Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 6

2920:

Romania. He set up a system of inspections, began a series of village school buildings, promoted the development of university education. Then the law on historic monuments but also that on church organisation, for which he was accused of being an atheist making laws for the church. To which he replied, 'No one here has a right to scrutinise my conscience and ask me to adhere to a belief. However, I declare that I am looking out for the church's best interests and that is sufficient'". Many thanks to Biruitorul for the translation from Romanian. Biruitorul removed Ionescu from the list, pending better confirmation. Plenty of people who are accused of being atheists are not. Ionescu did not confirm these accusations in his response, but basically said "my beliefs are none of your business." I did a Google search, but found no reliable sources confirming Ionescu's atheism. For the record, here's the entry that was removed:

572:

short quote is already in effect, as many quotes are available for viewing in the footnotes. I'm not sure why mention of the term "ignostic" would make you think that "this is getting ridiculous"; the present method of categorizing would accommodate ignostics just fine in the List of nontheists, and in a separate list if there were ever sufficient numbers to warrant one. Your suggestion for a list of God-believers is not feasible. It would be a gargantuan list, redundant to existing lists of religious believers, and an indiscriminate collection of information (even more so than the list of unbelievers). The

2528:. He never says there is no God. Instead, he says he gradually rejected more and more of what his religious upbringing was telling him. He's a sceptic, he regards it all as 'mumbo-jumbo' and so on. He lacks belief. He might well say there is no god if asked, but that's not how these things tend to come out, and we're stuck with the evidence. Which is evidence of Wheen's atheism (as defined by getting onto this list) being no stronger than we have for Darrow. Wheen makes it on because, and only because, he self-identifies. If he'd just said scientific empiricist, what's the betting Nick would shoot it down? 683:

and those people comprise the bulk of the entries in this list. Consensus to include these people has been pretty stable for close to two years, if I remember rightly. The "debates" for the most part actually boil down to just one main debate, resurrected periodically, about whether mere nonbelievers in God (sans reliable identification as "atheists") ought to be included. This really applies to only relatively few candidates for inclusion, and I don't see it as undermining the general viability and usefulness of the list in identifying the variety of people who are atheists.

4914:

living person an atheist when they reject that term for themselves. A living person's self-identity, especially if it concerns religious belief (or lack thereof), must be respected, even if the person has a position that we happen to think is clearly atheistic. For this project, identifying someone as an atheist is not just a simple matter of saying "An atheist is anyone who has position X, Person Y has position X, so Person Y is an atheist." Hence the need for non-definitional inclusion criteria, which for the most part depends on identifications made in reliable sources.

2679:

whether they are strong atheists, weak atheists, self-identifiers, or not. The number of people who are included based solely on expressions of strong atheism (sans the "magic word") is quite low. The proportion of people who are excluded because they explicitly or implicitly rejected an atheist identity is also very low. The list of atheists is much more extensive than the list of agnostics or nontheists. Indeed, the latter list seems to lose as many entries as it gains, since sources are often found that give a more specific identification of persons.

3443:"There has been legislation in Northern Ireland concerning fair employment, which related to those matters, for many years. It was strictly adhered to and policed. In fact, all recruits to my company and most others had to declare at the time, in a totally confidential envelope, whether they were perceived to be Roman Catholics or perceived to be Protestants. I say that because one has to be a Protestant or Roman Catholic Jew or, in my case, a Roman Catholic or Protestant atheist." Lord Glentoran, 2403:. In part, I think this is because we're more religious over here, so the religious tendency to view atheism as more narrowly defined is in effect. Another, related reason is that atheists have a poor reputation in the US (more so than in current or former Commonwealth nations). There have been a number of surveys that show that atheists are among the most distrusted minorities in America. It's nearly impossible to get elected to public office as an avowed atheist here. There are only two American 2697:

sources and philosophers (not to mention members of the general public) favor the terminology as used by T.H. Huxley, atheologian Ted Drange, humanist activist Fred Edwords, and others, by which not all those who are nonbelievers in God are considered atheists. Who will decide which point of view is correct? For us to do so would run counter to an important Knowledge (XXG) policy. It is far better to just neutrally report what reliable sources say. Perhaps this seems inconsistent, but then

4865:. Taking a similar line, even Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Germany's "Chief Atheist" specifies that he's not really a "pure" atheist, but an agnostic. Drange, who calls himself an atheist, makes it clear that he considers atheism to be the assertion of the non-existence of God, and bases this definition on what he takes to be normal usage in everyday English. He does not think that mere nonbelievers are atheists. Einstein admits that he's an atheist 3969: 31: 4861:. Fred Edwords considers himself agnostic, not atheist, and believes that denial of god(s) is required for one to be an atheist. In this reference, and in numerous others, the dispute over what constitutes "true" atheism is amply documented. Edwords denies being an atheist, though he would certainly be one according to certain definitions. Russell says he's technically an agnostic, though he provisionally accepts the label 992:(plays, novels)... or a TV bloke? Etc etc. And where the hell do we put Jonathan Miller?! :-D The obvious (if cumbersome-to-impractical) thing would be to put people with a few professions under all those professions (Dawkins under both author and scientist, Elton under comedian and author, etc). I'm not particularly advocating that, but at least it would make more sense than having to do Ctrl + F to find eg Miller! 661:, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are specifically identified as atheists. Even though the categories might overlap, the terms are different, with different meanings (or sets of meanings). Retaining separate lists is a useful supplement to the various separate nontheist/secularist articles. The "one place to look for unbelievers" you seek is already in existence to some extent 5044:

we have to leave him out? Edwords may be an 'agnostic' by his own preferred definition (though I still haven't found him saying so himself), but would you bet on his 'theistic' views being less than 95% identical to Miller's? Cos I wouldn't. Dawkins is agnostic (to the extent he's agnostic about fairies), so I guess there's some doubt about him too, really. I also refer you to the Tom Flynn article.

233:

Grant, who I strongly suspect was using 'unbeliever' as a very slightly euphemistic synonym. We cannot (always) know the reasons why people choose or avoid specific self-labels. What we can know is their stance on an issue. If that stance unequivocally accords with the broadest authoritative definition (to deny the broadest is to deny the definition's source's validity), then that's what they are.

4359:"atheism is (or can be) more encompassing than just God with a capital G. I just used that as a more real-life-like example of what we might actually find someone saying". Not just "can be". Nobody would say that a Greek polytheist is an atheist. And monotheists might be more likely to define atheism by reference to God, but frankly, that's purely a consequence of small-minded short-sightedness. 486:

an agnostic. He stated this repeatedly in various speeches or writings, and to my knowledge, never referred to himself as an atheist. (3) He is overwhelmingly identified as an agnostic in the vast majority of reliable sources concerning the subject. Calling him an atheist is not consistent with Darrow's own statements on the matter, nor is it consistent with what these reliable sources report.

1563:

large. I know a solution for it getting 'too large' is to divide it up like the lesbian/gay/bi article but, having had a look at that one recently, I don't think it's a format we should be looking to emulate. As far as I'm concerned, one list on one page subdivided into professions (not perfect or exact, but no-one has come up with a better option for my money) still works. Cheers,

1626:

though it would have shortened the list still further. Don't get me wrong, I can see your point of view re. criteria, but I think there's a perfectly valid case for employing the criteria that we do on this page and using other pages for candidates that don't quite meet it - and, yes, this does have the practical benefit of allowing us to the page to a reasonable size. Cheers,

2392:. So, when confronted with the notion that someone who doesn't believe in God maybe isn't an atheist, and shouldn't be put into the list until we have reliable and specific confirmation, there can be some consternation--"Doesn't everyone agree that such a person is an atheist?" they might ask. No, not everyone does agree, and the different definitions (containing exclusive 1264:, carry any weight. (An athlete might also be a great thinker, but you're probably better going to (say) Colin McGinn. It's useful to see the sheer length of the scientist and philosopher sub-lists. Indeed, the category-produced list doesn't even tell you who these people are; to make use of it, you've got to know who they are already, else just click on the name at random. 201:, but we are not justified in presumptively applying that definition to his case, or any other case. Just to put the shoe on the other foot, and maybe better illustrate why I'm taking this line: Imagine if we chose just the first referenced definition in this article as the criterion for inclusion. Such a choice would lead us to removing quite a few of those listed here 923:

Also, regarding Oolong's note about labelling them what they prefer to be called - the problem is we very often don't know what that is. As we've seen here, we don't even know what to call them ourselves as our knowledge is often based on an unelaborated answer to an interview question. And as Oolong said, it avoids the need for unnecessary "scrabbling around".

3784:

Austin Holyoake. If I get time, I'll try to knock up a page for him from the info in the (quite extensive) ODNB entry. I agree that a case-by-case basis makes sense -- if someone does seem note-worthy, then their already having a 'pedia page is neither here nor there -- presumably in the early days there were countless people without pages (originally, zero!)

205:. I think we can all see that this would be an unacceptable outcome. Likewise, choosing to apply the second or third referenced definitions over the first would lead us to the equally unacceptable outcome of categorizing many agnostics (such as Darrow, Huxley and Ingersoll) as atheists, even if they rejected or denied that label for themselves. 4203:. It sounds like you're rejecting the distinction between strong and weak atheism, which I certainly can't agree with. It's as possible to be neutral on the issue of gods - believing in neither their existence or non-existence - as on any other issue. Will it rain here in 596 days? I don't believe it will and I don't believe it won't. 359:

one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - 1 am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

4398:

As much as I'd like to take the line of saying that all god-disbelievers are unambiguously atheists, we can't avoid the fact that divergent usage in English disputes this. And no, saying that one does not believe in deities does not mean or imply that one believes deities do not exist. Not believing is not a type of belief.

4114:) is of equal merit to one about god's nonexistence. This still leaves the 'nontheist' category for the milder, less obvious or maybe ambiguous statements, like Richard E Grant's "I'm not a believer myself, but...". But it means that we would be including, well, atheists, not just the more outspoken or assertive ones. 4714:, noting that even so-called 'religious humanism' is "usually without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a "higher" source of moral values". I admit that the "usually" there worries me, but what I get from that Edwords article is that humanism is 5249:. The name of the article ("List of atheists") doesn't disambiguate and neither do most people when describing themselves or others as "atheist"s. If the article's inclusion criteria were such that any kind of atheist - weak or strong, implicit or explicit - were included, it wouldn't be a problem. But we have 5200:

of view that such a person must be an atheist, or must not be an atheist. I defer to what reliable sources say on the matter. Furthermore, let me clarify this: I do not insist that persons must self-identify as atheists before they are included. Again, I defer to what the reliable sources say on the matter.

5192:

David wrote: "Ilkali wrote 'I (and, I suspect, Oolon) would prefer it to be based on what they are.' Me too." That seems fair enough. Now, how do we know whether or not someone is an atheist? I'd say, if they are identified as such in a reliable source, we know they are an atheist. Furthermore, if an

5143:

Ilkali wrote "I (and, I suspect, Oolon) would prefer it to be based on what they are." Me too. I already stated as much in an earlier discussion. Nick said that there is "a need for non-definitional inclusion criteria" - easily satisfied and I'm happy to oblige: we'll just include anyone I say should

5057:

What of all the Ayn Rand disciples? How come so few of the folks you got from the categories have gone in? Other Knowledge (XXG) editors aren't as anal about it as we are being. What of the firm Marxists, devout humanists, solid rationalists and unwavering materialists? Being any of those pretty much

4626:

I see your point, although I think the principle of charity minimises the problem. I wanted to more heavily restructure the intro, because I think the inclusion criteria for the list aren't very sensible, but that'd have to wait until the above discussion is concluded. "Any gods" seems reasonable for

4140:

on a list of humanists. There's surely no harm in noting what the person preferred. But there is harm in leaving out those whose views are/were unambiguously atheist. Because, what might someone be expecting to find if they looked for such a list? Can it be anything other than people whose views were

3168:

A longer Hmmmmmmmmm. No... I believe I'll have to delete Kong. There is no reference to his belief system nor his self-identification as an atheist. Who the heck is this Nick Graves person to decide whether it is correct or not to make such assumptions?! After all Kong could be there as an undercover

2501:

Thing is, Nick is, understandably but erroneously ;-) , saying we ought to let these guys decide for themselves, unless they make a strong-atheist statement. Thus we've got Carlin with his "There is no God. None, not one, no God, never was", and he gets in; and Clarence Darrow, with his comparing God

2424:

for themselves. Try telling an agnostic he's really an atheist (I have) and he'll likely tell you in no uncertain terms that you're wrong. Choice of self-identity is something I think we ought to be sensitive to, regardless of whether someone's position happens to conform with a certain understanding

2209:

were used in these definitions in the inclusive sense, there would be redundancy. As I've already pointed out, denial of God's existence is a subset of disbelief in God's existence. There would be no need to mention denial unless there was a sense of the word that had to be distinguished from general

1136:

I think that bears repeating for emphasis. While I obviously can't speak for everyone who might visit such a list, it is certainly why I first came to it. I'm not sure what else one might expect to find on a 'list of atheists'. By all means Nick, have a subcategory for 'self-defined atheists'. Have a

530:

There is nothing stopping us categorising every entry in the first list as "strong atheist", "weak atheist", "agnostic", "ignostic", or any descriptive combination, or simply by a short quote to leave it up to the reader and so we are not making any interpretation at all. For example, "When asked if

358:

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so . Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel

156:

atheist, but he was an atheist. Which part of "I don't believe in God" needs further explanation? What should he have done, taken up a full page ad in the NYT? Or do what from now on I'll be calling 'pulling a Shermer', and have to come out with a bald, bold statement before anyone gets the point? If

4649:

aren't clearer on this. Note that two of the definitions cited in the intro to this list (and the intro to the main article) specifically refer to "God," not gods or deities. I suppose this is a consequence of the presumption that modern Westerners are not polytheists. It is assumed that if one does

4596:

I feel that the latest edit - changing "god or deities" to "gods" - adds ambiguity, because it could mean that the people do not believe in more than one god, leaving open the possibility that they believe in a single god. Perhaps it should read "any gods". Actually I'm with the suggestion that this

4422:

My point here isn't that atheism should be interpreted this way or that way, but that you can't pick a set of inclusion criteria for a list of "atheists" without making some implicit ruling on what an atheist is. If your inclusion criteria demand strong, explicit atheism, the list should be labelled

4259:

Ilkali, yes, I am "rejecting the distinction between strong and weak atheism"... when it comes to who should be included on a so-called 'list of atheists'! I was deliberately blurring the lines, in order to show that they are blurry anyway. I'll happily defend the distinction next time I come across

4210:

I agree with what (I think) you're saying about including people based on what they believe, rather than what labels they apply to themselves. If a person identifies as an agnostic, but is recorded as saying that he has no belief in gods, he's a weak atheist and should be included on a list of such.

4088:

so bold about it, from not wanting to be perceived as arrogant, from other proprieties or from sheer survival. So we get lots of circumlocutions, not to mention a plethora of alternative words to avoid the evil one: freethinker, agnostic (in some versions), nontheist, skeptic, humanist, rationalist,

3676:

Fair enough. I was just wondering because I know there are certain -- to me -- obvious omissions, though I don't know enough (feel empowered) to create a page on them myself. For instance, I am friends with the palaeontologist Per Ahlberg. Anyone who knows about early tetrapod evolution (the fish to

2678:

a list of atheists. If there are any on here who are not atheists, please pull them. Renaming the article is not in order. It is not just a "list of strong atheists and a rag-bag of self-identifiers." Save for a few exceptions, anyone identified as an atheist in a reliable source can be listed here,

2317:

of a strict claim, and leave it out (since this is an encyclopedia, not The New York Post). the same ethos should apply to this list (and implicitly the entries for those listed) - whether an epithet or a badge of honor, we need to be rigorous. sloppy application of the term can't be accepted. (this

2165:

The only other option I can see is to amend the page title to reflect what it really contains. 'Positive deniers of gods', or something like that. Calling it a list of atheists, but ignoring a lot of atheists because they're not the right sort, seems daft. It's confusing. It confused the hell out of

1601:

should be strict, not our definition -- that is up to how people use the word. If the definition is straightforward, then so are our criteria; if it is not, then it is not up to us to throw out some of the definitions when listing something under that heading. As long as we have strong evidence of a

922:

Like the Gay & Lesbian list, a table column could indicate Atheist/Agnostic/etc (allowing multiple labels) but even then I see little merit as I don't think that most people really care that much one way or the other, and the labels are still going to be difficult to apply (for several reasons.)

730:

I'm undecided how the various lists ought to be divvied up or combined. What is patently clear is that, if people want a list of atheists, they're probably not that bothered about the subtleties and nuances of what the people called themselves (unless it's strongly relevant). What they're after is a

682:

As for "all these debates," I don't think the volume of words in our recent exchanges is indicative of a general disagreement over who and who should not be included. It's been relatively uncontroversial to include people who call themselves atheists, or who were called atheists by reliable sources,

636:

I would say "List of unbelievers" would be too vague--Unbelievers in what, exactly? "Unbeliever" means different things to different groups--for Christians, "unbelievers" are non-Christians, and so forth. Also, many people who are "unbelievers" in God or Christianity or Islam or religion or whatever

571:

identified by different, though sometimes overlapping categories. Your suggestion of identifying someone as a "strong atheist," "weak atheist," etc. presumes that "weak atheist" is a type of atheist, which is a contentious point, and would make the article violate NPOV. The suggestion of including a

485:

Darrow does not belong, for three reasons: (1) He did not affirm the non-existence of God, or Mother Goose for that matter. His statement is consistent with a scrupulously agnostic position. (2) He was perfectly clear about his position and identity concerning the question of God's existence: he was

174:

First, just let me say that I am impressed with the several sourced additions you've made to the list. Most new contributors to the list (and to Knowledge (XXG) in general) do not so quickly begin taking the time to find quality sources for new entries. Second, it was of course not my aim to nullify

110:

I see Nick has removed my entry for Clarence Darrow. While I can superficially see why... could someone explain on what grounds -- other than historical/cultural convention -- Darrow could be said to be an "agnostic, not an atheist" (Nick's words)? Surely this is both a case of people, in that time,

5199:

Let me make this clear, as I think there is still some confusion: I do not oppose including weak atheists in this list. What I oppose is the presumption that someone who says "I don't believe in God" must automatically be categorized as an atheist. With regards to this list, I do not take the point

5161:

Oolon... you wrote 'the sentence "You know, we atheists and humanists pride ourselves in our skepticism" implies he is happy to be included in either category.' I'm surprised that a genius essayist like yourself could come to such a conclusion. That sentence merely implies that he considers himself

5043:

X, regardless of what they, for the manifold reasons I'm sure you're well aware of (eg Shermer's example) prefer (unless they specifically deny it, naturally). Jonathan Miller is thoroughly on record as being similarly reluctant to call himself an atheist. If he hadn't made a TV series on it, would

5025:

Or those seemingly identified as atheists because of being outspoken critics of religion? If they -- as far as we know -- criticise religion only, out they go, like Ambrose Bierce. But if a biographer calls them an atheist, they're in. Suppose a biographical dictionary refers to "Bierce's atheistic

5010:

a reliable source? I assume so, as you've not reversed any of the people I've included via that source. But how are we to know what criteria the various ODNB authors are using?! We might be safe with anyone referred to as a 'fervent', 'firm' or 'outspoken' atheist. But what of, say, Mary Butts: "By

4913:

My point is this: There is a continuing dispute over whether mere nonbelievers in gods are atheists or not. Owing to policy, it's inappropriate for us, in our capacity as Knowledge (XXG) editors, to take sides in this dispute. Furthermore, also owing to policy, it is inappropriate for us to label a

4704:

But, if I may use the... normal ;-) ... definition for now, neither of your examples are counter. I can find nothing -- other than the Knowledge (XXG) article! -- to indicate that Edwords is, as it says, an agnostic. He is, in fact, an atheist, and I'll be adding him (with refs, of course) shortly.

4397:

Oolon wrote: "there is harm in leaving out those whose views are/were unambiguously atheist." To which I respond: Saying that one does not believe in God/gods/deities is not unambiguously atheist, due to the fact that there is significant disagreement about whether that qualifies as atheism or not.

3450:

Edited to add: if it's not already clear, he's alluding to the long-standing Northern Irish joke (except it isn't a joke really), best told by Quenting Crisp: "When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the

2696:

The type of consistency you're after would depend on making a POV ruling in favor of a particular definition of an atheist. You favor the terminology as used by G.H. Smith and others, by which anyone who does not believe in God is considered an atheist. However, a significant contingent of reliable

2549:

remotely plausible? Like Wheen, he did not believe in God. By some definitions, that makes him an atheist anyway. Sure, he preferred 'agnostic'. But how can agnosticism that compares God to Mother Goose be any weaker than Richard Dawkins's: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about

2515:, then, as it stands, a list of atheists. It is a list of strong atheists and a rag-bag of self-identifiers. And those self-identifiers will inevitably not all be using the same definition! Many will be using the softer, explicit-weak-atheist definition when they self-describe and get onto the list. 2287:

issues that need to be addressed for each entry of a living person. back when atheist was pejorative, rather than a badge of honor, quite many people would reject being labeled an atheist by others if they had expressed skepticism in god. what of the not-unfamiliar utterances of those devastated by

1562:

Well, I have to say it hasn't caused this little black duck much confusion... At the risk of sounding conservative, I can't see a big need to alter the inclusion criteria of this article, or the layout for that matter. I think we need the criteria reasonably strict to keep the list from getting too

1110:

David said: "Re your statement "When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are specifically identified as atheists." - No... When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who

550:

I strongly oppose this suggestion. The combined list for "unbelievers" would be massive (maybe twice as long as the list of atheists, which is already getting kind of long). What would you even call such a list? List of secularists? Then you would run into the problem of what to do about nontheists

5091:

yesterday: "His early years were spent in a Dorset village, where his father was the rector and Thomas Hardy was a neighbour. He recalled Hardy as a sad, wizened old man who spoke seldom but who occasionally, though an atheist, attended church services, at which he always asked Cowley's father to

4666:

as the object(s) of atheists' disbelief. I will note, however, that the latter two options are not in literal accordance with two of the definitions cited here. Also, it seems to me that most people who say they do not believe in God do not take the time to clarify that they also do not believe in

4469:

Not believing in deities unambiguously qualifies as so-called "weak atheism" only if one chooses to accept such a position as a genuine form of atheism in the first place. For those who regard genuine atheism to be only the denial of God/gods, "weak atheism" is a misnomer, and the position is more

3624:

As you'll have seen, someone's added Eric Stone. He certainly seems more 'notable' than some of my recently-included politicians, yet he doesn't seem to have his own page yet. (I'll also note that I've left out a handful of politicians because of their lack of page.) If someone -- such as Stone --

2919:

is a possible addition to the list. He is currently called a "self-proclaimed atheist" in his article, but with no supporting citation. The source used in his now-removed entry on the list says: "For three years as minister he worked fruitfully to complete the reorganisation of public education in

2387:

Why the repeated confusion? A lot of it has to do with the fact that most of the people who are drawn to edit this article are atheists. Those who consider themselves atheists tend to use the broader definition. Those who do not consider themselves atheists (theists, of course, and most agnostics)

2016:

could mean any disbelief in God, or it could mean denial of God's existence. I do not choose one definition or the other. It's too controversial. One man's atheist is another man's agnostic (or nontheist, or ignostic, etc.). It's better to just let the reliable sources do that identification. This

5026:

views". In or out then? And what're you gonna do if, in future editions of such reference works, authors talk of Francis Crick's views as atheist? As it happens, for him we have his own words. But for all these others, we are relying on other people's judgement calls. Or even personal perceptions.

4058:

god, as a real entity? That is, usually when faced with, or in the context of knowing that there are, other people who do consider gods real, not merely a Good Idea. With the possible exception of Martin Rowson (who says that even if god were to appear in front of him he still wouldn't believe in

3657:

coverage, nor does it confirm that his discoveries are really notable. A secondary, reliable source independent of Stone is needed to confirm that. Proof of notability should come before inclusion, and such proof is best demonstrated in an article about the person. If the article avoids deletion,

3652:

I've found it's generally a bad idea to leave red links on these lists for too long. Some editors use it as an excuse for adding non-notable persons to the list. Is Eric Stone notable? Maybe. I didn't find any significant, independent coverage confirming notability in a cursory Google search. The

2447:

be "right"). We should let usage in reliable sources dictate who is included, rather than asserting our own point of view. Are Darrow and Chaplin atheists? You say yes. I say no. You say they are atheists because they don't believe in God. I don't agree that they are atheists, because they do not

2045:

So we have a silly situation where Charlie Chaplin's "By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none" and Clarence Darrow's "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose" are clear indicatins of rejection of belief by way of concious rejection (rather than simple lack of

534:

As far as the list of believers goes, there should be problem dividing them up into what I call deists versus theists and so on. But trying to divide up the list of unbelievers is problematic, and ultimately doesn't provide any substantially useful information. Instead of shutting people back and

232:

So again I return to the Shermer case. He also had a range of words available to him. He had even been specifically avoiding 'atheist'. For that he has his own reasons. We can't in principle know what they are (though he does go on to say). Similarly with Darrow. Similarly, indeed, with Richard E

4473:

The basic inclusion criteria that has long been in place here, and which I am supporting now, is that for our purposes, an atheist is anyone labeled as such by reliable sources. It's not a definition-based inclusion criteria, which would depend on editors making their own decision about what the

4206:

Nontheism is identical to weak atheism. They're both complements of theism - if you're not a theist, you're a {nontheist, weak atheist}. Every person on the nontheist list is a weak atheist, whether (s)he likes that label or not. So by having a "List of atheists" here, and excluding those on the

3783:

On the principle that, like judo-ists, people who have been important in the (catch-all) freethinker movement might be notable within it, but less so generally... therefore notable atheism activists, like notable judo people, might be too esoteric to have yet gained a 'normal' page... I've added

1708:

Heh, no need to apologise, I probably sounded like the supreme pragmatist the way I expressed myself. I agree those related lists need to be on the page but they are at the bottom in the usual See Also spot. Not sure what people would think about a 'see also' equivalent at the top of the page...

1625:

page, which I agreed with. It happened to shorten the list, as you can imagine. It was also suggested that perhaps we should only include people whose atheism was particularly prominent or central in their work. I opposed that because I believed it would be too difficult to measure objectively,

841:

The obvious subdivision, which, if such a list were becoming unwieldy, would then be into 'weak atheists' -- those who explicitly disbelieve in gods -- and 'strong atheist', that subset who have argued that gods do not exist. (I stress the 'have argued', because statements about certainty on the

770:

As Dawkins has said: "I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further." All

752:

term, he thinks) -- an atheist. I'd call such grounds for exclusion nebulous. I refer everyone back to the main Wiki article. "An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong

576:

was deemed by AfD consensus as too potentially huge for usefulness, and this list of God-believers would be many times worse in that regard. List usefuless is increased by breaking large categories up into natural divisions (religion, denomination, flavor of nonbelief, etc.), and your suggestion

991:

I'm not sure about the 'alphabetically by profession'. As you say, a database would solve it, but we're stuck with this, I guess. I mean, is Dawkins a scientist? He's not written a scientific paper since (I think) about 1980-ish. Nowadays, he's an author. Is Ben Elton a comedian... or an author

4992:

understand your point. But I cannot get past the problem, as first I (though I suspect I'm not the first) and now Ilkali have said. That is: "Persons A and B have exactly the same views, but A takes a broad interpretation of 'atheist' and identifies himself as such while B just calls himself a

4961:

In contrast, your inclusion criteria let in an inconsistent mishmash. Persons A and B have exactly the same views, but A takes a broad interpretation of 'atheist' and identifies himself as such while B just calls himself a nontheist. A and B get put into different lists despite being otherwise

4040:

An analogy might help. If I say I don't believe in England, there are several things it might mean. To be sure, it's not the same as saying I don't believe England exists, though that is one of the options. But those other meanings, that 'Englishness' is a bad idea, say, or that I consider the

1820:

It's all well and good citing the Routledge and Britannica encyclopedias. Being encyclopedias, they can go into philosophical niceties and subtleties. Into details, in other words. But when wondering how people might interpret a word, surely the best people to go to are those who specialise in

1751:

I imagine it's not usual, but I think it's needed -- put it this way, I'd looked at this page pretty often before editing, and have now been editing for a while, and I still hadn't noticed it till now. If we're saying 'these are the sorts of people listed here', we need to also say 'sorts like

600:

Your statement that "whatever benefit would come from a combined list is already present in separate lists that are linked" is not true: the missing benefits are the advantages of not having separate lists, which are severalfold...(a) one place to look for unbelievers, (b) not having all these

2835:

I don't know what it looks like in other browsers, but in mine, the article with the portrait and the atheism infobox has a huge, unsightly gap at the top. Does anyone have any idea how to solve this? It is truly butt-ugly. Sorry, Dave, whatever you tried did not fix the appearance on my end.

1293:

Furthermore, someone wanting a list of atheists very likely wants to know stuff specifically about these people: how we know they're atheists, and a flavour of what they've said on the matter. I'm not sure a substantial footnote to a separate paragraph in many of these people's biographies is

3585:

I wonder if we need some more sections. Maybe one for 'notable in several areas' or some such (Miller as a scientist, anyone?)... perhaps split authors into some sort of, well, real authors, and those who've written books, journalists etc. Might cause more confusion, but it seems odd to have

918:

There would be no problem if the lists were database-driven instead of text-based. A query would list all "unbelievers", or all "atheists", etc - including subsets. One problem with the current text-based system is with some of the examples quoted above where the person identifies with three

2573:

An interesting aside (though it's less aside than a crucial tangent): Is there any sense in which someone saying they 'do not believe in God' can mean anything other than them thinking God does not exist? Sure, there are other senses of believe ("I don't believe in playing the lottery", for

1416:

So Darrow wasn't affirming the non-existence of Mother Goose? What can his comment mean, but that "I don't believe in God because God, like Mother Goose, is a fairytale character"? And, "He was an agnostic" -- you are falling for the Bellman's Fallacy: 'what I tell you three times is true'.

2851:

I see the problem in IE, but not in Firefox. I recommend you change browsers. I did recently and Firefox is a lot better (apart from the fact that Firefox has some serious memory leak issues.) I've seen other rendering problems with IE. I just moved some things around to fix the problem.

2583:

Oh yeah. And how come Arthur Miller isn't on here? He's on the Miller Atheism Tapes, and talked there of how obvious it is that God is merely man projecting all the things he wishes he were, etc. Please tell me he's just been overlooked, rather than fallen foul of not saying the password

910:

Re your statement "When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who are specifically identified as atheists." - No... When people are reading about Atheism, they should have the option to review a list of prominent persons who

2550:

fairies at the bottom of the garden." Darrow was agnostic only to the extent that he was agnostic about Mother Goose, surely? That makes Darrow just as atheist as Dawkins, let alone Wheen. But he is excluded because he preferred a different label. So put him in, and note that fact.

512:

Especially after reading the latest entry where the term "ignostic" was used, I thought that this is getting ridiculous: we can circumvent all these arguments, make life easier for everyone, and produce a more useful set of lists if we simply divide everyone into two categories:

1334:. Any inclusion criterion that incorporates so-called "weak atheists" absent a specific identification as such in a reliable source (that is, the word "atheist" is used with reference to the person) assumes the first point of view and dismisses the other. That's a violation of 253:

Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the

2574:

instance), but in this context, doesn't it have to mean more like "I don't believe in Atlantis"? As in Atlantis -- or God -- existing...? I'm genuinely not sure, but I think a postitive statement of disbelief probably has to mean a positive statement about God's existence.

796:

We obviously cannot concern ourselves with implicit atheists -- simply too many. Nor does 'unbelievers' cut it, as noted above. How about 'Explicit Atheists', tying in with the chart in the main article? We could note alongside the entry that they prefer(red) to be called

3471:

You're right: He ought to be categorized by whatever occupation contributes most to his notability. His political career seems more current, and bobsledding isn't a terribly popular sport. Then again, he does not appear to have served in very prominent offices. I dunno.

3988:. Nick's argument seems to be that it is taking a POV (and hence, un-Wiki-ish) to include here those who do not fit these narrower definitions. Thus, here we only list those about whom nobody could quibble, with the rest, the weak explicit atheists, being 'nontheists'. 3764:

I don't think we should assume too strong a link between notability and having an article. And I don't think we should require the exact same degree of notability for inclusion into this list as for justifying an entire article. A few red links shouldn't be a problem.

3169:

agent of the Pope or Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps he's working for both of them. Perhaps the Pope and Bin Laden are working together. Anyway... I ask you: Is the Pope a Catholic? That question has been asked before, but, I note suspiciously, it has never been answered! --

607:

Your statement that a single list would "indiscriminately intermingle persons who are traditionally separated into different, though sometimes overlapping categories" is self-contradictory: you want something separated that actually overlaps. An example is the case of

2635:

cluding some self-labellers when their statements are otherwise no stronger (or even, otherwise non-existent, eg Ben Elton's) than those we exclude. Because those self-labellers may well be using the 'softer' definitions we (well, some of us) deny here as grounds for

2151:

not simply be identified within the list via their words? Mention in the opening, along with noting the perpetual incompleteness, that these people are atheists according to the broader, explicit (thought-through disbelief) criteria, and that some are also 'strong

2072:

Precisely, David. And the point is, the average punter, who knows of these examples, is going to keep on turning up, keep editing them in (with 'Aha! You missed one!' glee)... and keep getting surprised (more likely, amazed, amused, or annoyed) when they're struck

567:), so whatever benefit would come from a combined list is already present in separate lists that are linked. Making a single, massive list actually reduces the usefulness of the information, since it would indiscriminately intermingle persons who are traditionally 4832:

There's also "But looking at our movement as a whole, looking at the atheist, freethought, Humanist movement", "it would leave us humanists and atheists and freethinkers", "In one sense we are all a minority since there are so few atheists and freethinkers", etc.

4214:

My preference would be for a single list of atheists, possibly divided into strong and weak categories. But if we're not going to do that, and if we're going to have the separate nontheist/weak atheist list, then this should be labelled a list of strong atheists.

2035:

The word 'or' doesn't imply controversy. The word 'or' can be used both inclusively and exclusively. For example, a dictionary definition that says "Apples are green or red" doesn't impicitly acknowledge that there is controversy about what colour apples really

3860:

Firstly, can we drop the "God or deities" thing in favor of simply "deities"? Otherwise we might as well have "God or Zeus or Pan or or deities". I'm not at all convinced that it's even necessary to define atheism on this page - that's what wikilinks are for.

5301:

The problem, as I've stated repeatedly, is that it is not a settled issue whether a "weak atheist" is a genuine atheist. References cited in this list and the Atheism article, as well as in this discussion page document that controversy pretty thoroughly.

3603:

I agree we'll always have some issues with the multi-faceted folk but I don't know that a separate section for them is the answer (not that I have a better one, admittedly). Re. Pasolini, I think he's best known as a film maker rather than author. Cheers,

4705:

As for Einstein, I think Dawkins had something to say on that matter, no? But, taking the broader definition, his "I am a deeply religious non-believer" makes him a explicit weak atheist, or at 'worst' a pantheist -- "sexed-up atheism" as Dawkins puts it.

818:

Thus, we could include people like Susan Blackmore without having to scrabble around (as I did) for a frankly puny quote that just happens to refer to 'atheism' to prove it -- for a woman who is thoroughly immersed in the scientific process, regards the

179:. I would point out, however, that even if Darrow does not end up being included in this list, the trouble and expense to which you went need not be for naught, as the informatin found in the article you downloaded can be used to enrich other articles. 1620:

Oolon, I didn't start with the premise that the page needs to kept under control, therefore let's employ a strict definition. Quite some time ago the then-current editors discussed the criteria and determined that a number of entries belonged in the

753:

atheism)." The question is, does person X believe in gods? If not, have they openly said so -- are they explicitly atheist? This does away with all the nonsense about whether they prefer to be called sceptics or humanists or rationalists or whatever.

1137:

whole new page if you like. Or retitle this one 'list of persons who are specifically identified as atheists', and strip out the extraneous entries. But a list of atheists should contain, well, atheists. Your methodology would have, I dunno, maybe

4022:

So, someone says "I do not believe in God". Nickian reasoning says that that person is 'merely' a nontheist. But what does "I do not believe in God" really mean? I submit (again) that it can only sensibly mean that the person does not believe god

704:, where list length is managed by having alphabetically organized sub-lists. It would be much better, I think, to start with some sort of category encompassing the other categories and lists of irreligious people/secularists/religious skeptics. 430:"Persons listed here have either been specifically identified as an "atheist" by a reliable source, or have expressed a position that is uncontroversially regarded as atheistic (that is, they have affirmed the nonexistence of God or deities)." 3486:

Well, I'm about to put him under sports folks, as that group is a bit thin, and I think the Olympic gold is the main thing: his business stuff looks solid but not too remarkable, and it seems it was those two together that got him into the

4356:"yes, I am "rejecting the distinction between strong and weak atheism"... when it comes to who should be included on a so-called 'list of atheists'!". Fair enough. Then what would separate the list of atheists from the list of nontheists? 4939:

himself agnostic. This issue is fundamentally terminological, not ontological. You seem to prefer the list to be oriented around what people call themselves, while I (and, I suspect, Oolon) would prefer it to be based on what they

4349:. Agnosticism is a stance regarding knowledge, not belief. It's true that I profess no knowledge about whether it will rain, but that's not the entirety of my position. I could still believe that it will rain without claiming to 3691:

red name, kind of on the principle that it's okay if they would / should / strongly might get a page eventually. Certainly, some people with pages seem less notable than some without. But as I say, no probs, and I agree with the

4127:

One more thing about categories. I really do not see the harm of having them overlap. After all, they do. Michael Shermer is a skeptic. But he's also an atheist. Jonathan Miller finds the label atheist distasteful, so he could

1669:

a 'list of atheists'. It is a list of the more explicit or strongly outspoken atheists, plus some self-identifiers. We need links to these other lists (non-theists etc) at the top, so people can easily get the whole picture.

4302:

And yes, of course, atheism is (or can be) more encompassing than just God with a capital G. I just used that as a more real-life-like example of what we might actually find someone saying. Not everyone writes books called

3625:

really does seem notable, do we consider it okay to leave them if someone adds them? Given the slightly ad hoc, make-a-page-if-you-want-to nature of Knowledge (XXG), it seems a bit tough to leave out people like Stone (or

2108:

the definitions. The very definitions, plural, that people will be using when viewing the list. They can argue "That's not really an atheist!" till they're blue in the face... and we can hit 'em with the No True Scotsman

842:

matter fall foul of all sorts of philosophical troubles of course. Even Dawkins is only a 6 leaning towards a 7 on his own scale, "agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

2559:

Therefore, we must either change the list's title to reflect its content, or amend the rules. As it stands, we are leaving out explicit-weak-atheists because they don't say the magic word, and including others because,

2308:

of what a persons actions or words "must" mean, or do we stay strictly rigorous - Jodie Foster, while cohabitating with a woman for decades, has never stated explicitly that she's a lesbian (or anything else). it's a

1360:

Then according to the Routledge definition -- "proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief" -- Clarence Darrow is an atheist. "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."

4885:

to better describe his position (note then, that in its original sense, agnosticism is a category distinct from atheism, rather than one overlapping it). More recently, Shermer, who had long held fast to the term

2248:

In short, there's divergent usages. So why leave out people who are unequivocally members of the group according to some definitions? Silly is too soft a word for it. I'm off to count some pinhead-dancing angels.

2210:

disbelief. Your example is not applicable here. Red is not a subset of green. A better example would be the meanings for the word whale: "A whale is a cetacean, or a cetacean that is not a porpoise or a dolphin."

4730:

would call nontheism (with many humanists being strong atheists too), and what non-Americans (such as myself, David, I'm guessing Ilkali, Terry "I'm a humanist which means I'm an atheist" Pratchett and co) call

1547:

causes confusion, then the policy should be changed. But this policy doesn't generally cause confusion all over Knowledge (XXG) (or does it?). Therefore, maybe we are misinterpreting the policy in this case...?

3215:

Ah, as Cole Porter would have put it, "the doo-doo that Pooh do so well"... But, unless we can find a bear that states they go nowhere else or self-identifies as an in-the-woods shitter, we can assume nothing.

823:

natural as non-existent (kinda rules out gods) and god-belief as a cultural virus. And we can exclude, one way or another, some of those on other such lists (eg CelebAtheists) where the evidence is actually

5092:

read the same passage from the Bible—Elijah's vision of the earthquake." If that were the only reference to Hardy's (non)beliefs -- I've not checked yet -- would it be good enough? It's practically hearsay!

4311:... but to define atheism as meaning against or disbelieving all gods is to go so far the other way as to produce a near-empty set, at least as far as what someone might say (and therefore we could verify). 5196:

Oolon, I have no objection to using that ref for Cowley being an atheist. It's a reliable source, and it says he was an atheist. As far as we know, Cowley never denied being an atheist. That's good enough.

4829:, he seems to be using the terms interchangeably. Specifically, the sentence "You know, we atheists and humanists pride ourselves in our skepticism" implies he is happy to be included in either category. 4553:. Not true: " or have expressed a position that is uncontroversially regarded as atheistic". So the inclusion criteria are actually: 1) Have been identified with the word 'atheist' by a "reliable source", 2407:

on this list: Pete Stark, and Culbert Olson. Now compare that with the number of UK atheist politicians. Wow! Five of them, from a nation 1/5th the size of the United States! There are some high positions

196:

call himself an agnostic, and was considered a champion for that position. Indeed, he probably ranks among such figures as T.H. Huxley and R.G. Ingersoll as an "Agnostic's Agnostic." Yes, he's an atheist

3496:

Heh. Just realised I called it 'sports', but it's titled athletes. Any problems with retitling it Sports, or Athletics and Sports? I feel we'd have a hard job putting, say, a darts player under it as it

2103:

of the word, atheists, whether they use that word to identify themselves or not? Sure, one man's atheist is another man's agnostic, nontheist, etc. But by not choosing a definition, Nick is effectively

5193:

otherwise reliable source (say, an article in a reputable magazine) is contradicted by an even more reliable source (say, the person themselves), we ought to go with what the more reliable source says.

223:

Thanks for the thanks, Nick (even though the first time I read it, it came across as 'thanks, now STFU noob' -- doubtless inadvertently I now think (on re-reading and becoming more used to your style).

4470:

accurately labeled as agnosticism, nontheism, or some other alternative. As documented in numerous reliable sources, it is not a settled issue as to whether mere nonbelief in deities is truly atheism.

2122:

In other words, we will perpetually go round and round in circles, with people constantly expecting the list to include people who fit some definitions but not others -- using the broader definition

2448:

assert that God does not exist. Who can settle this dispute? Not the various dictionary definitions, encyclopedias, theologians, or philosophers. They only document the different ways that the word

135:

reasonably uncommon -- well till the Out Campaign anyway ;-) -- for people to actually come out and use that evil, suspicion-inciting word 'atheist'. Anyone wanna argue it was less so in the 1930s?

3806:

I'm finding several atheists in the ODNB without pages here yet. I've left out the really minor ones, and apart from activists (as per above) I'd rather not have too many red links. But, how about

2870:

Thanks. That looks much better. There still is a lot of white space underneath and to the right of the table of contents, but that's much better than white space at the top of the article. Cheers.

3901:. The fact that we have two separate lists proves that we're assuming the term has a more restricted denotation. Plus the text in the intro states that weak atheists aren't automatically included. 175:

the trouble and expense to which you went in finding a quality source regarding Darrow's views. I simply thought the material didn't adequately support the case for his inclusion in the list, and

3718:, but I later realised that some of the really notable ones didn't have a Knowledge (XXG) page, so I scotched that policy quick smart. I think that you need to judge each entry on its merits. -- 1141:, excluded from a gay and lesbian list for never having openly proclaimed his homosexuality. Nope. The thing to do, as with that example, is to see if they can be 'found guilty' of the offence. 2701:. Deferring to identifications made in reliable source is consistent in its own way (with Knowledge (XXG) policy, that is), and preferable to imposing an artificial (and POV-based) consistency. 2179:

Of course, that might mean losing some of the self-identifying atheists... because we don't necessarily know which definition they were using when they self-applied it, and one man's atheist...

1326:

The repeated "confusion" over whom to include in this list boils down to a number of editors assuming/insisting that anyone who does not believe in God must be an atheist. They are right from a

1217:

in my opinion, this discussion only highlights that 'list of atheists' is inappropriate. better to simply maintain the standard wikipedia categories, perhaps expand them, and leave it at that.

4836:

But I'd like a second opinion as to whether that is good enough evidence of him regarding his (undoubted) humanism as just a different side of the same atheistic coin. I think so personally...

2288:

grief, by a personal loss - who, in those moments of pain, utter rejection of god? are they then fodder to have 'atheist' slapped on them? a curious 'reverso' situation occurs regularly with

4612:

I like the idea of wikilinks, Rachel. It lets people decide for themselves. And the main 'pedia page has the added advantage of backing up what I'm saying, with nice pictures an' all. :-D

4822:

have been a little hasty in thinking I had a ref for Edwords as an atheist. He's certainly no agnostic, and seems to always use the term humanist (aka weak, or possibly strong, atheist).

597:

I'd probably call it a list of unbelievers actually (despite the fact that Islam for example uses the term to refer to anyone who doesn't follow Islam, or even the right flavour of Islam.)

4001:

So much for Nick's version. It sounds terrific - right up until you give it a moment's thought (to nick, pun intended, a phrase from Dawkins :-D ). The problem is this: in order to be an

1947:

This is important, because dictionaries record usage. What, in other words, people are likely to mean when they use a term... or might expect to find in a Knowledge (XXG) article on it.

1930:

a god, and one who disbelieves (I assume we're agreed that if one disbelieves, it means you deny they exist. I'd have a hard time disbelieving I'm sitting on a chair if I thought I was.)

1260:

The disadvantage is, all that produces is a list of names. In itself, it provides no further information. No way for instance to tell whether, on this matter, the person's view ought to,

4413:"Saying that one does not believe in God/gods/deities is not unambiguously atheist, due to the fact that there is significant disagreement about whether that qualifies as atheism or not" 1473:

Are not 'weak atheists', atheists, according to some criteria? (If they're not, why are we calling them atheists at all?) Not according to all criteria, sure. But according to some, yes?

4993:

nontheist. A and B get put into different lists despite being otherwise identical. How is that useful? What information do you think people are looking for when they view this article?"

5070:

reliable 'someone else' ticks the box for us. Looks like we are abdicating, if not our duty as editors, at least our own brains. 'Let other people decide!' And they are more reliable,

2436:: "Some writers on this topic take the term 'atheism' to refer merely to a lack of theistic belief... such a definition... from the most common use of the term 'atheism' in English." 332:

6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

2304:

category regularly - while ignoring that her refusal to state her sexuality means that she could be lesbian, bisexual, asexual, or some combination therein. shall we go by people's

904:

Let's not worry about what the list would be called just now. That's easily solved later. Taking Oolon's lead... "List of people without a positive stance on the existence of god"!

696:

What do you think about some of the options I suggested in my first paragraph above? The omni-list is going to be a tough sell to the wider community of editors, and I speak from

535:

forth between these subcategories, a short summary of their unbelief can be attached to each entry. I am not suggesting that we necessarily call it the "List of unbelievers". --

280:

2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

4551:"The basic inclusion criteria that has long been in place here, and which I am supporting now, is that for our purposes, an atheist is anyone labeled as such by reliable sources" 2218:. If porpoises and dolphins were universally regarded as types of whales, there would be no need for that second clause. The definition would simply be "A whale is a cetacean." 604:

Sorry, I didn't mean to propose actually creating a list of believers - it was more a way of clarifying how I'd divide up the world, not how Knowledge (XXG) should implement it.

157:

Shermer's position has been misunderstood, requiring an official announcement, then so has Darrow. He can't now make one, but comparing God to Mother Goose is pretty assertive.

657:

such a list were to be created, it would not replace the existing lists, which are natural companion articles to their respective "ism" articles. When people are reading about

1597:

I don't get it. If there are a lot of verifiable atheists, then it's a long list. You can't define them out of existence just to keep the page under control. The criteria for

5006:

You say that there is a "need for non-definitional inclusion criteria, which for the most part depends on identifications made in reliable sources". Would you consider the

601:

debates about which list someone should be on. My categorisation provides very clear demarcation, unlike the present situation which involve both uncertainty and subsets.

3013: 2399:

Another cause for confusion is the differences between American and Commonwealth usage of English. Americans tend to be more conservative with regards to the meaning of

551:

who are also religious (Unitarian Universalist nontheists, for example). "Unbelievers" are already categorized in lists that link each other in the "See also" sections (

3864:

Secondly, if this is a list of strong atheists then let's label it as such. Otherwise we give undue weight to the view that strong atheism is synonymous with atheism.

1421:

what he (apparently) preferred to call himself. I expect Hitler preferred to call himself a nice bloke. As with Shermer, we are (or should be) interested in what they

192:

was in existence in Darrow's time, but to my knowledge, he never applied it to himself--which strongly suggests that he rejected that term in reference to himself. He

4059:

him, as he objects to the ideology -- typical bloody satirist in other words), I don't see how "I do not believe in God" means anything except "I do not believe God

2292:'s article. She has stated openly she's an atheist. she also celebrates christmas and hanukkah and other religious celebrations, and enjoys reading religious texts. 4009:-- make their nonbelief explicit. And that suggests some thought has gone into it on the part of the person, that is is not just passive, unconsidered weak atheism. 907:

You referred only to the volume of words in our recent exchanges, but I recall seeing that type of debate repeatedly on this page. It is a real source of confusion.

748:

Take the Shermer example. Under the current 'legislation', he'd have been excluded had he not actually called himself -- against his better judgement (cos he has a

5011:

this time she had become an atheist and socialist." Sez who?! Asked her, did they? Rejected the existence of God, did she? Or maybe <he says in a low growl: -->

188:(historically, and to the present day), we cannot definitively categorize Darrow as an atheist, even if he fits the category according to one definition. The term 2388:

tend to use the narrower one. Just to give you an (extreme) example of this divergence, take a look at the definition used by the conservative Christian-oriented

5039:

This is yet another reason why we must judge it ourselves, with justification. Definition says X, person says or is reliably associated with X, therefore person

131:

Don't you just love it? "I don't believe in God", says Darrow... and the journalist calls it agnosticism. Go figure. Actually, there's not much to figure: it is

319:

5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

4772:

Here we go again! This wikipedia article is crap becuase the criteria sucks, so the criteria has to change. (But what's all that stuff about big enders?) --

4667:

deities of any sort. For members of modern Western societies, it seems to go without saying that they do not believe in Odin, Hades, Verminus, or Kali, etc.

3856:"Note that, due to divergences in definition and usage, those who have merely expressed nonbelief in God or deities are not universally regarded as atheists" 3454:

I'll add in passing that I've not yet tracked down a proper ref for that -- undoubtedly genuine -- Crisp quote. Feel free to try, and we can put him in too.

383:

Thus it seems to me, this list should include everyone who makes it plain somehow that they are in category 6 (and any stray, strange 7s). If we accept that

2892:

That's caused by the {{-}} that I inserted. I like it like that because I don't like heading underlines running into pictures. You can remove the {{-}}. --

1231:

That might be an idea, Anastrophe. Add (if it's not already there) a bit about it under the person's personal life or whatever, and add 'em to the category.

926:

I quite like the list as it is sorted alphabetically within profession (even though that can be a tricky one to categorise too as I found out when I set up

417:"22:16, 22 April 2008 Nick Graves (Talk | contribs) (162,937 bytes) (Restored Lenin. Saying "I am an atheist" is not a necessary criterion for inclusion.)" 374:. If we were recompiling from scratch, who would not put him among the first ten entries we might think of? Yet he's technically agnostic. He even says so. 3926:

As I've been through this at length previously, let me offer Nick's answer (but hopefully more concisely, since it took me ages to figure out what he was

3582:

Again with these multi-talented buggers! I've just put him under authors, as it seems he did a lot of authoring. But I only knew him as a film director.

3234:": "Theirs goes `doo doo doo do do do, doo doo doo do do do' and mine goes `doo doo doo do do do, *do* doo doo doo do do do' – completely different." -- 144:... but note that he defines the term at the start as "a doubter". And he then goes on to list his reasons for doubt. But those are knowledge reasons. He 3550:

A Irish bobsledding politician?! We have one here in Australia... a Irish/Chinese Australian from the sunny state of Queensland with the curious name of

3436:

Sportsman, businessman or politician? I'd vote sports, as his most notable achievement would probably be winning an Olympic gold, but what do we think?

293:

3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4561:"It's not a definition-based inclusion criteria, which would depend on editors making their own decision about what the "true" definition of atheism is" 3687:, Neil Shubin and Ted Daeschler. He's also a staunch atheist. But because nobody's made a page, he can't go in. Which is why I was inclined to allow an 3083: 1294:

warranted. If they've got a short entry, won't it look odd, or even not unbalance (prose-wise, that is) the biog? Nah, the list has a place I think.

2618:

by excluding people who make statements no stronger -- or as strong -- as others we do include, just because they don't appropriately self-label too.

2492:

Thanks David. This brings up again the basic problem. I'd been ignoring it temporarily, but adding Francis Wheen just now brings it into sharp focus.

2003:

in these definitions if atheism were simply and uncontroversially understood as disbelief, since denial of God's existence is a subset of disbelief.

2099:

Are we to believe that someone, wishing to view a 'list of atheists', would not expect it to include those people who are, according to the meaning

4543:. Whether it's a misnomer is irrelevant. It's a well-used, unambiguous term with a clear denotation. While using 'atheism' to mean 'weak atheism' 4005:

atheist (the implicit variety being too nebulous and open to guesswork, and note that it includes children not brought up in a faith), one has to

2537:

And there's Darrow again. Compare to Wheen. "I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose." The sentence structure emphasises

701: 4093:

atheists, just because they preferred less in-your-face alternatives or didn't want to be on the receiving end of opprobrium (or the inquisitor).

5235:"how do we know whether or not someone is an atheist? I'd say, if they are identified as such in a reliable source, we know they are an atheist" 4136:;-) . As far as I'm aware, all humanists are atheists (though not all atheists are humanists), so those preferring that label should be here... 5105:

I really am starting to wonder what the point of this list is. How about we cut out everyone except those who self-identify in their own words?

184:

Finally, I'll just reiterate what I've said in different ways many times previously: Because of the controversy over the "true" definition of

3158: 1790: 1440: 1376: 1156: 874: 697: 387:

is a good, valid definition of an atheist, then on what grounds can we exclude people who unambiguously, explicitly, do not believe in gods?

4898:

to himself, saying that "If 'atheist' means someone who does not believe in God, then an atheist is what I am." Notice his use of the word

3904:

And why do we even care about whether a reliable source uses the word 'atheist', given that we all acknowledge how ambiguous that word is?

1049: 645:(human dignity and worth, scientific inquiry, etc.) If you would like to create an omni-list for atheists, agnostics, etc., something like 4722:), but it is mostly indifference to gods and such, focusing instead on people. Gods aren't so much non-existant as irrelevant (since they 4089:

bright, and so on. That means that it is easy -- too easy -- to omit from a list such as this those who are, on the Dawkins scale above,

2296:, regarding her sexuality, she has steadfastly refused to state what her sexuality is. because she cohabitates with a woman, many people 4654:

God"), then one does not believe in any gods. I do not have a strong opinion on whether the definitions recounted here ought to mention

1390:

No. You must take the whole definition into account to understand what is meant by "positive disbelief": "Atheism is the position that

97: 1459:"Any inclusion criterion that incorporates so-called "weak atheists" ... assumes the first point of view and dismisses the other." 5257:"What I oppose is the presumption that someone who says "I don't believe in God" must automatically be categorized as an atheist" 3431: 3143:

include some more, but others here might not... ;-) Seems other editors are using -- gasp! -- other definitions of 'atheist'...

1464:

Is the strong atheist position not a wholly-enclosed subset of the weak one? Do strong atheists not 'merely' disbelieve in gods,

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4944:. If a person is an X, he should be included on a list of Xs, regardless of whether he likes the term. Like I said above, if he 2420:

is perceived more negatively over here, those who merely disbelieve in God are more inclined to choose a more neutral term like

4933:"Fred Edwords considers himself agnostic, not atheist, and believes that denial of god(s) is required for one to be an atheist" 4229:

Oh, and can we drop the crazy notion that atheism is defined relative to God? God is just one god. Atheism is bigger than him.

3632:

On the other hand, I quite understand using 'do they have a page already?' as a good rule of thumb for someone's 'notability'.

148:, but he also explicitly did not believe in god. That makes him an atheist -- an explicit one, on the graphic and as described 2432:

In general parlance in the United States, mere nonbelief in God is not considered atheism. As American atheologian Ted Drange

1995:

in these definitions as implicit acknowledgment of the controversy or divergence in usage here. There would be no need to use

1863:

While the OED is generally regarded as the, erm, Bible on such things, let's see what other dictionaries say an atheist is...

5167: 4777: 3723: 3658:

then we can presume notability on our end. I'll also note that Stone's atheism is not yet confirmed in these sources either.

3567: 3410: 3239: 3206: 3174: 2897: 2857: 2808: 2736: 2479: 2055: 1515: 1060: 940: 617: 540: 2953:"Take Ionescu - un mare democrat, un mare european. Un om" ("Take Ionescu - a Great Democrat, a Great European. A Man"), in 3023: 901:

You asked me to comment on options in your "first paragraph above". Sorry, I don't know what options you are referring to.

4910:

label, premised on use of a definition that he himself does not prefer. I could list more examples, but I will end there.

4482:

by mislabeling someone as an atheist based on our own preferred interpretation of what an atheist is. Also, according to

3444: 3230:

I don't think it can be compared with the doo-doo that Pooh do. As Vanilla Ice said when comparing "Under Pressure" to "

140: 4054:

But compare that to "I don't believe in God". When might this turn up in any context other than when talking about god

3270:

are not yet in the List of atheists. Please remove them from this list once they are added to the main list. Thanks.

2973:. Please remove them from the list on this talk page once they are added to the article with a supporting reference. 3559: 306:

4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

38: 5163: 5122: 4843: 4773: 4760: 4741: 4617: 4337: 4171: 3836: 3789: 3749: 3719: 3699: 3642: 3593: 3563: 3558:. Due to the rather extreme lack of snow and ice in Australia, he used to practice in the underground carpark of 3510: 3461: 3235: 3221: 3202: 3192: 3170: 3154: 3130: 2893: 2853: 2804: 2732: 2653: 2597: 2475: 2254: 2184: 2051: 1971: 1786: 1675: 1611: 1553: 1511: 1495: 1436: 1372: 1299: 1188: 1152: 1056: 936: 870: 613: 536: 464: 400: 164: 111:

refusing to call a spade a spade, and of what I referred to above, of him (at worst) being an agnostic atheist?

4962:

identical. How is that useful? What information do you think people are looking for when they view this article?

646: 4752: 3400: 3008: 927: 4419:

though, yes? So omitting them from a list of atheists is a tacit assertion that weak atheists aren't atheists.

3038: 3003: 2465: 1975: 4563:. Which is a problem we wouldn't have if we explicitly split the list into strong and weak categories. True? 3831:, who's got an entry in the James Thompsons disambig page... which wasn't even red-linked till I made it so. 3139:

Hmmm. I've dug around on each of them down as far as Kong, and he's the first that should be included. Well,

4602: 3108: 3103: 1859:

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

609: 5259:. Assuming he means "I don't believe in any gods", and assuming his self-identification is accurate, he is 4110:

Nick, my own position is that a firm statement of disbelief (note that Jonathan Miller's series was called

3146: 1778: 1510:

Confusion is confusion. You are right, but being right is not a solution. That's why a change is needed. --

1428: 1364: 1144: 862: 3325: 3028: 2439:

I am not advocating ignoring the definitions. I am advocating taking an agnostic position on which is the

1543:

If a policy causes confusion, one should... do what? I'd suggest, take a closer look at the policy. If it

1482:

so-called "weak atheists" assumes the second point of view and dismisses the first. That's a violation of

47: 17: 4877:, and says he can be considered an agnostic instead. Huxley, no believer in deities, considered the term 4858: 2433: 267:

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

5307: 4919: 4799: 4693: 4672: 4495: 4490:, or own conclusions and interpretations must take a back seat to what is reported in reliable sources. 4403: 4041:

national football side to be a bunch of no-hopers, and so on, are generally understood from the context.

3884: 3663: 3477: 3275: 3073: 2978: 2875: 2841: 2706: 2461: 2365: 2323: 2223: 2022: 1530: 1399: 1343: 1222: 709: 582: 491: 210: 3943:

There are several definition of 'atheist'. Nobody disagrees that 'strong atheists', those who actually

2205:

David said "The word 'or' doesn't imply controversy." In this case it does--it is used exclusively. If

4541:"For those who regard genuine atheism to be only the denial of God/gods, "weak atheism" is a misnomer" 1519: 5118: 4839: 4756: 4737: 4711: 4613: 4333: 4167: 3832: 3785: 3745: 3695: 3638: 3589: 3506: 3457: 3345: 3217: 3188: 3150: 3126: 3033: 2649: 2593: 2250: 2180: 1967: 1782: 1671: 1607: 1549: 1491: 1432: 1368: 1295: 1184: 1148: 866: 460: 396: 160: 126:"I say that religion is the belief in future life and in God," he said. "I don't believe in either." 3395: 3113: 3053: 1347: 3405: 3380: 3365: 3350: 3305: 2471: 1468:

assert gods' non-existence? Do any strong atheists assert gods' non-existence, but believe in them?

650: 2970: 731:

list of people with a certain stance on the existence of god(s) -- those who clearly disavow them.

345:

7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

5250: 4598: 3609: 3532: 3420: 3118: 2770: 1714: 1631: 1622: 1568: 662: 573: 560: 3355: 3340: 3018: 4826: 2356:

So, Anastrophe, would you say you're in favor of including people on this list only if they've

669:. Creation of Category:Religious skeptics or Category:Secularists would also fulfill this role. 5205: 4854: 3678: 3285: 3068: 3048: 564: 556: 4475: 1602:

person expressing an opinion, or stating their postition to be, unambiguously in accord with

1483: 1335: 176: 5303: 5268: 5253:. If somebody identifies as an atheist, how do we know whether to put him/her here or there? 4970: 4915: 4795: 4689: 4668: 4632: 4568: 4491: 4428: 4399: 4364: 4234: 4220: 3909: 3880: 3869: 3770: 3659: 3653:

sources cited for his discoveries are journal articles written by Stone himself. That's not

3555: 3473: 3390: 3385: 3370: 3320: 3300: 3295: 3271: 3088: 3078: 2998: 2993: 2974: 2871: 2837: 2702: 2525: 2457: 2361: 2319: 2219: 2018: 1933:

Or in other words, the OED sums it up nicely. When someone uses the term atheist, they mean

1526: 1395: 1339: 1218: 1052: 705: 578: 552: 487: 206: 4479: 2310: 2284: 612:, who described himself as an atheist, an agnostic, and an ignostic, all in one breath. -- 3968: 3811: 3375: 3315: 1964:

To deny entry to those 'someones who disbelieve' is to deny half the OED entry's meaning.

1950:

What, then, might the average Knowledge (XXG) user expect to find on a list of atheists?

1018: 4487: 3810:? Seems a pretty important chemical engineer, at least as chemical engineers go (see the 1592:"I think we need the criteria reasonably strict to keep the list from getting too large." 5311: 5272: 5209: 5171: 5126: 4974: 4923: 4881:

inadequate, as he considered it to imply certainty, and felt compelled to coin the term

4847: 4803: 4781: 4764: 4745: 4697: 4676: 4636: 4621: 4606: 4572: 4557:

2) have expressed a position of strong atheism. That could be much clearer in the intro.

4499: 4432: 4407: 4368: 4341: 4238: 4224: 4175: 4084:

Naturally, considering the history of disbelief, not everyone wants or has wanted to be

3913: 3888: 3873: 3840: 3793: 3774: 3753: 3727: 3703: 3667: 3646: 3613: 3597: 3571: 3536: 3514: 3481: 3465: 3279: 3243: 3225: 3210: 3196: 3178: 3162: 3134: 2982: 2901: 2879: 2861: 2845: 2812: 2774: 2740: 2710: 2657: 2601: 2483: 2369: 2327: 2258: 2227: 2188: 2059: 2026: 1794: 1718: 1679: 1635: 1615: 1572: 1557: 1534: 1499: 1444: 1403: 1380: 1303: 1226: 1192: 1160: 1064: 944: 878: 713: 621: 586: 544: 495: 468: 404: 214: 168: 4703:

Of course, this depends on the definition of 'atheist', doesn't it? <rolls eyes: -->

4193:"I don't see how "I do not believe in God" means anything except "I do not believe God 3715: 3335: 3093: 3063: 1394:" (emphasis added). Darrow never affirmed the nonexistence of God. He was an agnostic. 4483: 4347:"Ref your 'will it rain' point, I'll mention in passing that that is pure agnosticism" 4281:

Ref your 'will it rain' point, I'll mention in passing that that is pure agnosticism.

3605: 3528: 3415: 3330: 2766: 1710: 1627: 1564: 447:

affirming the non-existence of Mother Goose (and by comparing them, God), in he goes.

3267: 3125:

Show-off :-D I assume (haven't checked yet) that they're all nicely reference-able?

5201: 4685: 3626: 3551: 3231: 3098: 3043: 2924: 2916: 2289: 1982: 4853:

Oolon, please take a look at the reference used for the Fred Edwords entry in the

3677:

amphibian transition) knows how notable he is: in the area, he's as big a name as

3635:

Any thoughts? I don't mind either way, just curious as to what the experts think.

4710:

As to the main point, Edwords himself discusses the various types of humanism in

2545:

it -- really mean? Are we to think he considered the possibility of Mother Goose

5264: 4966: 4628: 4564: 4424: 4360: 4230: 4216: 3905: 3865: 3766: 3290: 2952: 1138: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

775:

are atheists, and they (and we) can go on to split hairs about what label they

5088: 3828: 3807: 3741: 3360: 2988: 2318:

is what chugging a cup of strong coffee does to me, sorry for being verbose).

1870:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

666: 4597:

page need not define atheism in too great detail, but instead use wikilinks.

1022: 3683: 3310: 3201:

Come on man. Out with it! In plain simple English!! Bears do do doo-doo. --

2502:

to Mother Goose and statement that he did not believe in God... who doesn't.

1989: 1986: 1922:

I think we get the picture. A fairly even spread between it meaning one who

1606:, then in they go. And it's just tough on us if that makes it a long list. 1353:"... anyone who does not believe in God must be an atheist. ... They are 4332:

Well, that's my page, and you're welcome to join me on the same one :-)

4207:

nontheist list, we implicitly assert that weak atheists aren't atheists.

3058: 2928: 2389: 2047: 2008:"Half" of the meaning (singular) is not accurate--"half" of the meaning 658: 149: 4067:

statement meaning "I believe God does not exist". What else about God

3714:

I disagree. I originally had a policy like that when I was working on

3554:

is a politician who represented Australian in world championships for

3451:

Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?" "

2969:

Here are some more names that aren't on the list. They come from the

1425:-- as evinced by their words -- not what they liked to be known as. 4965:

And where would you even put people described as agnostic atheists?

4211:

The exception might be if he explicitly denies being a weak atheist.

970:

But rather than just post a 'me too' ;-) , a couple of minor points.

2404: 1354: 1331: 1327: 3967: 3629:-- note his 'numerology') just because nobody's made a page yet. 4154:

Hmmm. I appear to have written an essay. So I'll shut up now :-)

2301: 919:

different tags - and they only get included in one of the lists.

5237:. The problem is the lexical ambiguity. We have a single word, 4902:

in that sentence, and his later stated preference for the term

4547:

be a POV violation, simply using the term 'weak atheism' isn't.

3527:

I have no problem with renaming the section Sports... Cheers,

25: 4478:

regarding a contentious issue, and possibly running afoul of

3947:

the existence of god(s), are atheists. That's the core group.

370:

Now, I'm not regarding Dawkins here as authoritative. Merely

4684:

Oolon said that all humanists are atheists. This is not so:

1013:

And, uh, secondly... while I do like a good cuppa tea, it's

3183:

However, I have it on good authority that bears, you know,

2086:

The question really is, just what is the point of the list?

1918:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

1878:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

2731:"Who will decide which point of view is correct?" Me! -- 5062:

an atheist according to the dictionary, and so likely to

2214:

is used exclusively here, just as in the definitions for

114:

See, I took the trouble (and expense) of downloading the

1856:

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

526:: those who believe in any sort of god, personal or not. 2931:

prime minister (1921–1922) and self-proclaimed atheist.

2046:

belief), and despite dictionary defintion support, and

3744:. Seems pretty significant to me. No page yet though. 1025:. Pleased to meet you. Call me Simon, it's easier. :-) 5241:, that maps to multiple concepts - minimally, atheist 2564:, they do. That means this is not a list of atheists. 2050:... they do not make it to the list of atheists! -- 3893:

Then what is it a list of? In the broadest reading,

1981:

Here are a couple more surveys from the archives of

1840:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

443:

So, unless we consider it plausible that Darrow was

203:

even if they specifically called themselves atheists

1665:In which case, the page title is misleading. It is 4645:It's a shame that most of the sources that define 4474:"true" definition of atheism is, running afoul of 2134:atheists according to some definitions, after all! 1910:someone who believes that God or gods do not exist 700:. If we attempt that, I suggest we model it after 520:: basically, all atheists, agnostics and ignostics 4201:statement meaning "I believe God does not exist"" 3266:The following persons, currently included in the 5066:. Yet we're prone to leaving them out, unless a 577:would have the opposite of its intended effect. 4952:rejects the term then we can make an exception. 4480:policy concerning biographies of living persons 4134:whatever he prefers if only I could remember it 2126:, and that way does not leave out the atheists 4987:Nick, Nick, Nick... <shakes head sadly: --> 3586:Aaronovitch next to Asimov somehow. Thoughts? 3014:Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce, baron de Cloots 242:Heh. May as well quote Dawkins (TGD, p.50-51): 3984:those who, from the diagram, might be called 3620:Notable people without their own page already 8: 5251:an entirely different list for weak atheists 118:item I quoted from. The relevant bit reads: 2300:she's a lesbian, and people add her to the 2166:me, and I've been in this game a while now. 1898:Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary: 2452:has been used--they do not dictate how it 5263:a weak atheist. What's the problem here? 3879:It's not just a list of strong atheists. 3084:John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry 2965:Atheist thinkers and activists not listed 1844:, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness ( 1821:recording -- neutrally, as we do here -- 2699:usage of the term is itself inconsistent 2124:because it includes the narrower one too 1906:Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 1525:no, the solution is to abide by policy. 1478:Therefore, any inclusion criterion that 5162:to be an atheist and/or a humanist. -- 5008:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 4906:--it's a provisional acceptance of the 4260:a list of weak (or strong) atheists :-D 3445:Lords Hansard, 11 Mar 2004: Column 1372 2971:atheist thinkers and activists category 2941: 2803:Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi! -- 2443:one (note that, logically, they cannot 1894:one who believes that there is no deity 1886:someone who denies the existence of god 702:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people 531:he believed in God, he replied 'No.'". 4726:to be non-existent). Humanism is what 4688:is a counter-example, as is Einstein. 3447:(accessed 24 April 2008). </ref) 2474:discusses the various definitions. -- 122:He has not changed his agnostic views. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4794:What change do you suggest, and why? 4112:Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief 2631:Or else, we're being inconsistent by 508:A bold suggestion - merging the lists 7: 3024:Alex Epstein (American intellectual) 2511:The obvious problem is that this is 2012:(plural) is a better way to put it. 1957:gods' non-existence? Only those who 1902:a person who does not believe in God 1454:Going back to your original point... 4869:, but makes it clear that it's not 3980:... some authoritative definitions 3439:Here's the ref to c&p, anyway: 1815: 1484:Knowledge (XXG)'s neutrality policy 1336:Knowledge (XXG)'s neutrality policy 5089:the ODNB entry for Sir John Cowley 3716:List of notable judo practitioners 2396:s) document the different usages. 2283:well, first off, there's standard 2048:Knowledge (XXG) definition support 24: 4873:point of view, rejects the label 199:according to a certain definition 3432:Robin Dixon, 3rd Baron Glentoran 859:How about something like that? 29: 4755:, and ponder it WRT this list. 3827:And while we're at it, there's 3427:Robin Dixon - where to put him? 3262:Atheist philosophers not listed 1392:affirms the nonexistence of God 5012:she was just a non-believer... 3411:William Thompson (philosopher) 2765:That's the spirit...! Cheers, 1874:American Heritage Dictionary: 1828:Dictionaries, in other words. 1: 5087:I came across a reference in 3268:atheist philosophers category 1942:denies, the existence of gods 5144:be included and that's that! 5064:get identified as an atheist 4867:from a certain point of view 4476:neutral point of view policy 2017:side-steps the controversy. 1604:what people mean by the word 4751:I think we should all read 4415:. It unambiguously entails 2541:. But what does it -- what 1953:Would it be only those who 1505: 1050:so wrong, and sorry for the 385:explicit non-belief in gods 5340: 4924:22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4848:11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4765:14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4746:10:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4698:03:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4677:02:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4637:12:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4622:09:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4607:09:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4500:22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4433:05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4408:02:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 4369:14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4342:14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4239:12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4225:12:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 4176:09:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 3914:05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 3889:22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 3874:16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 3704:07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 3668:18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 3647:18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 3614:01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 3598:14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 3560:Parliament House, Canberra 3537:13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 3515:13:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 3482:23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 3466:15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 3280:22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3244:16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3226:09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3211:02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3197:09:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3179:07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3163:10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3135:08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2983:23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2813:10:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2775:09:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2741:02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2711:00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2658:10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2614:Or in short, we are being 2602:09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2313:, so we must abide by the 1832:Oxford English Dictionary: 653:would probably be better. 647:List of religious skeptics 496:22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 469:08:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 4753:this article by Tom Flynn 3681:, and the discoverers of 2902:17:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 2880:16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 2862:15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 2846:14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 2484:04:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 2466:16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2370:16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2328:15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2259:14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2228:14:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2189:14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2060:13:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2027:12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1991:. I interpret the use of 1976:09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1795:10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1719:10:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1680:10:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1636:09:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1616:09:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1573:08:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1558:08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1535:02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1520:02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1500:11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1445:10:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1404:10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1381:08:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 1348:19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1321: 1304:16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1227:15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1193:14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1161:15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1065:16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 945:14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 879:13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 714:03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 622:01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 587:17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 545:13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 405:14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 215:19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 169:13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 4488:original research policy 4071:there to not believe in? 3401:Tara Smith (philosopher) 3009:Pierre Gaspard Chaumette 949:I entirely agree, David. 928:List of celebrity judoka 5312:23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 5273:11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 5210:10:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 5172:09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 5127:09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 4975:06:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 4804:23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 4782:09:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 4573:05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 3841:11:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 3794:14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 3775:12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 3754:12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 3728:08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 3572:08:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 3109:Peter Schwartz (writer) 3104:Charles-Philippe Ronsin 1935:someone who disbelieves 1914:TheFreeDictionary.com: 1816:I'll be slightly longer 610:Michael Schmidt-Salomon 4890:for his position only 3986:weak explicit atheists 3972: 3829:James Matthew Thompson 2831:Infobox and aesthetics 1640:Oh okay, I see, sorry. 1338:. That's a bad thing. 152:. He may have been an 18:Talk:Lists of atheists 4650:not believe in God (" 3971: 3578:Pasolini, sections... 3326:Paolo Flores d'Arcais 3074:Charles Chilton Moore 3039:Tomás Garrido Canabal 3029:Paolo Flores d'Arcais 3004:Plutarco Elías Calles 1486:. That's a bad thing. 1328:certain point of view 138:To be sure, he wrote 42:of past discussions. 5164:David from Downunder 4774:David from Downunder 4484:verifiability policy 3720:David from Downunder 3564:David from Downunder 3236:David from Downunder 3203:David from Downunder 3171:David from Downunder 3034:George William Foote 2894:David from Downunder 2854:David from Downunder 2805:David from Downunder 2733:David from Downunder 2476:David from Downunder 2052:David from Downunder 1853:atheist, n. (and a.) 1512:David from Downunder 1057:David from Downunder 1023:this Oolon Colluphid 937:David from Downunder 614:David from Downunder 537:David from Downunder 141:Why I Am an Agnostic 4197:". That makes it a 4063:". That makes it a 3406:Strato of Lampsacus 3351:Rosalind Hursthouse 3306:Bion of Borysthenes 651:List of secularists 3973: 3897:means the same as 3421:Aleksandr Zinovyev 1623:List of nontheists 1355:wrong from another 1332:wrong from another 574:List of Christians 561:List of nontheists 177:edited accordingly 4894:applied the term 4855:List of agnostics 4712:What is Humanism? 3286:Ajita Kesakambali 3165: 3149:comment added by 3069:M. M. Mangasarian 2358:called themselves 2147:Can the atheists 1890:Merriam-Webster: 1797: 1781:comment added by 1447: 1431:comment added by 1383: 1367:comment added by 1163: 1147:comment added by 1021:; more precisely 881: 865:comment added by 698:bitter experience 565:List of humanists 557:List of agnostics 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5331: 3391:Revilo P. Oliver 3386:Ilkka Niiniluoto 3381:Sylvain Maréchal 3371:Adriaan Koerbagh 3321:Friedrich Engels 3301:Harry Binswanger 3296:Andrew Bernstein 3144: 3089:Ramswaroop Verma 3079:Basava Premanand 2999:Harry Binswanger 2994:Andrew Bernstein 2958: 2950: 2946: 2562:and only because 1866:Dictionary.com: 1776: 1466:and additionally 1426: 1362: 1142: 1017:, no 'g'. As in 860: 553:List of atheists 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5339: 5338: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5330: 5329: 5328: 5248: 5244: 5058:means that one 4816: 4007:say or do stuff 3853: 3812:George E. Davis 3622: 3580: 3429: 3376:Herbert Marcuse 3356:José Ingenieros 3346:Finngeir Hiorth 3341:Jürgen Habermas 3316:Joseph Dietzgen 3264: 3151:Oolon Colluphid 3019:Miguel Enríquez 2967: 2962: 2961: 2951:Marius Dobrin, 2948: 2947: 2943: 2938: 2914: 2833: 1959:call themselves 1818: 1783:Oolon Colluphid 1508: 1506:I'll be briefer 1433:Oolon Colluphid 1369:Oolon Colluphid 1324: 1149:Oolon Colluphid 1019:Oolon Colluphid 867:Oolon Colluphid 773:one god further 510: 108: 106:Clarence Darrow 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5337: 5335: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5254: 5246: 5242: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5197: 5194: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5013: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4963: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4927: 4926: 4911: 4815: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4749: 4748: 4733: 4732: 4707: 4706: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4640: 4639: 4624: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4558: 4548: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4471: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4420: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4357: 4354: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4227: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3902: 3852: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3808:Norman Swindin 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3778: 3777: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3740:Indeed. Take 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3693: 3671: 3670: 3621: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3579: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3546: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3428: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3418: 3413: 3408: 3403: 3398: 3396:Jayarama Reddy 3393: 3388: 3383: 3378: 3373: 3368: 3363: 3358: 3353: 3348: 3343: 3338: 3336:Allan Gotthelf 3333: 3328: 3323: 3318: 3313: 3308: 3303: 3298: 3293: 3288: 3263: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3122: 3121: 3116: 3114:Shalini Sehkar 3111: 3106: 3101: 3096: 3094:Sibnarayan Ray 3091: 3086: 3081: 3076: 3071: 3066: 3064:Abraham Kovoor 3061: 3056: 3054:David Holcberg 3051: 3049:Jacques Hébert 3046: 3041: 3036: 3031: 3026: 3021: 3016: 3011: 3006: 3001: 2996: 2991: 2966: 2963: 2960: 2959: 2940: 2939: 2937: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2913: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2865: 2864: 2832: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2487: 2486: 2412:Prime Minister 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2130:. These folks 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2030: 2029: 2005: 2004: 1920: 1919: 1912: 1911: 1904: 1903: 1896: 1895: 1888: 1887: 1880: 1879: 1872: 1871: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1838: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1538: 1537: 1507: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1488: 1487: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1461: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1385: 1384: 1358: 1323: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089:Edited to add: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 933: 932: 931: 924: 920: 916: 908: 905: 902: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 605: 602: 598: 590: 589: 569:separated into 528: 527: 521: 509: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 410: 409: 408: 407: 391: 390: 389: 388: 378: 377: 376: 375: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 246: 245: 244: 243: 237: 236: 235: 234: 227: 226: 225: 224: 218: 217: 181: 180: 129: 128: 127: 124: 123: 116:New York Times 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5336: 5313: 5309: 5305: 5300: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5287: 5274: 5270: 5266: 5262: 5258: 5255: 5252: 5240: 5236: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5211: 5207: 5203: 5198: 5195: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5173: 5169: 5165: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5090: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5042: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5033: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5009: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4991: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4951: 4950:unequivocally 4947: 4943: 4938: 4934: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4912: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4893: 4889: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4834: 4830: 4828: 4823: 4821: 4813: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4783: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4734: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4708: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4648: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4625: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4599:Rachel Pearce 4574: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4559: 4556: 4552: 4549: 4546: 4542: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4477: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4423:accordingly. 4421: 4418: 4414: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4353:that it will. 4352: 4348: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4310: 4308: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4202: 4200: 4196: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4092: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4057: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4026: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3970: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3946: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3930:saying :-p ). 3929: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3850: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3763: 3762: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3685: 3680: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3656: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3633: 3630: 3628: 3627:Lord Harrison 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3452: 3448: 3446: 3440: 3437: 3434: 3433: 3426: 3422: 3419: 3417: 3416:Raimo Tuomela 3414: 3412: 3409: 3407: 3404: 3402: 3399: 3397: 3394: 3392: 3389: 3387: 3384: 3382: 3379: 3377: 3374: 3372: 3369: 3367: 3366:Peter J. King 3364: 3362: 3359: 3357: 3354: 3352: 3349: 3347: 3344: 3342: 3339: 3337: 3334: 3332: 3331:Philippa Foot 3329: 3327: 3324: 3322: 3319: 3317: 3314: 3312: 3309: 3307: 3304: 3302: 3299: 3297: 3294: 3292: 3289: 3287: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3261: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3120: 3117: 3115: 3112: 3110: 3107: 3105: 3102: 3100: 3097: 3095: 3092: 3090: 3087: 3085: 3082: 3080: 3077: 3075: 3072: 3070: 3067: 3065: 3062: 3060: 3057: 3055: 3052: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3042: 3040: 3037: 3035: 3032: 3030: 3027: 3025: 3022: 3020: 3017: 3015: 3012: 3010: 3007: 3005: 3002: 3000: 2997: 2995: 2992: 2990: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2964: 2957: 2956: 2949:(in Romanian) 2945: 2942: 2935: 2930: 2927:(1858–1922): 2926: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2918: 2911: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2830: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2677: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2634: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2435: 2430: 2428: 2425:of the label 2423: 2419: 2415: 2413: 2406: 2402: 2397: 2395: 2391: 2390:Conservapedia 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2208: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2150: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2107: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1956: 1951: 1948: 1945: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1929: 1925: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1774: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1600: 1596: 1591: 1590: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1322:I'll be brief 1305: 1301: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1140: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1114: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1051: 1048:Oolon... I'm 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 948: 947: 946: 942: 938: 935:Thanks. -- 934: 929: 925: 921: 917: 914: 909: 906: 903: 900: 899: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 822: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 800: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 778: 774: 771:those who go 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 751: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 641:believers in 640: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 623: 619: 615: 611: 606: 603: 599: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 588: 584: 580: 575: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 549: 548: 547: 546: 542: 538: 532: 525: 522: 519: 516: 515: 514: 507: 497: 493: 489: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 470: 466: 462: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 446: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 406: 402: 398: 395: 394: 393: 392: 386: 382: 381: 380: 379: 373: 369: 368: 367: 366: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 241: 240: 239: 238: 231: 230: 229: 228: 222: 221: 220: 219: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 195: 191: 187: 183: 182: 178: 173: 172: 171: 170: 166: 162: 158: 155: 151: 147: 143: 142: 136: 134: 125: 121: 120: 119: 117: 112: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5260: 5256: 5238: 5234: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5040: 5007: 4989: 4949: 4945: 4941: 4936: 4932: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4838: 4835: 4831: 4824: 4819: 4817: 4814:Fred Edwords 4750: 4727: 4723: 4719: 4715: 4686:Fred Edwords 4683: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4646: 4595: 4560: 4554: 4550: 4544: 4540: 4417:weak atheism 4416: 4412: 4350: 4346: 4306: 4304: 4198: 4194: 4192: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4111: 4107: 4090: 4085: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4055: 4024: 4006: 4002: 3985: 3981: 3944: 3927: 3898: 3894: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3854: 3688: 3682: 3654: 3637: 3634: 3631: 3623: 3588: 3584: 3581: 3545: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3441: 3438: 3435: 3430: 3265: 3232:Ice Ice Baby 3184: 3140: 3099:John Ridpath 3044:Prabir Ghosh 2968: 2954: 2944: 2925:Take Ionescu 2917:Take Ionescu 2915: 2912:Take Ionescu 2834: 2698: 2675: 2632: 2616:inconsistent 2615: 2561: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2512: 2472:This article 2453: 2449: 2444: 2440: 2438: 2431: 2426: 2421: 2417: 2411: 2409: 2400: 2398: 2393: 2386: 2357: 2314: 2305: 2297: 2293: 2290:Jodie Foster 2215: 2211: 2206: 2148: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2105: 2100: 2013: 2009: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1983:Talk:Atheism 1966: 1963: 1958: 1954: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1932: 1927: 1923: 1921: 1913: 1905: 1897: 1889: 1881: 1873: 1865: 1862: 1845: 1841: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1822: 1819: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1666: 1603: 1598: 1544: 1509: 1479: 1465: 1422: 1418: 1391: 1325: 1261: 1112: 1014: 912: 820: 798: 776: 772: 749: 654: 642: 638: 568: 533: 529: 523: 517: 511: 444: 384: 371: 202: 198: 193: 189: 185: 159: 153: 145: 139: 137: 132: 130: 115: 113: 109: 78: 43: 37: 5304:Nick Graves 5261:necessarily 5245:and atheist 4916:Nick Graves 4859:Atheism 101 4818:Okay, so I 4796:Nick Graves 4716:effectively 4690:Nick Graves 4669:Nick Graves 4492:Nick Graves 4400:Nick Graves 3881:Nick Graves 3851:Definitions 3692:reasons :-) 3679:Jenny Clack 3660:Nick Graves 3655:independent 3552:Bill O'Chee 3474:Nick Graves 3291:Bruno Bauer 3272:Nick Graves 3145:—Preceding 3119:Sean Sinjin 2975:Nick Graves 2872:Nick Graves 2838:Nick Graves 2703:Nick Graves 2458:Nick Graves 2405:politicians 2362:Nick Graves 2306:assumptions 2220:Nick Graves 2019:Nick Graves 1961:atheists? 1777:—Preceding 1764:are listed 1427:—Preceding 1419:We all know 1396:Nick Graves 1363:—Preceding 1340:Nick Graves 1330:. They are 1262:prima facie 1143:—Preceding 1139:Alan Turing 861:—Preceding 779:afterwards. 706:Nick Graves 579:Nick Graves 518:unbelievers 488:Nick Graves 207:Nick Graves 36:This is an 4946:explicitly 4892:grudgingly 4720:sensu lato 4141:atheistic? 3960:However... 3689:occasional 3361:Eino Kaila 2989:A. B. Shah 2636:inclusion. 2360:atheists? 2320:Anastrophe 2294:conversely 2152:atheists'. 2149:sensu lato 2128:sensu lato 1823:word usage 1527:Anastrophe 1219:Anastrophe 1115:atheists." 824:ambiguous. 98:Archive 10 5068:hopefully 4718:atheism ( 4132:go under 3899:nontheist 3684:Tiktaalik 3442:(ref: --> 3311:Carneades 2936:Reference 2456:be used. 1882:WordNet: 1848:atheism). 1846:practical 915:atheists. 643:something 524:believers 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 4904:agnostic 4888:agnostic 4883:agnostic 4731:atheism. 4305:Against 4199:de facto 4091:de facto 4065:de facto 4003:explicit 3742:this guy 3606:Ian Rose 3556:skeleton 3529:Ian Rose 3159:contribs 3147:unsigned 2929:Romanian 2767:Ian Rose 2547:existing 2434:observes 2422:agnostic 2109:fallacy. 2106:ignoring 1791:contribs 1779:unsigned 1711:Ian Rose 1709:Cheers, 1628:Ian Rose 1599:evidence 1565:Ian Rose 1545:innately 1480:excludes 1441:contribs 1429:unsigned 1377:contribs 1365:unsigned 1157:contribs 1145:unsigned 898:Nick... 875:contribs 863:unsigned 372:sensible 154:agnostic 5239:atheist 5202:Rohirok 4908:atheist 4896:atheist 4879:atheist 4875:atheist 4863:atheist 4660:deities 4647:atheism 4195:is real 4061:is real 3982:exclude 3895:atheist 3814:entry). 3497:stands! 3059:Inkulab 2955:Respiro 2450:atheist 2427:atheist 2418:atheist 2401:atheist 2315:absence 2216:atheist 2014:Atheism 1924:asserts 1837:atheism 1589:Hi Ian 1053:lapsang 659:Atheism 190:atheist 186:atheist 146:doubted 39:archive 5265:Ilkali 4988:... I 4967:Ilkali 4937:labels 4736:TTFN! 4629:Ilkali 4565:Ilkali 4425:Ilkali 4361:Ilkali 4231:Ilkali 4217:Ilkali 4108:contra 4025:exists 3928:really 3906:Ilkali 3866:Ilkali 3767:Ilkali 3487:Lords. 2539:belief 2454:should 2416:Since 2311:WP:BLP 2298:assume 2285:WP:BLP 2001:denial 1955:assert 1926:there 1055:. -- 777:prefer 750:better 5119:Oolon 4935:. He 4840:Oolon 4820:might 4757:Oolon 4738:Oolon 4662:, or 4627:now. 4614:Oolon 4545:might 4334:Oolon 4168:Oolon 4086:quite 3833:Oolon 3786:Oolon 3746:Oolon 3696:Oolon 3639:Oolon 3590:Oolon 3562:. -- 3507:Oolon 3458:Oolon 3218:Oolon 3189:Oolon 3187:... 3127:Oolon 2674:This 2650:Oolon 2594:Oolon 2584:too?! 2526:Wheen 2524:Take 2441:right 2414:even! 2408:too-- 2251:Oolon 2181:Oolon 2073:down. 1968:Oolon 1928:isn't 1773:here' 1672:Oolon 1608:Oolon 1550:Oolon 1492:Oolon 1296:Oolon 1185:Oolon 1015:Oolon 821:super 461:Oolon 397:Oolon 161:Oolon 133:still 16:< 5308:talk 5269:talk 5206:talk 5168:talk 5123:talk 4971:talk 4948:and 4920:talk 4844:talk 4827:here 4825:But 4800:talk 4778:talk 4761:talk 4742:talk 4724:seem 4694:talk 4673:talk 4664:gods 4633:talk 4618:talk 4603:talk 4569:talk 4496:talk 4486:and 4429:talk 4404:talk 4365:talk 4351:know 4338:talk 4309:Gods 4235:talk 4221:talk 4172:talk 4130:also 4106:So, 3945:deny 3910:talk 3885:talk 3870:talk 3837:talk 3790:talk 3771:talk 3750:talk 3724:talk 3700:talk 3664:talk 3643:talk 3610:talk 3594:talk 3568:talk 3533:talk 3511:talk 3478:talk 3462:talk 3276:talk 3240:talk 3222:talk 3207:talk 3193:talk 3175:talk 3155:talk 3131:talk 2979:talk 2898:talk 2876:talk 2858:talk 2842:talk 2809:talk 2771:talk 2737:talk 2707:talk 2654:talk 2598:talk 2480:talk 2462:talk 2366:talk 2324:talk 2302:LGBT 2255:talk 2224:talk 2185:talk 2056:talk 2036:are. 2023:talk 1972:talk 1842:Also 1787:talk 1771:and 1769:here 1766:here 1762:this 1760:and 1758:this 1754:this 1715:talk 1676:talk 1632:talk 1612:talk 1569:talk 1554:talk 1531:talk 1516:talk 1496:talk 1437:talk 1400:talk 1373:talk 1344:talk 1300:talk 1223:talk 1189:talk 1153:talk 1061:talk 941:talk 871:talk 710:talk 667:here 665:and 663:here 618:talk 583:talk 541:talk 492:talk 465:talk 401:talk 254:way. 211:talk 165:talk 150:here 5072:how 4942:are 4871:his 4728:you 4656:God 4652:the 4307:All 4138:and 4056:qua 3141:I'd 2543:can 2513:not 2445:all 2132:are 1999:or 1944:. 1775:. 1667:not 1423:are 1113:are 913:are 649:or 639:are 445:not 194:did 5310:) 5271:) 5208:) 5170:) 5125:) 5060:is 5041:is 4990:do 4973:) 4922:) 4900:if 4857:: 4846:) 4802:) 4780:) 4763:) 4744:) 4696:) 4675:) 4658:, 4635:) 4620:) 4605:) 4571:) 4555:or 4498:) 4431:) 4406:) 4367:) 4340:) 4237:) 4223:) 4174:) 4069:is 3912:) 3887:) 3872:) 3839:) 3792:) 3773:) 3752:) 3726:) 3702:) 3666:) 3645:) 3612:) 3596:) 3570:) 3535:) 3513:) 3480:) 3464:) 3278:) 3242:) 3224:) 3209:) 3195:) 3185:do 3177:) 3161:) 3157:• 3133:) 2981:) 2900:) 2878:) 2860:) 2852:-- 2844:) 2811:) 2773:) 2739:) 2709:) 2676:is 2656:) 2633:in 2600:) 2482:) 2464:) 2429:. 2410:a 2394:or 2368:) 2326:) 2257:) 2226:) 2212:Or 2207:or 2187:) 2058:) 2025:) 1997:or 1993:or 1988:, 1985:: 1974:) 1939:or 1937:, 1825:. 1793:) 1789:• 1756:, 1717:) 1678:) 1634:) 1614:) 1571:) 1556:) 1533:) 1518:) 1498:) 1443:) 1439:• 1402:) 1379:) 1375:• 1357:." 1346:) 1302:) 1225:) 1191:) 1159:) 1155:• 1063:) 943:) 877:) 873:• 712:) 655:If 620:) 585:) 563:, 559:, 555:, 543:) 494:) 467:) 403:) 213:) 167:) 94:→ 64:← 5306:( 5267:( 5247:2 5243:1 5204:( 5166:( 5121:( 5074:? 4969:( 4918:( 4842:( 4798:( 4776:( 4759:( 4740:( 4692:( 4671:( 4631:( 4616:( 4601:( 4567:( 4494:( 4427:( 4402:( 4363:( 4336:( 4233:( 4219:( 4170:( 4027:. 3908:( 3883:( 3868:( 3835:( 3788:( 3769:( 3748:( 3722:( 3698:( 3662:( 3641:( 3608:( 3592:( 3566:( 3531:( 3509:( 3476:( 3460:( 3274:( 3238:( 3220:( 3205:( 3191:( 3173:( 3153:( 3129:( 2977:( 2896:( 2874:( 2856:( 2840:( 2807:( 2769:( 2735:( 2705:( 2652:( 2596:( 2478:( 2460:( 2364:( 2322:( 2253:( 2222:( 2183:( 2101:s 2054:( 2021:( 2010:s 1970:( 1785:( 1713:( 1674:( 1630:( 1610:( 1567:( 1552:( 1529:( 1514:( 1494:( 1435:( 1398:( 1371:( 1342:( 1298:( 1221:( 1187:( 1151:( 1059:( 939:( 930:) 869:( 801:. 799:X 708:( 616:( 581:( 539:( 490:( 463:( 399:( 209:( 163:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index