always had the rule that persons could only be included if they were atheists (not agnostics). Granted, some definitions of atheism overlap with some definitions of agnosticism, but that fuzziness is no reason for us in WP to unilaterally combine the two concepts (which would just exacerbate the fuzziness, not clarify it). Furthermore, there is List of agnostics and we would need to reconcile the duplication. I find the BLP arguments very disingenuous. The editor using that argument is a strong proponent of the term "nontheism" and may be using the BLP argument to promote the term "nontheism" over atheism. The reason BLP is a non issue is that atheism is defined as "lack of belief in god(s)", so if a person says "I dont believe in God" that is sufficient to make them an atheist. There is no reason to require the precise wording "I am an atheist" bed', because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception." However, those who are not atheists, or do not consider themselves atheists, have almost exclusively conceived of atheism in terms of disbelief/denial in/of gods. Today, many, if not most individuals who answer no to the question, "do you believe in god(s)", also distinguish their perspective from "atheism", because these individuals consider atheism a denial, or positive disbelief in gods, as opposed to what they have, which is more generally a lack of belief in gods. My understanding is that when atheists today push the "atheism is the lack of belief in gods" mantra they are doing one or both of two things - 1) taking the same old atheist philosophical stance that hinges upon a rationalist/materialist rejection of gods as a sensible idea, and therefore rejecting the very idea of rejecting gods and/or 2) making a contemporary appeal to softer notions of atheism in ordcause WP policy is to use the plain meaning of words. Also, the source can be a biographer or interviewer, in addition to the person themself. Please, no more renaming. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree with Jayen about the BLP violation. The two are not equivalent. There are various ways in which sociologists have tried classifying the irreligious and those who "do not believe in god(s)" according to their survey answers or public statements are are mostly not "atheists" in either the self-identifying sense or the strict descriptive sense. Part of the problem is the contemporary re-definition of atheism within atheist circles as something much softer than it was traditionally considered. Atheists go around claiming that atheism is simply a "lack of belief" instead of an affirmative belief that there are definitely no god(s). However, social scientists do not share this classification scheme, in no small part due to the fact that most of their "non-believing" survey respondents don't either.Griswaldo (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Jayen & Griswaldo: What definition of atheism are you using when you conclude that the statement "I dont believe in God(s)" is not atheism? --Noleander (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Noleander, any number of definitions are fine for our purposes.
  • Oxford English Dictionary - "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God."
  • The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions - "Disbelief in the existence of God; to be distinguished from agnosticism, which professes uncertainty on the question."
  • Oxford's World Encyclopedia - "Philosophical denial of the existence of God or any supernatural or spiritual being."
As I understand it, since at least the Victorian era there have been atheists arguing that atheism is not disbelief, but a lack of belief. However, pretty much only atheists argue this, since the argument is based on the presumption that theistic claims are illogical or unverifiable and hence should be rejected out of hand. See for instance Charles Bradlaugh's many comments on the matter - e.g. "I do not deny 'God', because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception." However, those who are not atheists, or do not consider themselves atheists, have almost exclusively conceived of atheism in terms of disbelief/denial in/of gods. Today, many, if not most individuals who answer no to the question, "do you believe in god(s)", also distinguish their perspective from "atheism", because these individuals consider atheism a denial, or positive disbelief in gods, as opposed to what they have, which is more generally a lack of belief in gods. My understanding is that when atheists today push the "atheism is the lack of belief in gods" mantra they are doing one or both of two things - 1) taking the same old atheist philosophical stance that hinges upon a rationalist/materialist rejection of gods as a sensible idea, and therefore rejecting the very idea of rejecting gods and/or 2) making a contemporary appeal to softer notions of atheism in order to claim a larger cohort for themselves. Anyway, neither is a strong selling point to me, and both are socio-political moves of one sort or another which do a disservice to a majority of us who are without belief and not atheists. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't find this a particularly convincing argument, I have to admit. For the most part because it appears to be your perspective on the issue (I'm avoiding calling it your POV, because that is a disingenuous way to put it, and I don't think it is intended like that). To be clear; atheist is well defined as both a term relating to the disbelief in gods AND socio-political movement(s) either opposed to or actively denying the existence of deities. However you may describe yourself (a subject I entirely agree on BTW) we still have atheist beliefs, even if we are not "Atheists". From my perspective the only concern here is BLP - and specifically BLPCAT - and clarifying to what extent we should allow BLP subjects to be added to the list in a way that makes sense, is sensitive to the subject and is in keeping with policy whilst still providing as complete a data set as reasonably possible. So, should we be defining what atheism we mean here? well, yes, but only to a point. And that point is an editorial decision on whether to limit this list of those involved in the socio-political movement, or to those with declared atheist beliefs. I think it is clear at this point that the latter is preferred for reasons of ease (we could be here arguing for ages whether someone meets the definition of Atheist or atheist) and that for living persons we should err on the side of caution and explicit declarations. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I see, and agree with, the distinction you are making. However; someone saying "I do not believe in a God" has clear disbelief. I have to confess; I have always seen the argument of "I do not disbelief, I only lack belief" as being simply a distinction made recently popular by those rejecting atheist as a slightly pejorative term. I'm not sure there is very much of a distinction between disbelief (an active refusal OR simply reluctance to believe) and a lack of belief. Indeed, if anything a lack of belief is stronger than disbelief because it outright rejects religious perspective as relevant --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Tom, I do not agree that it is "well defined" as such. Did you read the three definitions from various Oxford reference sources above. They range from "disbelief in" to "denial of" gods, and do not include "lack of belief in gods". I have seen other sources, that do include that notion, but most traditionally do not. I accept the notion that it is my perspective (POV) that the arguments of atheists concerning "lack of belief in gods" are not convincing. However, the socio-historical reality governing the use and understanding of the term "atheism" is not simply my perspective (e.g. it continues in the Oxford sources to mean something much more affirmative than "lack of belief"). That said, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we do not need to agree on the definition of atheism anyway. For living subjects we need a declared affiliation with "atheism" specifically. For dead subjects we need a reliable source calling them "atheists", specifically. Putting out a definition on this page is problematic because it will make some believe that they can categorize an individual as an atheist without the explicit use of the term in reliable sources, and will confuse others because they will wonder why somoeone who seems to fit the definition has been excluded from the list. For that reason I think doing without a definition is preferable. A wikilink to the atheism article will suffice for context.Griswaldo (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record; my bad for continuing the discussion on "what atheism are we talking about" in a comment which was supposed to conclude "one thing we shouldn't be discussing is what atheism is".... Facepalm Facepalm FOr the record I agree with everything Griswaldo is saying about this article (apart from, I might be more lenient about historical figures) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad as well. We agree on what to do, which is always more important in my view anyway. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to removing the definition from this article, and using a wikilink to atheism. However, there is no WP policy that requires sources to use a specific word, such as "atheism". To the contrary, the policy in WP is to use plain english meanings. Must a source use the phrase "Church of Latter-day Saints" to be in the List of Mormons? Of course not. Must a source use the word "gay" to be in List of LGBT writers? Of course not. If the source uses wording that plainly means "Mormon" or "LGBT", then it is acceptable. List of atheists should not be treated differently. --Noleander (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the thing is simply that we are labelling living people. If we do so, we should be pretty sure that that is how they would label themselves. So I don't see an alternative but to insist that people -- at least living people -- listed here should have said, "I am an atheist", or "I take the atheist position", or "I consider myself an atheist", "I became an atheist" etc. --JN466 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Jayen: If a woman said "I've always known I was not heterosexual - I've always been attracted to women", would that meet the LGBT self-identification requirement? Of course. Words have plain meanings, and there is no WP requirement for a magic word. We simply need to use the plain definition of the word atheist. Or do you think the definition of "atheist" is uncertain? --Noleander (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If someone says "I don't believe in God", it's uncertain whether they are describing themselves as an agnostic or as an atheist, or yet something else. Statistically, the chances of a person making that statement identifying as an atheist are about 1 in 3. We can't interpret it for them. --JN466 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Without agreeing or disagreeing with your interpretation: the point remains: WP policy does not require the use of "magic words". If the self-identifiction is clear, then it is sufficient. The clarity has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The point Noleander, is that the self-identification is often not clear. Your sexuality example above, for instance is not clear. The person in question could easily be a lesbian or a bisexual, and that's just for starters. The same is true, as Jayen points out, with "I don't believe in God". The fact that so many people continue to say that this is a sufficient statement to label a person an atheist makes it abundantly clear that stricter guidelines are required - because we can't trust people to understand the subtleties involved.Griswaldo (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying. But there is no WP policy that says "a specific magic word must be used" in the BLPCAT situation. To the contrary, throughout WP, policies are applied using common sense and normal English usage. Everything in WP is handled in a case-by-case basis (unless a policy says otherwise). I presume that, at some point in the past, a proposal was made to modify BLPCAT to say "the self-identification must use the precise word XYZ"; that that proposal failed. And it failed because many counter-examples can be found (e.g. Mormon vs LDS etc). Not only did it fail (or would fail, if it has not been proposed yet) there are even cogent arguments suggesting that the entire self-identification requirement be eliminated. In sum: the BLPCAT policy is in a very unsettled state, and we should not consider it to be black-and-white. --Noleander (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not aware that anyone has ever proposed a "precise word" rule in BLPCAT. But think about it; if we are going to label people with "magic words", then it is not unreasonable to expect them to have used that magic word about themselves, or at least an expression that is universally recognised as a direct synonym. I think we are okay with LDS and Mormon, but the fact that so many editors insist that not believing in God is the same as atheism indicates that we have to be careful, and if in doubt, err on the side of caution. --JN466 13:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No specific inclusion criteria

It'd be mighty useful if someone could spell it out, and maybe we could tweak it and not-vote on it. The consensus of recent discussion, such as it is, hasn't given much clarity, and already there's disagreement over who's in and who's out (Kevin Bacon, for example). Nick Graves (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how useful that would be. The word "atheist" means what it means. A handful of editors on this Talk page are not going to come up with a better definition that what is in reliable dictionaries. The fact that there is a fuzzy overlap between atheism and agnosticism is annoying, but we have to deal with it. Requiring certain "magic words" before someone can be deemed an atheist is not sensible. --Noleander (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It is absolutely sensible, and it is backed by empirical evidence regarding the use of "atheist" as a means of self-identification.Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Instead of wasting time and bytes on another fruitless "what is an atheist" discussion, we may as well follow the path that Nick Graves suggested a few times in the past year: we re-scope these lists to be List of atheists, agnostics, and persons that don't believe in God(s). I've opposed that suggestion in the past, but I'm starting to see now why he proposed that re-scoping. I think we should seriously consider it. It wouldn't be too hard to merge these lists with the List of Agnostics, and it would put an end to many (though not all) of these difficult questions that arise repeatedly. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That's an awfully wordy suggested renaming, Noleander. If only there were some word that universally and uncontroversially applied to "person that don't believe in God(s)"... Griswaldo has a point about it being problematic to include living people who don't believe in deities, but who might object to being called atheists. Like it or not, not everyone (or every source, for that matter) agrees that all non-believers in gods are atheists. Nick Graves (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
My personal view is that the term "nontheist" includes all of those categories. However, virtually nobody is going to self-identify as a nontheist (meaning the same BLP problem), and term isn't even all that popular in scholarship as a descriptive term. Of course I have another personal view as well, and that is the it is pretty unmeaningful to list most notable people, dead or alive, by forms of religious affiliation (or unaffiliation). Those who do not squarely fit into "atheist" or "agnostic" categories clearly never made a big deal of their beliefs, and those beliefs are therefore clearly not important to their notability. I see no encyclopedic reason therefore to create lists of larger umbrella categories to catch all of these other individuals with more ambiguous religious beliefs or affiliations.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP

According to WP:BLP, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

This subject is now being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note that WP:BLPCAT explicitly covers lists as well as categories. These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct. And that makes this list a clear BLP violation, in my opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not a violation as long as the inclusion criteria for living subjects is verified self-identification. The inclusion criteria needs to change.Griswaldo (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've tried rephrasing it. It's kind of clunky though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it. "Relevant to their notable activities or public life"? Surely the point of these lists is to collect 'atheists', regardless of whether their atheism is relevant to their notability. Should we be removing long-standing and unchallenged includees, such as Lance Armstrong?
This would seem to lead to an inconsistency, and an editorial decision problem. The inconsistency is that this ruling does not appear to apply to non-living people. So a dead person need only be reliably identified as an atheist to be included, whereas the only living atheists are those for whom their outlook is "relevant". And that's where the second problem comes in: how do we know, and who decides, whether someone's atheism is relevant? Is it relevant for a cyclist? Maybe it is for a writer (eg Ben Elton), maybe not. In principle, it's not relevant for any particular scientist (who's only known as a scientist), since whatever the person actually believes, their scientific work is a-theistic. For a composer? Depends if they've had to write any spiritual music, I guess! If a songwriter never mentions that stuff in his lyrics, he's out, but if he does on his next album, he's in? And so on.
I suppose we could say that, since it's part of their world-view, it's relevant to every potential includee's notability (Armstrong might have taken his testicular cancer as a sign from God to stop sitting on his nuts for hours)… but that's not how this edict is intended.
So as I say, I don't get it. Someone's either a demonstrable atheist or they're not. If they are, why not include them? Oolon (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the list can be slightly broader than the cateogry for BLP's - BLPCAT does not legislate directly against such inclusions, but cautions care, which is why we ask for self declaration. --Errant (chat!) 13:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists"

In light of the very confusing interpretations of what should be in these lists, I propose to restore the name that an editor supplied a couple of months ago: "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". Ditto for the various sublists. This has several benefits:

  • Reduce confusion by editors (i.e. reduce mistakes by editors putting persons in the wrong Lists)
  • Minimize possibility of BLP violations
  • Addresses the fact that atheism and agnosticism overlap somewhat
  • Addresses the fact that atheism has several definitions
  • Handle situations where the person in question made declarations like "I don't believe in God" which, at present, do not permit the person to be placed either into List of atheists or List of agnostics

Comments? --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There already is a List of agnostics and those who are ambiguously non-theistic and do no label themselves with a badge of identity do not need to be listed somewhere for others to ogle in pride over. Sorry. We don't stomp all over WP;BLPCAT just so that people who identify as X can have more role-models listed on Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - far too broad a list, issues in figuring out inclusion criteria, problems with BLPCAT etc etc. It does not solve the problem of identifying list members (because nontheist is also a controversial term & lumping non-atheists who qualify as non-theist is a huge no-no). Additionally nontheist covers a huge category of lists we already have (Buddhists for example) making it too broad to be of use. Bad solution to the problem. --Errant (chat!) 15:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - One can self-identify with atheism/nontheism without specifically using either label. BLPCAT does not require one to use a specific label for one's position in order to be identified with that position. A statement like "I don't believe in God" is self-identification with atheism/nontheism, as defined by multiple reliable sources. Readers using this list to research significant atheists are interested in people holding a certain position, not necessarily those who self-identify by a certain word that refers to that position. Such figures as US congressman Pete Stark, who has confirmed that he does not believe in God, and whose non-belief is significant to his public life, would be excluded by insisting that he say the "magic" word. Those who object to the label atheist because they define it restrictively, or because of a perception of negative connotations, are still covered by the term nontheist, which does not carry the same pejorative baggage as atheist, and which unequivocally applies to all who do not believe in deities (and, by the way, which does not apply to all Buddhists, many of whom believe in Devas). Use of nontheist as an umbrella term for atheists, agnostics, and other nonbeliever in gods is supported not only by the Oxford English Dictionary, among other references, but by precedent set by such groups as the Secular Coalition for America. There are significant similarities and overlap between atheists and agnostics, and you will find several who identify by both labels (Michael Shermer and Michael Schmidt-Salomon, just to name 2 off the top of my head), so consolidating the lists makes sense. Nick Graves (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, we need to respect the BLP policy - but will this re-name proposal violate the BLP policy by causing living persons to be slandered? No. If a person declares they are a non-theist (by saying "I dont believe in God") then putting them in a list entitled List of atheists and nontheists is not slander or misleading. If a person says "I don't believe in God" or "I've never believed in any religion" or "All religions are supernatural mumbo-jumbo" then those are positive, clear statements of nontheism. There is no great harm in helping readers of the encyclopedia find notable persons that self-identify as non-theists. Don't forget that the WP:BLPCAT policy was created expressly because Categories to not permit contextual information to accompany each person's entry in the Category. But Lists do not suffer from that shortcoming: Lists have provisions for detailed, contextual information next to each person's entry. Finally, in light of the tremendous definitional overlap between "agnostic" and "atheist" (see Agnostic atheism) wouldn't it be beneficial to readers to have the two concepts co-located in one list? --Noleander (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Griswaldo says, we already have a List of Agnostics (I haven't checked, but I presume the proposer has put this on the talk page of that list}, trample all over BLPCAT (there seems to be a serious move to water it down in various ways), there are similarities between many Christians and atheists in moral codes but the differences are enough to have different lists, just as here. I see some editors are willing to label people who haven't used the label for themselves, but I'm not one of them. This also seems to be an attempt to bring back at least in part the 'nontheist' title as an umbrella term, and that's been rejected more than once this year IIRC. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This just seems like a bad idea, hard to define others religious views, could be explosive fuel for BLP violations. Disadvantages outweigh benefits. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Question So where else might we put atheists 'sensu lato'? That is, the people, nicely referenced, such as Leo Blair and Jonathan Barnes, that are getting deleted due to this BLP malarkey. It doesn't matter who calls -- or how many call -- you an atheist, nor how often you might also state your deity disbelief: till you snuff it, you're not an atheist unless you specifically say you are. Are such disbelievers -- not incorrectly (according to some dictionaries) labelled atheists by others -- to be put in the List of Agnostics?
Well it's your toy, you can play with it how you like I guess. I've given up banging my head against this particularly thick brick wall. Just strikes me as odd that such people might not belong in a List of Agnostics if they're called 'atheist' in the reference, and so fall between two stools... so I'm curious about it. Seems a shame to lose the information about someone in a reference [ETA: such as here] when they get deleted from the list for not meeting this week's inclusional standard. Oolon (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And to add, further: on looking at what's been deleted, I see John Brockman's gone. He wasn't half-hearted in his... well whatever it is: he said he's sure there's no God. If that means he's an agnostic, then the criteria for that list need amending... Oolon (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Strongly support,True,many agnostics and nontheists are listed here, moreover, many sources listed here are personal opinion of some authors(some of them are atheists), I previously deleted some of those entries but you can't do that all the time,Thank You.Skashifakram (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If reliable sources acknowledge the overlap between the definition of agnosticism so should we by not trying to artificially delineate. I wonder if there actually is a reliable tertiary source on atheism that doesn't also talk, simultaneously about it's close relationship with agnosticism. The proposal is old but I still think a good one to do.IRWolfie- (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning Support, but not all the way there. It seems to me that we should always be guided here by how the sources indicate that the people listed would identify themselves. On the one hand, there are lots of individuals who self-identify in ways that span the categories, and we could avoid problems with those individuals by implementing this proposal. But then, there are other individuals who would object to being lumped together with others on the list. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe a way to go would be to have a combined list, but with separate sections, and place people into those sections where the sources say they belong. On the other hand, one could also have sub-groupings on the separate list pages that exist now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the question of "Subgroups within a List" vs "multiple lists"  : the benefit of a combined list is that there are quite a few persons, dead and alive, that have made statements like "I don't believe in God", and the current separate Lists do not allow that person to be in either List of atheists or List of agnostics. This proposal is to create a single, consolidated list (and sublists like List of ath/agn/non artists) so that all persons that have expressed some sort of non-belief can be included. Of course, each person would have to be clearly pigeon-holed within the Lists so that, for example, an agnostic is not presented as an atheist, etc. Therefore, each List would necessarily contain sections for Atheists, and for Agnostics, and other/nontheists.--Noleander (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just want to make sure everyone knows the original proposal above is over a year old. It just so happens that another editor, apparently unaware of this dormant discussion, yesterday renamed two of the Lists in accordance with this proposal. So, we know that this proposal has occurred to several editors over the past few years. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, for all the theoretical and practical reasons adduced above and in discussions elsewhere. Atheists, agnostics and nontheists share a non-acceptance of a concept (divinities) that they regard as untenable. Nihil novi (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment / Question: What is the purpose of these lists? Is it (a) to list those who are labelled atheist, or (b) to list those with a particular view (that of atheism)? Listing what people are, or what they're called?
John Brockman (for example) says "I'm sure there's no God." There can therefore be no doubt about him fitting the definition. But he then says "But don't call me an atheist" (and then clarifies why: "[in America] It's like a losers' club.") He is an atheist by any standard of the definition, but he rejects being called it. Does that mean he's not an atheist after all?
We already know that:
  • 'Atheist' is ambiguous; it can mean either 'no god-belief' (no belief in god(s), aka weak atheism) or 'no-god belief' (belief that there is no god, aka strong atheism).
  • This means that different sources, indeed the potential listees themselves, will be using it in different ways, leading to inclusion inconsistencies: some with simple 'no god-belief' calling themselves atheist, while others, equally with no god-belief, rejecting the term.
  • There is an historical aversion to the word 'atheist'. Clarence Darrow could say things like "I say that religion is the belief in future life and in God. I don't believe in either" and still get called an agnostic.
  • There is still an aversion to the word 'atheist' among those who take it to mean strong atheism (eg David Attenborough) and who object to it for other reasons (Brockman, Michael Shermer).
  • This means that we have a constant problem with who can be included. What I've called 'magic word' atheists -- someone saying that they are -- get in easily, though they are often 'merely' weak atheists, while others who claim de facto strong atheism (eg Brockman) may be excluded if they prefer another term. So simple use of the word is a flawed criterion in itself.
So far, so ad nauseam. But now it's suggested to include agnostics too. Well, there's overlap for sure, since just about all atheists (even Dawkins) are also agnostic. However, one word is about belief (or lack thereof), the other is about knowledge of the matter. And hence, not all agnostics are nonbelievers, which is the sine qua non of atheism. So I consider it unsafe to lump agnostics in with atheists willy-nilly.
Seems to me the list should really be called List of Nonbelievers. That's what we seem to be aiming for anyway. But that's unclear: non believers in what? Well, deities I guess. There's a word for that... but it's a bit problematic. So, what's wrong with the previously suggested renaming, to just List of Nontheists? All atheists are nontheists, right? So "atheists ... and nontheists" is redundant. It would be relatively simple to justify someone's inclusion (or not), less objectionable than the baggage-laden 'atheist', and crucially, it easily captures the viewpoint in question. Clear and concise.
When this was suggested before, I think it was not so much rejected as allowed to wilt. Yet, here we are again, with basically the same suggestion. Can we get this resolved finally, pretty please? Oolon (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
And, ref the idea of sublists: I moderately strongly oppose subdividing by shades of unbelief. It would seem to defeat the object of this exercise. There's too much overlap, too many nested concepts, and most importantly, too many people for whom their more precise position is simply unknown. I can't see the value of solving our problems only to open them up again. Oolon (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Good comments. I think this is a two step process: (1) Determine if it is a good idea to have a merged list; and (2) decide what the name should be. There are several candidate names for a merged list. The candidate at the top of this section ("List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists" ) was intended to be a placeholder. Personally, I have no huge objection to "List of nontheists" but I can see other editors having big objections (specifically: nontheist is a rarely used term, and using that to the exclusion of atheist and/or agnostic would entail WP promoting a neologism; or so the argument goes). So my gut feeling on Step 2 is to aim for a broader title that minimizes dispute. Regarding subdivisions within a merged list: The use of terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are very widespread, and they have pretty distinct meanings, so if the Lists were to not mention those differences, some editors would complain that valuable information is being lost: any changes we make should not remove information (i.e. atheist vs agnostic, when clear) from the encyclopedia. I envision three regions in the List: Atheists; Agnostics; and Other. The latter would be used when the source do not clearly state Atheist or Agnostic, e.g. the "I don't believe in God" situations. --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Heh, well you've nipped in before I could add what I was going to about the sublists, but here it is: There's no need to subdivide: each person's specifics, where known, will be plainly shown in the reference that justifies their inclusion. So the list simply contains unbelievers, and A says he's an atheist, B says he's an agnostic, and C says he's a rationalist skeptic with no belief in that sort of guff. The point is to eliminate editorial decision-making and arguments -- they're all agnostics, after all. Is Darrow an agnostic? Dawkins actually says he's agnostic. Brockman is an atheist who hates to be called it. Does Einstein's and Sagan's lack of belief qualify them as atheistic enough to be atheists, or 'merely' agnostic? What you end up with is, everyone is a nontheist, and some of them can be further subdivided. Why not just let the references speak for themselves? If the ref calls someone one thing or the other, the information is not lost; all that's lost is the editorial decision that grouped them one way or another. Having been involved in these sometimes rather warm discussions for some years, I'd call that a good thing :-)
As for Nontheist being a less well known word, well, 'List of people who don't or didn't believe in God(s)' is rather a mouthful, though that's all it means. Unbelievers? God(s)less? Nontheist may be somewhat rarer, but at least nobody should struggle to understand it  :-) But then, I may be so used to it that I'm unaware how otherwise rare it is. I'll check my discionaries tonight. Oolon (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding omitting classifications and relying on source: that could perhaps work, if every individual in the list had text adjacent including the quote from the source. But, as the lists are now, the reader would be forced to jump down to the footnote to read. I kind of see what you are saying, but I'm pretty certain other editors would object to the loss of information in the encyclopedia: for person that are clearly Ag or Ath, your proposal would hide that fact from readers. Regarding borderline cases like Einstein ... if there were classifications, they would have to go into the "Other/Nontheist" class. Maybe your proposal could work if someone (you :-) volunteered to put the quote from the source next to each individuals name in the List text? We need to find a solution that will put this dilemma to bed forever, otherwise the lists will just get broken apart again in a couple of years. Regarding "Nontheist": the lists of atheists were renamed to "List of nontheist ABC" about 2 years ago, and that change was reverted precisely because Nontheist was such a rare word, and the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA requires the most common names to be used: Atheist & Agnostic are a million times more common than nontheist. On the other hand, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA also encourages conciseness, and one cannot beat "nontheist" for that. --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose
1. Mainstream WP:RS such as Encyclopedia Britannica do not recognize an overlap between agnosticism and atheism, I have only seen evidence of individual authors that entertain such an overlap.
2. I don't see why we should be operating on a world-view that places so much primacy on theism that we start categorizing based on what is 'not theism'. un☯mi 01:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You are getting a lot of mileage out of that Encyclopedia Britannica source. This tertiary source treats both atheism and agnosticism together: [1] and so do many others, if plenty of tertiary sources do it, it is not OR for us to do it. The description of negative atheism in this encyclopedia of philosophy: [2] includes agnosticism: "So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources which support the view that conflating atheism and agnosticism is not in the scholarly mainstream, even your own sources - once you stop quote mining:

It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist. Parallels for this use of the term would be terms such as “amoral,” “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.” So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle. Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.

Note that it states clearly the majority position to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God - and then it attributes minority divergent conceptions.
Note also what it writes of your SEP source:

Smart, J.C.C. (2004) “Atheism and Agnosticism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. An outdated and idiosyncratic survey of the topic. Heavily influenced by positivism from the early 20th century.

Note further that it clearly denotes atheism and agnosticism as separate categories: However, these issues in the epistemology of atheism and recent work by Graham Oppy (2006) suggest that more attention must be paid to the principles that describe epistemic permissibility, culpability, reasonableness, and justification with regard to the theist, atheist, and agnostic categories. un☯mi 12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ref the point 1 above, it strikes me as irrelevant whether there's terminological overlap or not, if the entry criterion is their belief position rather than concentrate on these people's lack of belief in deities. Dropping 'atheist' and 'agnostic' from the title, and just calling it a List of non-theists, achieves this. No terms are thus conflated: the people included form, as I say, a natural group, united in their god-belief-lessness -- and they can be atheists, agnostics, rationalists or Dawkins-worshipping neodarwinists to their hearts' content, as well, just as they can be writers, scientists, actors and philosophers as well. "He's a chef!" "No, he's a food writer!" "Here he is on telly cooking stuff!" "But he doesn't run a restaurant so he can't be a chef!" "According to Braithwaite (2004), chefism is defined as..." And so on. Does any of that matter to compilers of a 'List of people professionally involved with food'? The labels are nothing but obfuscation, a failure to see the wood for the trees. If you're seeing how many trees you can find in a wood, does it matter which ones are oaks, which are beeches and which are chestnuts?
Ref point 2: That is an objection to having such a list at all, not to what it's called or who may be included. Suffice it to reply that there seems to be a demand. This is, in effect, the WP version of CelebAtheists -- only it covers anyone WP-notable not just celebrities, and is far, far better (and more strictly) referenced. Oolon (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm with Oolon. It was nothing short of tragic when "List of nontheists" was overthrown.

The word "nontheism" can hardly now be called a neologism, being over a century and a half old.

Certainly, at the very least, a unitary list, welcoming all brands of nontheists, is desirable. Nihil novi (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: As far as nontheist (or non-theist) being too... unusual? … to use, I checked my old-ish (7th edition, from about 1988 I think) Chambers English Dictionary (which I like as it's a slightly lower-level source than the OED, which (to me) suggests if something's in it, it's more mainstream -- the OED is the ultimate, but it's a bit 'everything and the kitchen sink'). No entry for non(-)theist of course, but:

non a Latin word used as a prefix, not; sometimes used of someone or somethingwith pretensions who, which, is ludicrously unworthy of the name mentioned, e.g. non-hero, non-event: the words given below include the most common words with non- but the prefix is living and many other words using it may be formed. [goes on to list loads]

Seems perfectly sensible. Sure, it's common sense; but I'd be interested to hear how applying such a bog-standard prefix could even constitute a neologism. Any English speaker will understand it (or should that be only non- English speakers wouldn't?), because both parts of the compound are themselves mainstream. Would there be any problem having a List of ex-Catholics? (Yeah yeah, probably, because you could use 'former', but you get the point I hope. If for some, erm, god-forsaken, reason one wanted to list people who are not Catholics, what the blazes could you call them other than 'non-Catholics'? That wouldn't be a neologism, it'd be common sense use of English, readily understood by all but those who'd need to look up 'non-' in the first place. In effect, it's just applying an adjective.)

I suppose 'List of people who are/were not theists' would work, but it's still cumbersome compared with just using a common prefix in its normal way.

As for there not being overlap between atheist and agnostic, well there may often not be, in terms of what label gets applied or how people view themselves or what term they prefer or whatever, but it's a simple fact nevertheless: (a)theist is about belief, agnostic is about the reason(s) for that belief. An agnostic may not be sure if there is, but surely they either believe or they don't? Dawkins absolutely should be listed under agnostics, because he himself says that's what he is. But who'd put him there, rather than under atheists?

The problem I have with deliberately including the word 'agnostics' in the title is, well, read Agnostic theism. How would we keep those agnostics out? (Assuming we'd want to -- which might be sensible given that a far shorter list would then be of people who're certain in their belief!) (A parallel list of agnostic theists might be interesting and useful in its own right, however.) 'List of atheists and belief-less (non-believing? ;-) ) agnostics' strikes me as a bit daft. Whichever way you look at it, we're just messing around with more or less convoluted ways of saying 'non-theists'.

If 'non-theist' could be a suitable (compound-) word in itself, I can see nothing in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA that suggests it as less than the best thing to use:

  • Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. -- Check.
  • Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. -- Well, this is solved by redirects; I wonder if people search for lists much compared with subjects; if someone searches for a list of atheists and gets a list of non-theists which includes 'agnostics', (a) would they mind, given that it only lists sensu lato 'weak' atheists, and (b) that's more an argument for keeping 'atheist' and 'agnostic' separate rather than for not using a more catch-all word.
  • Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. -- Check.
  • Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long. -- Check.
  • Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. -- either Check ("List of..."), or not relevant(?)

Note too: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there will be a simple and obvious title that will meet these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these goals over the others." I'd suggest that 'List of non-theists' is the obvious choice, and it can be favoured over the potentially more obvious 'atheists', 'agnostics', or 'atheists, agnostics and other non-believers' (etc) for its conciseness, recognisability and above all, its unambiguous precision.

And we can reject the argument based on "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms" simply by pointing out that this is not a list of atheists or agnostics (note: not all, only the non-believing ones) or antitheists or skeptics or infidels or scientific rationalists or 'not religious' or godless heathens. It's all of those, a natural category united by lack of belief. Is there a term most typically used in reliable sources for that inclusive group? If so, for god's sake let's use that! If there is, I wonder at all the fuss (and the lacuna in my own vocabulary). But I can't see anything that fits here.

Actually, there is a term for these people: 'weak' atheists. ('Strong' atheists are automatically 'weak' ones too, of course.) But I think that fails miserably in terms of recognisability and naturalness; nor is it unmbiguous (does it exclude those who do assert god(s)'s non-existence?); and it includes the problematic word 'atheist'.

If there's anything unclear about 'non-theist', there's nothing to stop us clarifying, saying in the intro something like "This is a list of people who do not or did not believe in god(s). Such people are often referred to as atheists, agnostics etc, and the references indicate which shade of non-belief applies in each case."

As for the footnote thing: yes, I agree. The quotes should be tied more tightly to the entries. Let the reasons for inclusion speak for themselves. It bothers me that so much good info in the refs is only seen by those who follow each one, rather than being on display: not merely justifying their inclusion but as information about the person's precise views on the matter. The best way so far proposed is I think the table we had at one point. Not sure if it's still around, but here is a snippet from what I still have in my sandbox:

Name Dates Known as / for Who Reference
João Cabral de Melo Neto 1920–1999 Author Brazilian poet, considered one of the greatest Brazilian poets of all time. "Though an atheist, Cabral had a deep, atavistic fear of the devil. When his wife died in 1986, he placed an emblem of Our Lady of Carmen around her neck, saying, in his mocking way, that this would make sure that she went directly to heaven, without being stopped at customs."[1]
Peter Caffrey 1949–2008 Actor Irish actor, best known for playing Padraig O'Kelly in Series 1-4 of Ballykissangel. "Born in Dublin in 1949, Caffrey enjoyed acting in school plays but subsequently went to a seminary for two years with a view to becoming a priest (he later played one in Coronation Street). He came out an atheist and studied English at University College, Dublin, before teaching at a primary school for a year."[2]
Simon Callow 1949– Actor British (English) stage, film and television actor, and author. "Was it then a very religious upbringing? "First of all, they were continental Catholics, not Irish Catholics, and that makes a big difference," he replies. "It was much more sophisticated, to do with having the priest round for drinks and telling a few saucy jokes. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we confess. But in terms of attendance at church, and the whole immersion in the language and imagery of religion, yes, very much. I was very religiously inclined. I wanted to be a priest." Do you still have faith? "No," he guffaws. "But I still have hope!"" Peter Ross interviewing Callow, 'The Lost Boy', The Sunday Herald, 30 April 2006, Magazine, Pg. 8.

But that of course is an extremely labour-intensive thing to produce from what we already have. I can do some of it, but it would need others to bash away at it too.

How about, perhaps as a temporary measure, moving the 'ref' tags so that the quotes are included in the list, with just the links in the references section? That should be easier to do, and produces only more of an aesthetic problem, where the quote is long.

So this:

would become

References

  1. ^ 'Joao Cabral: His poetry voiced the sufferings of Brazil's poor', The Guardian, 18 October 1999, Leader Pages; Pg. 18.
  2. ^ Anthony Hayward, 'Peter Caffrey; Padraig in 'Ballykissangel' ', The Independent (London), 4 January 2008, Obituaries, Pg. 42.
  3. ^ "I find it more comfortable to say I'm an atheist, and for that I probably have someone like Dawkins to thank." - Jim Al-Khalili, BBC - Radio 4 - Science Explorer: Jim Al-Khalili featured in The Life Scientific, BBC.co.uk.com.
  4. ^ "We atheists can . . . argue that, with the modern revolution in attitudes toward homosexuals, we have become the only group that may not reveal itself in normal social discourse." Philip W. Anderson, More And Different: Notes from a Thoughtful Curmudgeon, page 177.
  5. ^ Jim Al-Khalili, BBC - Radio 4 - Science Explorer: Jim Al-Khalili featured in The Life Scientific, BBC.co.uk.com.
  6. ^ Philip W. Anderson, More And Different: Notes from a Thoughtful Curmudgeon, page 177.

How about that? Then we could work on the table format in… wherever one puts works in progress. Thoughts? Oolon (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that latter format (simply appending the quote from the source into the entry) would make this proposal more palatable. Note that the quotes already in the footnotes are sometimes a quote from the person; sometimes a quote from their biographer. As for the title of the lists: I have no strong feeling one way or another, but I'm pretty sure most editors would support the longer title. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be a complete mistake to include 'agnostics' in the title, because there are agnostic theists. WP's own page notes that "Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge)." I don't see a way round excluding them, if we say it's a 'List of ... agnostics ...'. But their inclusion would be ludicrously incongruous. And we can hardly call it a 'List of atheists and agnostic atheists' (or atheist agnostics), can we?
I suppose we could insert an explanatory 'other' -- 'List of atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists' -- and thus imply which agnostics are the right sort. But hinting and unambiguity are strange bedfellows. Sorry, but 'atheists, agnostics, and non-theists' just doesn't work. 'Non-theists' makes 'atheists' redundant (but we need it for the term-avoiding godless), and not all agnostics are non-theists (so why are we lumping theistic ones in there?). We can have an intro that goes into details; I don't see why we have to have all the details in the title -- not when one (compound) word we're already using covers the lot. Would we have a 'List of oaks, chestnuts and trees'? (In fact, 'atheists, agnostics, and non-theists' is more like 'oaks, hollies and trees', for holly can also be a bush, but we're not interested in those ones. I hope you get my drift.)
To be sure, 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are more instantly recognisable terms, but a redirect or two solves that. (How often have you looked for something, found yourself dumped onto a page with a different title, but then realised it is what you wanted after all?) Why should recognisability trump precision and conciseness? 'List of non-theists.' That's surely enough of a 'why'. Does anyone have a 'why not'? (And an alternative that doesn't suffer the pitfalls above -- we've got to call the bloody thing something!) Oolon (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The fuzziness of agnostics (are they theists? nonthesists? either? both?) is one of the arguments against a merged list titled "Nontheists" (because such a title would proclaim that all agnostics are nontheists ... and that is certainly not supported by reliable sources). The current situation (separate lists for Ag and Ath) is safe and non-controversial, because either the sources say "agnostic" or they dont; ditto for "atheist". The only way the current lists could be merged is if the new title does not make any statement about whether or not agnostics are theists or nontheists - thus leading to the "Agnostics, or atheists, or other/nontheists" proposal. In summary: If the list were titled "Nontheists" it could contain atheists and "others", but not agnostics. BTW: when the lists were named to "List of nontheist abc" two years ago, that was only the lists of atheists: there was no proposal to include agnostics at that time. --Noleander (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Which sources support the notion that agnostics are not nontheists? Apart from the (self-acknowledged) minority views of Flew and Martin? un☯mi 02:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If you are asking me, I have no sources ... I was just reflecting what other editors have said in the past. I defer to your expertise. --Noleander (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Ref "The only way the current lists could be merged"... Ah. I wasn't aware that the proposal was to simply, blindly, merge the lists under an appropriate title, with the agnostics imported en masse regardless of their beliefs. If the idea is a wholesale merger, I strongly oppose.

I thought the proposal was to rename the 'List of atheists' to 'List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists' such that it made workable sense at last: the loose, 'weak atheism' definition, synonymous with simple lack of belief, 'non-theism' -- a list of people who are not theists. Does so-and-so believe in gods? Yes / no, black or white, in or out, sorted. No more crap about whether (eg) Sagan was atheisty enough. No more editors who use the (correct) disbelief definition adding someone only to be shouted down by others who use the (correct) existence-denial definition. No more "I don't believe in god" barred as insufficient but "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god" a shoo-in. No more "God's about as plausible as Mother Goose and I don't believe in either, so I'm an agnostic" being rejected. All that bollocks. In short, no more crap about whether someone is an "atheist", whether that jelly word can be or was correctly nailed to them. Just a list of people who don't believe in god(s). (Which would be identical to a list of atheists sensu lato anyway of course, that's kinda the point, you have to use the wider definition for a list because some sources use the wider definition and we can't tell if they, like, really mean it, so if you use a better word you needn't worry about the other word's usage, round and round and round we go...) Oolon (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen. I've never seen the argument for consolidation presented more cogently.
By the way, the word "nontheism" is actually of earlier coinage (by George Holyoake, 1852) than the word "agnosticism" (by Thomas Henry Huxley, 1869). "Nontheism" is also more communicative, as it clearly addresses the concept of divinity ("theism") whereas "agnosticism" can apply to anything (not merely divinity) that someone may choose to disbelieve. Nontheism is disbelief in god(s), agnosticism is disbelief in whatever. Nihil novi (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

After a hiatus, I am surprised and a little pleased to come back and see that this proposal has been further discussed, with some progress, I think, in the right direction. Suggestion: It might help to start a fresh poll to get a better idea of the current consensus. In the meantime, some thoughts...

If we agree that this list ought to include people who do not believe in deities, then the current title is clearly inadequate, because we are compelled for BLP reasons to exclude people who hold that very position (even in the form of unequivocal denial of God's existence), yet do not identify themselves by the "magic word", or who specifically say that they are not atheists (either because they don't like the negative baggage, or they use a more restrictive sense of that word). In the interest of making this encyclopedia most informative and useful, the aforementioned inclusion criterion is desirable, since (as has been pointed out by multiple editors here) people wanting to research atheists are interested in those holding a certain position, not necessarily those who identify that position by a certain word.

Here are some possible names, along with what I see as some of their strengths and weaknesses:

  • List of atheists - Strength: Uses the most recognizable name for those with this position (disbelief in gods). Weakness: Excludes disbelievers who don't specifically use this term for themselves.
  • List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists - Strength: Uses the two most commonly used names for those who don't believe in gods, along with a catch-all term for whoever has the position, but doesn't use either term. Weakness: If the list of agnostics is merged here under this new name, the utility of the encyclopedia is diluted for readers who want to find information on those who hold the agnostic position, which concerns knowledge, not belief. Also, though rare, there are agnostic theists (Søren Kierkegaard, for example), who should not be included in a list such as this.
  • List of atheists and other nontheists - Strength: Doesn't have the weaknesses of a name including "agnostics". Weakness: Implies that atheists and nontheists are not an identical set of people which, depending on the definitions used, may not be true.
  • List of nontheists - Strength: Includes all those who disbelieve in gods. Weakness - While not a neologism, it's not a common name for those with this position.

For your consideration: List of atheists or nontheists - This includes all who disbelieve in gods, while retaining the most common name for this position. Because of the "or", it does not take a position on whether atheist = nontheist, or whether atheism is a subset of nontheism, thus retaining NPOV on that potentially divisive matter. The intro could say something to the effect that this list includes people who do not believe in God or gods, and that such people have been identified by the term atheist (broadly defined), or alternatively, nontheist.

Others' contributions to this discussion petered out over a month ago without a resolution. I hope this can be picked up again, discussed well, and resolved (hopefully for a good long time). Nick Graves (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

Please offer your view on an Rfc here to decide whether of all the "List of atheist (profession)" lists, the philosophy list should be expanded to include agnostics as well, as "List of atheist and agnostic philosophers" instead of "List of atheist philosophers". The discussion may be found at Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#This_list. KillerChihuahua 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_atheists/Archive_10&oldid=1204098107"