Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 10

212:

atheism is defined as "lack of belief in god(s)", so if a person says "I dont believe in God" that is sufficient to make them an atheist. There is no reason to require the precise wording "I am an atheist" bed', because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception." However, those who are not atheists, or do not consider themselves atheists, have almost exclusively conceived of atheism in terms of disbelief/denial in/of gods. Today, many, if not most individuals who answer no to the question, "do you believe in god(s)", also distinguish their perspective from "atheism", because these individuals consider atheism a denial, or positive disbelief in gods, as opposed to what they have, which is more generally a lack of belief in gods. My understanding is that when atheists today push the "atheism is the lack of belief in gods" mantra they are doing one or both of two things - 1) taking the same old atheist philosophical stance that hinges upon a rationalist/materialist rejection of gods as a sensible idea, and therefore rejecting the very idea of rejecting gods and/or 2) making a contemporary appeal to softer notions of atheism in ordcause WP policy is to use the plain meaning of words. Also, the source can be a biographer or interviewer, in addition to the person themself. Please, no more renaming. --

2639:. No more editors who use the (correct) disbelief definition adding someone only to be shouted down by others who use the (correct) existence-denial definition. No more "I don't believe in god" barred as insufficient but "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god" a shoo-in. No more "God's about as plausible as Mother Goose and I don't believe in either, so I'm an agnostic" being rejected. All that bollocks. In short, no more crap about whether someone is an "atheist", whether that jelly word can be or was correctly nailed to them. Just a list of people who don't believe in god(s). (Which would be identical to a list of atheists 361:'s many comments on the matter - e.g. "I do not deny 'God', because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception." However, those who are not atheists, or do not consider themselves atheists, have almost exclusively conceived of atheism in terms of disbelief/denial in/of gods. Today, many, if not most individuals who answer no to the question, "do you believe in god(s)", also distinguish their perspective from "atheism", because these individuals consider atheism a denial, or positive disbelief in gods, 2246:"Was it then a very religious upbringing? "First of all, they were continental Catholics, not Irish Catholics, and that makes a big difference," he replies. "It was much more sophisticated, to do with having the priest round for drinks and telling a few saucy jokes. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we confess. But in terms of attendance at church, and the whole immersion in the language and imagery of religion, yes, very much. I was very religiously inclined. I wanted to be a priest." Do you still have faith? "No," he guffaws. "But I still have hope!"" Peter Ross interviewing Callow, 'The Lost Boy', 1177:(I haven't checked, but I presume the proposer has put this on the talk page of that list}, trample all over BLPCAT (there seems to be a serious move to water it down in various ways), there are similarities between many Christians and atheists in moral codes but the differences are enough to have different lists, just as here. I see some editors are willing to label people who haven't used the label for themselves, but I'm not one of them. This also seems to be an attempt to bring back at least in part the 'nontheist' title as an umbrella term, and that's been rejected more than once this year IIRC. 628:

otherwise). I presume that, at some point in the past, a proposal was made to modify BLPCAT to say "the self-identification must use the precise word XYZ"; that that proposal failed. And it failed because many counter-examples can be found (e.g. Mormon vs LDS etc). Not only did it fail (or would fail, if it has not been proposed yet) there are even cogent arguments suggesting that the entire self-identification requirement be eliminated. In sum: the BLPCAT policy is in a very unsettled state, and we should not consider it to be black-and-white. --

207:

opinion on the renames is "No", for several reasons: (1) Atheism is a very, very significant belief system; (2) Atheism is different from agnosticism; and (3) these atheism lists have always had the rule that persons could only be included if they were atheists (not agnostics). Granted, some definitions of atheism overlap with some definitions of agnosticism, but that fuzziness is no reason for us in WP to unilaterally combine the two concepts (which would just exacerbate the fuzziness, not clarify it). Furthermore, there is

1873:. "He's a chef!" "No, he's a food writer!" "Here he is on telly cooking stuff!" "But he doesn't run a restaurant so he can't be a chef!" "According to Braithwaite (2004), chefism is defined as..." And so on. Does any of that matter to compilers of a 'List of people professionally involved with food'? The labels are nothing but obfuscation, a failure to see the wood for the trees. If you're seeing how many trees you can find in a wood, does it matter which ones are oaks, which are beeches and which are chestnuts? 279:

self-identifying sense or the strict descriptive sense. Part of the problem is the contemporary re-definition of atheism within atheist circles as something much softer than it was traditionally considered. Atheists go around claiming that atheism is simply a "lack of belief" instead of an affirmative belief that there are definitely no god(s). However, social scientists do not share this classification scheme, in no small part due to the fact that most of their "non-believing" survey respondents don't either.

1988:

themselves mainstream. Would there be any problem having a List of ex-Catholics? (Yeah yeah, probably, because you could use 'former', but you get the point I hope. If for some, erm, god-forsaken, reason one wanted to list people who are not Catholics, what the blazes could you call them other than 'non-Catholics'? That wouldn't be a neologism, it'd be common sense use of English, readily understood by all but those who'd need to look up 'non-' in the first place. In effect, it's just applying an adjective.)

1768:“atypical,” or “asymmetrical.” So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle. Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist. 2478:. WP's own page notes that "Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge)." I don't see a way round excluding them, if we say it's a 'List of ... agnostics ...'. But their inclusion would be ludicrously incongruous. And we can hardly call it a 'List of atheists and agnostic atheists' (or atheist agnostics), can we? 227: 2041:– Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. -- Well, this is solved by redirects; I wonder if people search for lists much compared with subjects; if someone searches for a list of atheists and gets a list of non-theists which includes 'agnostics', (a) would they mind, given that it only lists 31: 2496:

lumping theistic ones in there?). We can have an intro that goes into details; I don't see why we have to have all the details in the title -- not when one (compound) word we're already using covers the lot. Would we have a 'List of oaks, chestnuts and trees'? (In fact, 'atheists, agnostics, and non-theists' is more like 'oaks, hollies and trees', for holly can also be a bush, but we're not interested in those ones. I hope you get my drift.)

240: 366:

rationalist/materialist rejection of gods as a sensible idea, and therefore rejecting the very idea of rejecting gods and/or 2) making a contemporary appeal to softer notions of atheism in order to claim a larger cohort for themselves. Anyway, neither is a strong selling point to me, and both are socio-political moves of one sort or another which do a disservice to a majority of us who are without belief and not atheists. Cheers.

1062:- far too broad a list, issues in figuring out inclusion criteria, problems with BLPCAT etc etc. It does not solve the problem of identifying list members (because nontheist is also a controversial term & lumping non-atheists who qualify as non-theist is a huge no-no). Additionally nontheist covers a huge category of lists we already have (Buddhists for example) making it too broad to be of use. Bad solution to the problem. -- 246: 1303:

proposal. But then, there are other individuals who would object to being lumped together with others on the list. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe a way to go would be to have a combined list, but with separate sections, and place people into those sections where the sources say they belong. On the other hand, one could also have sub-groupings on the separate list pages that exist now. --

432:(POV) that the arguments of atheists concerning "lack of belief in gods" are not convincing. However, the socio-historical reality governing the use and understanding of the term "atheism" is not simply my perspective (e.g. it continues in the Oxford sources to mean something much more affirmative than "lack of belief"). That said, for the purposes of Knowledge (XXG), 472: 613:, and that's just for starters. The same is true, as Jayen points out, with "I don't believe in God". The fact that so many people continue to say that this is a sufficient statement to label a person an atheist makes it abundantly clear that stricter guidelines are required - because we can't trust people to understand the subtleties involved. 1363:- Just want to make sure everyone knows the original proposal above is over a year old. It just so happens that another editor, apparently unaware of this dormant discussion, yesterday renamed two of the Lists in accordance with this proposal. So, we know that this proposal has occurred to several editors over the past few years. -- 1085:, not necessarily those who self-identify by a certain word that refers to that position. Such figures as US congressman Pete Stark, who has confirmed that he does not believe in God, and whose non-belief is significant to his public life, would be excluded by insisting that he say the "magic" word. Those who object to the label 844:, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." 2221:"Born in Dublin in 1949, Caffrey enjoyed acting in school plays but subsequently went to a seminary for two years with a view to becoming a priest (he later played one in Coronation Street). He came out an atheist and studied English at University College, Dublin, before teaching at a primary school for a year." 2459:

Yes, that latter format (simply appending the quote from the source into the entry) would make this proposal more palatable. Note that the quotes already in the footnotes are sometimes a quote from the person; sometimes a quote from their biographer. As for the title of the lists: I have no strong

2140:

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

1738:

So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the

1151:

to not permit contextual information to accompany each person's entry in the Category. But Lists do not suffer from that shortcoming: Lists have provisions for detailed, contextual information next to each person's entry. Finally, in light of the tremendous definitional overlap between "agnostic"

707:

I don't know how useful that would be. The word "atheist" means what it means. A handful of editors on this Talk page are not going to come up with a better definition that what is in reliable dictionaries. The fact that there is a fuzzy overlap between atheism and agnosticism is annoying, but we

392:

on whether to limit this list of those involved in the socio-political movement, or to those with declared atheist beliefs. I think it is clear at this point that the latter is preferred for reasons of ease (we could be here arguing for ages whether someone meets the definition of Atheist or atheist)

108:

Consensus in that discussion has been not to list living people as atheists unless they have publicly self-identified specifically as an atheist, out of concern for BLP. The consensus at this list has been to be inclusive of all nonbelievers in deities, and there are quite a few already listed on the

2634:

such that it made workable sense at last: the loose, 'weak atheism' definition, synonymous with simple lack of belief, 'non-theism' -- a list of people who are not theists. Does so-and-so believe in gods? Yes / no, black or white, in or out, sorted. No more crap about whether (eg) Sagan was atheisty

2533:

make any statement about whether or not agnostics are theists or nontheists - thus leading to the "Agnostics, or atheists, or other/nontheists" proposal. In summary: If the list were titled "Nontheists" it could contain atheists and "others", but not agnostics. BTW: when the lists were named to

2010:

in their belief!) (A parallel list of agnostic theists might be interesting and useful in its own right, however.) 'List of atheists and belief-less (non-believing? ;-) ) agnostics' strikes me as a bit daft. Whichever way you look at it, we're just messing around with more or less convoluted ways of

1629:

Regarding omitting classifications and relying on source: that could perhaps work, if every individual in the list had text adjacent including the quote from the source. But, as the lists are now, the reader would be forced to jump down to the footnote to read. I kind of see what you are saying,

1614:

As for Nontheist being a less well known word, well, 'List of people who don't or didn't believe in God(s)' is rather a mouthful, though that's all it means. Unbelievers? God(s)less? Nontheist may be somewhat rarer, but at least nobody should struggle to understand it :-) But then, I may be so used

1578:

Heh, well you've nipped in before I could add what I was going to about the sublists, but here it is: There's no need to subdivide: each person's specifics, where known, will be plainly shown in the reference that justifies their inclusion. So the list simply contains unbelievers, and A says he's an

1516:

subdividing by shades of unbelief. It would seem to defeat the object of this exercise. There's too much overlap, too many nested concepts, and most importantly, too many people for whom their more precise position is simply unknown. I can't see the value of solving our problems only to open them up

1302:

It seems to me that we should always be guided here by how the sources indicate that the people listed would identify themselves. On the one hand, there are lots of individuals who self-identify in ways that span the categories, and we could avoid problems with those individuals by implementing this

627:

I hear what you are saying. But there is no WP policy that says "a specific magic word must be used" in the BLPCAT situation. To the contrary, throughout WP, policies are applied using common sense and normal English usage. Everything in WP is handled in a case-by-case basis (unless a policy says

549:

Jayen: If a woman said "I've always known I was not heterosexual - I've always been attracted to women", would that meet the LGBT self-identification requirement? Of course. Words have plain meanings, and there is no WP requirement for a magic word. We simply need to use the plain definition of

1638:

Ag or Ath, your proposal would hide that fact from readers. Regarding borderline cases like Einstein ... if there were classifications, they would have to go into the "Other/Nontheist" class. Maybe your proposal could work if someone (you :-) volunteered to put the quote from the source next to

1538:

of atheist and/or agnostic would entail WP promoting a neologism; or so the argument goes). So my gut feeling on Step 2 is to aim for a broader title that minimizes dispute. Regarding subdivisions within a merged list: The use of terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are very widespread, and they have

1218:

Well it's your toy, you can play with it how you like I guess. I've given up banging my head against this particularly thick brick wall. Just strikes me as odd that such people might not belong in a List of Agnostics if they're called 'atheist' in the reference, and so fall between two stools... so

771:

That's an awfully wordy suggested renaming, Noleander. If only there were some word that universally and uncontroversially applied to "person that don't believe in God(s)"... Griswaldo has a point about it being problematic to include living people who don't believe in deities, but who might object

650:

to expect them to have used that magic word about themselves, or at least an expression that is universally recognised as a direct synonym. I think we are okay with LDS and Mormon, but the fact that so many editors insist that not believing in God is the same as atheism indicates that we have to be

436:

anyway. For living subjects we need a declared affiliation with "atheism" specifically. For dead subjects we need a reliable source calling them "atheists", specifically. Putting out a definition on this page is problematic because it will make some believe that they can categorize an individual

2495:

which agnostics are the right sort. But hinting and unambiguity are strange bedfellows. Sorry, but 'atheists, agnostics, and non-theists' just doesn't work. 'Non-theists' makes 'atheists' redundant (but we need it for the term-avoiding godless), and not all agnostics are non-theists (so why are we

1994:

As for there not being overlap between atheist and agnostic, well there may often not be, in terms of what label gets applied or how people view themselves or what term they prefer or whatever, but it's a simple fact nevertheless: (a)theist is about belief, agnostic is about the reason(s) for that

1588:

of them can be further subdivided. Why not just let the references speak for themselves? If the ref calls someone one thing or the other, the information is not lost; all that's lost is the editorial decision that grouped them one way or another. Having been involved in these sometimes rather warm

1533:

Good comments. I think this is a two step process: (1) Determine if it is a good idea to have a merged list; and (2) decide what the name should be. There are several candidate names for a merged list. The candidate at the top of this section ("List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists" ) was

939:

scientist (who's only known as a scientist), since whatever the person actually believes, their scientific work is a-theistic. For a composer? Depends if they've had to write any spiritual music, I guess! If a songwriter never mentions that stuff in his lyrics, he's out, but if he does on his next

406:

Meh. I see, and agree with, the distinction you are making. However; someone saying "I do not believe in a God" has clear disbelief. I have to confess; I have always seen the argument of "I do not disbelief, I only lack belief" as being simply a distinction made recently popular by those rejecting

382:

I don't find this a particularly convincing argument, I have to admit. For the most part because it appears to be your perspective on the issue (I'm avoiding calling it your POV, because that is a disingenuous way to put it, and I don't think it is intended like that). To be clear; atheist is well

2736:

atheists (either because they don't like the negative baggage, or they use a more restrictive sense of that word). In the interest of making this encyclopedia most informative and useful, the aforementioned inclusion criterion is desirable, since (as has been pointed out by multiple editors here)

2528:

a merged list titled "Nontheists" (because such a title would proclaim that all agnostics are nontheists ... and that is certainly not supported by reliable sources). The current situation (separate lists for Ag and Ath) is safe and non-controversial, because either the sources say "agnostic" or

2148:

As for the footnote thing: yes, I agree. The quotes should be tied more tightly to the entries. Let the reasons for inclusion speak for themselves. It bothers me that so much good info in the refs is only seen by those who follow each one, rather than being on display: not merely justifying their

1894:

Ref point 2: That is an objection to having such a list at all, not to what it's called or who may be included. Suffice it to reply that there seems to be a demand. This is, in effect, the WP version of CelebAtheists -- only it covers anyone WP-notable not just celebrities, and is far, far better

1476:

Seems to me the list should really be called List of Nonbelievers. That's what we seem to be aiming for anyway. But that's unclear: non believers in what? Well, deities I guess. There's a word for that... but it's a bit problematic. So, what's wrong with the previously suggested renaming, to just

1101:

as an umbrella term for atheists, agnostics, and other nonbeliever in gods is supported not only by the Oxford English Dictionary, among other references, but by precedent set by such groups as the Secular Coalition for America. There are significant similarities and overlap between atheists and

934:

This would seem to lead to an inconsistency, and an editorial decision problem. The inconsistency is that this ruling does not appear to apply to non-living people. So a dead person need only be reliably identified as an atheist to be included, whereas the only living atheists are those for whom

2731:

If we agree that this list ought to include people who do not believe in deities, then the current title is clearly inadequate, because we are compelled for BLP reasons to exclude people who hold that very position (even in the form of unequivocal denial of God's existence), yet do not identify

2505:

To be sure, 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are more instantly recognisable terms, but a redirect or two solves that. (How often have you looked for something, found yourself dumped onto a page with a different title, but then realised it is what you wanted after all?) Why should recognisability trump

1451:

This means that we have a constant problem with who can be included. What I've called 'magic word' atheists -- someone saying that they are -- get in easily, though they are often 'merely' weak atheists, while others who claim de facto strong atheism (eg Brockman) may be excluded if they prefer

530:

Well, the thing is simply that we are labelling living people. If we do so, we should be pretty sure that that is how they would label themselves. So I don't see an alternative but to insist that people -- at least living people -- listed here should have said, "I am an atheist", or "I take the

278:

Agree with Jayen about the BLP violation. The two are not equivalent. There are various ways in which sociologists have tried classifying the irreligious and those who "do not believe in god(s)" according to their survey answers or public statements are are mostly not "atheists" in either the

811:

view as well, and that is the it is pretty unmeaningful to list most notable people, dead or alive, by forms of religious affiliation (or unaffiliation). Those who do not squarely fit into "atheist" or "agnostic" categories clearly never made a big deal of their beliefs, and those beliefs are

211:

and we would need to reconcile the duplication. I find the BLP arguments very disingenuous. The editor using that argument is a strong proponent of the term "nontheism" and may be using the BLP argument to promote the term "nontheism" over atheism. The reason BLP is a non issue is that

206:

This is the second time these lists have been renamed without consensus. The first time was about 6 months ago: renamed to "List of nontheists". And yesterday to "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". These kinds of major changes need lengthy deliberation with strong consensus. My

2144:

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

387:

From my perspective the only concern here is BLP - and specifically BLPCAT - and clarifying to what extent we should allow BLP subjects to be added to the list in a way that makes sense, is sensitive to the subject and is in keeping with policy whilst still providing as complete a data set as

1211:

So where else might we put atheists 'sensu lato'? That is, the people, nicely referenced, such as Leo Blair and Jonathan Barnes, that are getting deleted due to this BLP malarkey. It doesn't matter who calls -- or how many call -- you an atheist, nor how often you might also state your deity

1987:

Seems perfectly sensible. Sure, it's common sense; but I'd be interested to hear how applying such a bog-standard prefix could even constitute a neologism. Any English speaker will understand it (or should that be only non- English speakers wouldn't?), because both parts of the compound are

1080:

require one to use a specific label for one's position in order to be identified with that position. A statement like "I don't believe in God" is self-identification with atheism/nontheism, as defined by multiple reliable sources. Readers using this list to research significant atheists are

1767:

It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist. Parallels for this use of the term would be terms such as “amoral,”

1281:

If reliable sources acknowledge the overlap between the definition of agnosticism so should we by not trying to artificially delineate. I wonder if there actually is a reliable tertiary source on atheism that doesn't also talk, simultaneously about it's close relationship with agnosticism.

1044:

and those who are ambiguously non-theistic and do no label themselves with a badge of identity do not need to be listed somewhere for others to ogle in pride over. Sorry. We don't stomp all over WP;BLPCAT just so that people who identify as X can have more role-models listed on Knowledge

564:

If someone says "I don't believe in God", it's uncertain whether they are describing themselves as an agnostic or as an atheist, or yet something else. Statistically, the chances of a person making that statement identifying as an atheist are about 1 in 3. We can't interpret it for them.

2128:

of those, a natural category united by lack of belief. Is there a term most typically used in reliable sources for that inclusive group? If so, for god's sake let's use that! If there is, I wonder at all the fuss (and the lacuna in my own vocabulary). But I can't see anything that fits

1860:

Ref the point 1 above, it strikes me as irrelevant whether there's terminological overlap or not, if the entry criterion is their belief position rather than concentrate on these people's lack of belief in deities. Dropping 'atheist' and 'agnostic' from the title, and just calling it a

1813:

However, these issues in the epistemology of atheism and recent work by Graham Oppy (2006) suggest that more attention must be paid to the principles that describe epistemic permissibility, culpability, reasonableness, and justification with regard to the theist, atheist, and agnostic

437:

as an atheist without the explicit use of the term in reliable sources, and will confuse others because they will wonder why somoeone who seems to fit the definition has been excluded from the list. For that reason I think doing without a definition is preferable. A wikilink to the

365:

what they have, which is more generally a lack of belief in gods. My understanding is that when atheists today push the "atheism is the lack of belief in gods" mantra they are doing one or both of two things - 1) taking the same old atheist philosophical stance that hinges upon a

2089:" I'd suggest that 'List of non-theists' is the obvious choice, and it can be favoured over the potentially more obvious 'atheists', 'agnostics', or 'atheists, agnostics and other non-believers' (etc) for its conciseness, recognisability and above all, its unambiguous precision. 109:

basis of an expression of non-belief in deities, without a self-labeling as an atheist. As a precaution, a more inclusive name change addresses BLP concerns while consensus continues to develop, and is more feasible than the alternative (sorting through several hundred entries).

2192:"Though an atheist, Cabral had a deep, atavistic fear of the devil. When his wife died in 1986, he placed an emblem of Our Lady of Carmen around her neck, saying, in his mocking way, that this would make sure that she went directly to heaven, without being stopped at customs." 1547:

information (i.e. atheist vs agnostic, when clear) from the encyclopedia. I envision three regions in the List: Atheists; Agnostics; and Other. The latter would be used when the source do not clearly state Atheist or Agnostic, e.g. the "I don't believe in God" situations.

930:

I don't get it. "Relevant to their notable activities or public life"? Surely the point of these lists is to collect 'atheists', regardless of whether their atheism is relevant to their notability. Should we be removing long-standing and unchallenged includees, such as Lance

2773:: If the list of agnostics is merged here under this new name, the utility of the encyclopedia is diluted for readers who want to find information on those who hold the agnostic position, which concerns knowledge, not belief. Also, though rare, there are agnostic theists ( 988:

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

935:

their outlook is "relevant". And that's where the second problem comes in: how do we know, and who decides, whether someone's atheism is relevant? Is it relevant for a cyclist? Maybe it is for a writer (eg Ben Elton), maybe not. In principle, it's not relevant for any

806:

view is that the term "nontheist" includes all of those categories. However, virtually nobody is going to self-identify as a nontheist (meaning the same BLP problem), and term isn't even all that popular in scholarship as a descriptive term. Of course I have another

2824:, or whether atheism is a subset of nontheism, thus retaining NPOV on that potentially divisive matter. The intro could say something to the effect that this list includes people who do not believe in God or gods, and that such people have been identified by the term 691:

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

1440:

This means that different sources, indeed the potential listees themselves, will be using it in different ways, leading to inclusion inconsistencies: some with simple 'no god-belief' calling themselves atheist, while others, equally with no god-belief, rejecting the

943:

I suppose we could say that, since it's part of their world-view, it's relevant to every potential includee's notability (Armstrong might have taken his testicular cancer as a sign from God to stop sitting on his nuts for hours)… but that's not how this edict is

2869:

to decide whether of all the "List of atheist (profession)" lists, the philosophy list should be expanded to include agnostics as well, as "List of atheist and agnostic philosophers" instead of "List of atheist philosophers". The discussion may be found at

2853: 1579:

atheist, B says he's an agnostic, and C says he's a rationalist skeptic with no belief in that sort of guff. The point is to eliminate editorial decision-making and arguments -- they're all agnostics, after all. Is Darrow an agnostic? Dawkins actually

1865:, achieves this. No terms are thus conflated: the people included form, as I say, a natural group, united in their god-belief-lessness -- and they can be atheists, agnostics, rationalists or Dawkins-worshipping neodarwinists to their hearts' content, 583:

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your interpretation: the point remains: WP policy does not require the use of "magic words". If the self-identifiction is clear, then it is sufficient. The clarity has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

1481:? All atheists are nontheists, right? So "atheists ... and nontheists" is redundant. It would be relatively simple to justify someone's inclusion (or not), less objectionable than the baggage-laden 'atheist', and crucially, it easily captures the 1325:

a List" vs "multiple lists" : the benefit of a combined list is that there are quite a few persons, dead and alive, that have made statements like "I don't believe in God", and the current separate Lists do not allow that person to be in either

508:. However, there is no WP policy that requires sources to use a specific word, such as "atheism". To the contrary, the policy in WP is to use plain english meanings. Must a source use the phrase "Church of Latter-day Saints" to be in the 1260:,True,many agnostics and nontheists are listed here, moreover, many sources listed here are personal opinion of some authors(some of them are atheists), I previously deleted some of those entries but you can't do that all the time,Thank You. 2149:

inclusion but as information about the person's precise views on the matter. The best way so far proposed is I think the table we had at one point. Not sure if it's still around, but here is a snippet from what I still have in my sandbox:

158:

Gris, I'd revert myself if I didn't think it would involve a BLP violation. If you'd review the long history of the article, you'd see that the number of editors involved in developing these inclusive criteria is way more than just a few.

1639:

each individuals name in the List text? We need to find a solution that will put this dilemma to bed forever, otherwise the lists will just get broken apart again in a couple of years. Regarding "Nontheist": the lists of atheists

1583:

he's agnostic. Brockman is an atheist who hates to be called it. Does Einstein's and Sagan's lack of belief qualify them as atheistic enough to be atheists, or 'merely' agnostic? What you end up with is, everyone is a nontheist, and

812:

therefore clearly not important to their notability. I see no encyclopedic reason therefore to create lists of larger umbrella categories to catch all of these other individuals with more ambiguous religious beliefs or affiliations.

1424:

John Brockman (for example) says "I'm sure there's no God." There can therefore be no doubt about him fitting the definition. But he then says "But don't call me an atheist" (and then clarifies why: " It's like a losers' club.") He

872:

These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor

1212:

disbelief: till you snuff it, you're not an atheist unless you specifically say you are. Are such disbelievers -- not incorrectly (according to some dictionaries) labelled atheists by others -- to be put in the List of Agnostics?

407:

atheist as a slightly pejorative term. I'm not sure there is very much of a distinction between disbelief (an active refusal OR simply reluctance to believe) and a lack of belief. Indeed, if anything a lack of belief is

127:

1) Your "consensus" is between yourself and 2-3 other editors and the current discussion has involved many, many more. 2) Your "consensus" is from this summer, consensus can change, and the current discussion is, well,

92:

Nick Graves, I respectfully ask you revert you recent page moves. Where is the consensus for the moves? There are ongoing discussions about this list in several venues, and I have seen no consensus for this move.

1534:

intended to be a placeholder. Personally, I have no huge objection to "List of nontheists" but I can see other editors having big objections (specifically: nontheist is a rarely used term, and using that to the

2506:

precision and conciseness? 'List of non-theists.' That's surely enough of a 'why'. Does anyone have a 'why not'? (And an alternative that doesn't suffer the pitfalls above -- we've got to call the bloody thing

736:

Instead of wasting time and bytes on another fruitless "what is an atheist" discussion, we may as well follow the path that Nick Graves suggested a few times in the past year: we re-scope these lists to be

357:. However, pretty much only atheists argue this, since the argument is based on the presumption that theistic claims are illogical or unverifiable and hence should be rejected out of hand. See for instance 1444:

There is an historical aversion to the word 'atheist'. Clarence Darrow could say things like "I say that religion is the belief in future life and in God. I don't believe in either" and still get called an

741:. I've opposed that suggestion in the past, but I'm starting to see now why he proposed that re-scoping. I think we should seriously consider it. It wouldn't be too hard to merge these lists with the 468:

Just for the record; my bad for continuing the discussion on "what atheism are we talking about" in a comment which was supposed to conclude "one thing we shouldn't be discussing is what atheism is"....

2402:"We atheists can . . . argue that, with the modern revolution in attitudes toward homosexuals, we have become the only group that may not reveal itself in normal social discourse." Philip W. Anderson, 2085:

Note too: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there will be a simple and obvious title that will meet these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice.

1799:

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

1119:- Yes, we need to respect the BLP policy - but will this re-name proposal violate the BLP policy by causing living persons to be slandered? No. If a person declares they are a non-theist (by saying 1419:: What is the purpose of these lists? Is it (a) to list those who are labelled atheist, or (b) to list those with a particular view (that of atheism)? Listing what people are, or what they're called? 1999:, but surely they either believe or they don't? Dawkins absolutely should be listed under agnostics, because he himself says that's what he is. But who'd put him there, rather than under atheists? 1490:

When this was suggested before, I think it was not so much rejected as allowed to wilt. Yet, here we are again, with basically the same suggestion. Can we get this resolved finally, pretty please?

424:(ec)Tom, I do not agree that it is "well defined" as such. Did you read the three definitions from various Oxford reference sources above. They range from "disbelief in" to "denial of" gods, and 1342:

the Lists so that, for example, an agnostic is not presented as an atheist, etc. Therefore, each List would necessarily contain sections for Atheists, and for Agnostics, and other/nontheists.--

961:

I think the list can be slightly broader than the cateogry for BLP's - BLPCAT does not legislate directly against such inclusions, but cautions care, which is why we ask for self declaration. --

2835:

Others' contributions to this discussion petered out over a month ago without a resolution. I hope this can be picked up again, discussed well, and resolved (hopefully for a good long time).

1102:

agnostics, and you will find several who identify by both labels (Michael Shermer and Michael Schmidt-Salomon, just to name 2 off the top of my head), so consolidating the lists makes sense.

2607:

Ref "The only way the current lists could be merged"... Ah. I wasn't aware that the proposal was to simply, blindly, merge the lists under an appropriate title, with the agnostics imported

136:, given that others are discussing the topic now in good faith while not going ahead and making "bold" changes to suit their POV. I request, once again, that you revert yourself. Cheers. 1960:(which I like as it's a slightly lower-level source than the OED, which (to me) suggests if something's in it, it's more mainstream -- the OED is the ultimate, but it's a bit 'everything 1448:

There is still an aversion to the word 'atheist' among those who take it to mean strong atheism (eg David Attenborough) and who object to it for other reasons (Brockman, Michael Shermer).

185:

You cannot infer a consensus for your specific and current page move from a very broad general past consensus for inclusiveness. You have no consensus for the move and I will revert you.

2651:

use the wider definition and we can't tell if they, like, really mean it, so if you use a better word you needn't worry about the other word's usage, round and round and round we go...)

2852: 2343:. "We atheists can . . . argue that, with the modern revolution in attitudes toward homosexuals, we have become the only group that may not reveal itself in normal social discourse." 2092:

And we can reject the argument based on "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms" simply by pointing out that this is

1755:

There are plenty of sources which support the view that conflating atheism and agnosticism is not in the scholarly mainstream, even your own sources - once you stop quote mining:

1219:

I'm curious about it. Seems a shame to lose the information about someone in a reference when they get deleted from the list for not meeting this week's inclusional standard.

2724:

After a hiatus, I am surprised and a little pleased to come back and see that this proposal has been further discussed, with some progress, I think, in the right direction.

1690:

such as Encyclopedia Britannica do not recognize an overlap between agnosticism and atheism, I have only seen evidence of individual authors that entertain such an overlap.

1437:'Atheist' is ambiguous; it can mean either 'no god-belief' (no belief in god(s), aka weak atheism) or 'no-god belief' (belief that there is no god, aka strong atheism). 1467:

agnostic. However, one word is about belief (or lack thereof), the other is about knowledge of the matter. And hence, not all agnostics are nonbelievers, which is the

1097:, and which unequivocally applies to all who do not believe in deities (and, by the way, which does not apply to all Buddhists, many of whom believe in Devas). Use of 2256:

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

2769:: Uses the two most commonly used names for those who don't believe in gods, along with a catch-all term for whoever has the position, but doesn't use either term. 1007:

Handle situations where the person in question made declarations like "I don't believe in God" which, at present, do not permit the person to be placed either into

516:? Of course not. If the source uses wording that plainly means "Mormon" or "LGBT", then it is acceptable. List of atheists should not be treated differently. -- 1733:

and so do many others, if plenty of tertiary sources do it, it is not OR for us to do it. The description of negative atheism in this encyclopedia of philosophy:

2816:- This includes all who disbelieve in gods, while retaining the most common name for this position. Because of the "or", it does not take a position on whether 233: 2260:

How about, perhaps as a temporary measure, moving the 'ref' tags so that the quotes are included in the list, with just the links in the references section?

2851: 1971:

a Latin word used as a prefix, not; sometimes used of someone or somethingwith pretensions who, which, is ludicrously unworthy of the name mentioned, e.g.

738: 1693:

2. I don't see why we should be operating on a world-view that places so much primacy on theism that we start categorizing based on what is 'not theism'.

383:

defined as both a term relating to the disbelief in gods AND socio-political movement(s) either opposed to or actively denying the existence of deities.

2006:. How would we keep those agnostics out? (Assuming we'd want to -- which might be sensible given that a far shorter list would then be of people who're 1233:

And to add, further: on looking at what's been deleted, I see John Brockman's gone. He wasn't half-hearted in his... well whatever it is: he said he's

1194:

This just seems like a bad idea, hard to define others religious views, could be explosive fuel for BLP violations. Disadvantages outweigh benefits.

297:

Jayen & Griswaldo: What definition of atheism are you using when you conclude that the statement "I dont believe in God(s)" is not atheism? --

1991:

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

902:

It is not a violation as long as the inclusion criteria for living subjects is verified self-identification. The inclusion criteria needs to change.

2087:

However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these goals over the others.

1338:) so that all persons that have expressed some sort of non-belief can be included. Of course, each person would have to be clearly pigeon-holed 2031:– Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. -- 1730:

You are getting a lot of mileage out of that Encyclopedia Britannica source. This tertiary source treats both atheism and agnosticism together:

2045:'weak' atheists, and (b) that's more an argument for keeping 'atheist' and 'agnostic' separate rather than for not using a more catch-all word. 478:

FOr the record I agree with everything Griswaldo is saying about this article (apart from, I might be more lenient about historical figures) --

772:

to being called atheists. Like it or not, not everyone (or every source, for that matter) agrees that all non-believers in gods are atheists.

1643:

renamed to "List of nontheist ABC" about 2 years ago, and that change was reverted precisely because Nontheist was such a rare word, and the

428:"lack of belief in gods". I have seen other sources, that do include that notion, but most traditionally do not. I accept the notion that 2850: 2581:

If you are asking me, I have no sources ... I was just reflecting what other editors have said in the past. I defer to your expertise. --

2552:

Which sources support the notion that agnostics are not nontheists? Apart from the (self-acknowledged) minority views of Flew and Martin?

2340: 2299: 1647:

requires the most common names to be used: Atheist & Agnostic are a million times more common than nontheist. On the other hand,

2871: 2866: 2791:: Implies that atheists and nontheists are not an identical set of people which, depending on the definitions used, may not be true. 1463:. But now it's suggested to include agnostics too. Well, there's overlap for sure, since just about all atheists (even Dawkins) are 722:

It is absolutely sensible, and it is backed by empirical evidence regarding the use of "atheist" as a means of self-identification.

385:

However you may describe yourself (a subject I entirely agree on BTW) we still have atheist beliefs, even if we are not "Atheists".

2385:"I find it more comfortable to say I'm an atheist, and for that I probably have someone like Dawkins to thank." - Jim Al-Khalili, 1956:: As far as nontheist (or non-theist) being too... unusual? … to use, I checked my old-ish (7th edition, from about 1988 I think) 72: 67: 59: 1543:

mention those differences, some editors would complain that valuable information is being lost: any changes we make should not

388:

reasonably possible. So, should we be defining what atheism we mean here? well, yes, but only to a point. And that point is an

2703:(not merely divinity) that someone may choose to disbelieve. Nontheism is disbelief in god(s), agnosticism is disbelief in 1429:

an atheist by any standard of the definition, but he rejects being called it. Does that mean he's not an atheist after all?

1089:

because they define it restrictively, or because of a perception of negative connotations, are still covered by the term

337:- "Disbelief in the existence of God; to be distinguished from agnosticism, which professes uncertainty on the question." 947:

So as I say, I don't get it. Someone's either a demonstrable atheist or they're not. If they are, why not include them?

2728:: It might help to start a fresh poll to get a better idea of the current consensus. In the meantime, some thoughts... 1139:

then those are positive, clear statements of nontheism. There is no great harm in helping readers of the encyclopedia

2559: 1822: 1700: 2175: 2015: 1648: 1644: 1124: 642:

I am not aware that anyone has ever proposed a "precise word" rule in BLPCAT. But think about it; if we are going to

598:

The point Noleander, is that the self-identification is often not clear. Your sexuality example above, for instance

708:

have to deal with it. Requiring certain "magic words" before someone can be deemed an atheist is not sensible. --

38: 2321:. "I find it more comfortable to say I'm an atheist, and for that I probably have someone like Dawkins to thank." 2878: 2656: 2515: 2449: 1900: 1620: 1522: 1495: 1335: 1246: 1224: 952: 921: 893: 856: 327: 2416: 2386: 2444:

How about that? Then we could work on the table format in… wherever one puts works in progress. Thoughts?

2328: 2287: 1265: 349:

As I understand it, since at least the Victorian era there have been atheists arguing that atheism is not

47: 17: 745:, and it would put an end to many (though not all) of these difficult questions that arise repeatedly. -- 2840: 2332: 2291: 1199: 1107: 777: 697: 164: 114: 2313:(1962–): Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, author and science communicator. He is professor of 2272:(1962–): Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, author and science communicator. He is professor of 2262:

That should be easier to do, and produces only more of an aesthetic problem, where the quote is long.

2875: 2774: 2712: 2652: 2529:

they dont; ditto for "atheist". The only way the current lists could be merged is if the new title

2524:

The fuzziness of agnostics (are they theists? nonthesists? either? both?) is one of the arguments

2511: 2445: 2318: 2277: 2055:(see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. -- 1944: 1922: 1896: 1616: 1518: 1491: 1405: 1308: 1242: 1220: 1182: 948: 917: 889: 852: 513: 2688: 2586: 2543: 2465: 2314: 2273: 1746: 1656: 1553: 1368: 1347: 1290: 1161: 1050: 1025: 907: 879: 817: 750: 727: 713: 633: 618: 589: 555: 521: 495: 490:

My bad as well. We agree on what to do, which is always more important in my view anyway. Cheers.

446: 371: 302: 284: 217: 190: 141: 98: 1144: 867: 253: 252:

To go from someone saying "I don't believe in God" to saying "X is an atheist" is a BLP violation

2336: 2324: 2295: 2283: 1939:

Certainly, at the very least, a unitary list, welcoming all brands of nontheists, is desirable.

658: 572: 538: 263: 2460:

feeling one way or another, but I'm pretty sure most editors would support the longer title. --

2002:

The problem I have with deliberately including the word 'agnostics' in the title is, well, read

995:

Reduce confusion by editors (i.e. reduce mistakes by editors putting persons in the wrong Lists)

2744:

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

1076:- One can self-identify with atheism/nontheism without specifically using either label. BLPCAT 1331: 1261: 1174: 1156:) wouldn't it be beneficial to readers to have the two concepts co-located in one list? -- 1041: 1012: 742: 393:

and that for living persons we should err on the side of caution and explicit declarations. --

358: 208: 1380:, for all the theoretical and practical reasons adduced above and in discussions elsewhere. 848: 2836: 1327: 1195: 1153: 1103: 1008: 773: 693: 160: 110: 841: 133: 2883: 2844: 2716: 2708: 2680: 2660: 2590: 2576: 2567: 2547: 2519: 2469: 2453: 2003: 1948: 1940: 1904: 1839: 1830: 1750: 1717: 1708: 1660: 1624: 1557: 1526: 1499: 1409: 1401: 1372: 1351: 1312: 1304: 1294: 1269: 1250: 1228: 1203: 1186: 1178: 1165: 1111: 1068: 1054: 1029: 967: 956: 925: 911: 897: 883: 860: 821: 781: 754: 731: 717: 701: 664: 637: 622: 593: 578: 559: 544: 525: 509: 504:

I have no objection to removing the definition from this article, and using a wikilink to

499: 484: 480: 450: 417: 413: 399: 395: 375: 306: 288: 269: 221: 194: 168: 145: 118: 102: 2691:, 1869). "Nontheism" is also more communicative, as it clearly addresses the concept of 1731: 1687: 344:- "Philosophical denial of the existence of God or any supernatural or spiritual being." 2582: 2539: 2461: 2310: 2269: 2215: 1742: 1652: 1549: 1364: 1343: 1286: 1157: 1046: 1021: 903: 875: 813: 746: 723: 709: 629: 614: 585: 551: 517: 491: 442: 367: 298: 280: 213: 186: 137: 94: 2487:

I suppose we could insert an explanatory 'other' -- 'List of atheists, agnostics, and

2200: 2014:

If 'non-theist' could be a suitable (compound-) word in itself, I can see nothing in

1811:

Note further that it clearly denotes atheism and agnosticism as separate categories:

1615:

to it that I'm unaware how otherwise rare it is. I'll check my discionaries tonight.

653: 567: 533: 258: 228:

Only a fraction of those who say they don't believe in God self-identify as atheists.

2755:: Uses the most recognizable name for those with this position (disbelief in gods). 531:

atheist position", or "I consider myself an atheist", "I became an atheist" etc. --

2538:

the lists of atheists: there was no proposal to include agnostics at that time. --

2229: 1471:

of atheism. So I consider it unsafe to lump agnostics in with atheists willy-nilly.

1064: 963: 243: 2684: 2417:

BBC - Radio 4 - Science Explorer: Jim Al-Khalili featured in The Life Scientific

2387:

BBC - Radio 4 - Science Explorer: Jim Al-Khalili featured in The Life Scientific

550:

the word atheist. Or do you think the definition of "atheist" is uncertain? --

46:

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

411:

than disbelief because it outright rejects religious perspective as relevant --

2737:

people wanting to research atheists are interested in those holding a certain

2668:

Amen. I've never seen the argument for consolidation presented more cogently.

2554: 1817: 1695: 1397: 2805:- While not a neologism, it's not a common name for those with this position. 2130: 1925:. It was nothing short of tragic when "List of nontheists" was overthrown. 1334:. This proposal is to create a single, consolidated list (and sublists like 2759:: Excludes disbelievers who don't specifically use this term for themselves. 2672: 2474:

I think it would be a complete mistake to include 'agnostics' in the title,

2189:

Brazilian poet, considered one of the greatest Brazilian poets of all time.

1933: 1929: 1389: 2692: 2075:– Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. -- either 1651:

also encourages conciseness, and one cannot beat "nontheist" for that. --

1385: 1143:

notable persons that self-identify as non-theists. Don't forget that the

610: 1452:

another term. So simple use of the word is a flawed criterion in itself.

888:

Correct. And that makes this list a clear BLP violation, in my opinion.

1393: 1381: 603: 505: 438: 2741:, not necessarily those who identify that position by a certain word. 2732:

themselves by the "magic word", or who specifically say that they are

1983:

but the prefix is living and many other words using it may be formed.

1237:

there's no God. If that means he's an agnostic, then the criteria for

471: 2696: 2214:

Irish actor, best known for playing Padraig O'Kelly in Series 1-4 of

739:

List of atheists, agnostics, and persons that don't believe in God(s)

1869:, just as they can be writers, scientists, actors and philosophers 984:

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

88:

Unilateral page moves during active discussions are not recommended

2848: 2777:, for example), who should not be included in a list such as this. 2359:'Joao Cabral: His poetry voiced the sufferings of Brazil's poor', 1734: 2327:(1923-): American physicist. He was one of the recipients of the 2286:(1923-): American physicist. He was one of the recipients of the 2372:

Anthony Hayward, 'Peter Caffrey; Padraig in 'Ballykissangel' ',

2243:

British (English) stage, film and television actor, and author.

1001:

Addresses the fact that atheism and agnosticism overlap somewhat

323:

Noleander, any number of definitions are fine for our purposes.

2787:: Doesn't have the weaknesses of a name including "agnostics". 512:? Of course not. Must a source use the word "gay" to be in 1964:

the kitchen sink'). No entry for non(-)theist of course, but:

25: 2331:

in 1977. Anderson has made contributions to the theories of

2290:

in 1977. Anderson has made contributions to the theories of

1979:: the words given below include the most common words with 1630:

but I'm pretty certain other editors would object to the

1784:- and then it attributes minority divergent conceptions. 651:

careful, and if in doubt, err on the side of caution. --

2100:

agnostics (note: not all, only the non-believing ones)

1284:

The proposal is old but I still think a good one to do.

1004:

Addresses the fact that atheism has several definitions

331:- "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." 2434:

More And Different: Notes from a Thoughtful Curmudgeon

2404:

More And Different: Notes from a Thoughtful Curmudgeon

1782:

to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God

1093:, which does not carry the same pejorative baggage as 916:

I've tried rephrasing it. It's kind of clunky though.

236:, separating atheists from nonbelievers and agnostics. 2317:

and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the

2276:

and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the

2647:

to use the wider definition for a list because some

434:

we do not need to agree on the definition of atheism

1780:Note that it states clearly the majority position 1539:pretty distinct meanings, so if the Lists were to 2052: 1127:is not slander or misleading. If a person says 2632:to 'List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists' 2534:"List of nontheist abc" two years ago, that was 870:explicitly covers lists as well as categories. 335:The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions 1797: 1765: 2643:anyway of course, that's kinda the point, you 2065:– Titles are concise, and not overly long. -- 2051:– Titles usually use names and terms that are 2801:: Includes all those who disbelieve in gods. 2376:(London), 4 January 2008, Obituaries, Pg. 42. 8: 1787:Note also what it writes of your SEP source: 1589:discussions for some years, I'd call that a 1137:"All religions are supernatural mumbo-jumbo" 602:. The person in question could easily be a 2872:Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#This_list 2763:List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists 1300:Leaning Support, but not all the way there. 847:This subject is now being discussed at the 2151: 1634:in the encyclopedia: for person that are 646:people with "magic words", then it is not 132:. Your move appears very much to violate 1739:question cannot be resolved in principle. 2363:, 18 October 1999, Leader Pages; Pg. 18. 2352: 2166: 2157: 2153: 1936:, being over a century and a half old. 1123:) then putting them in a list entitled 1081:interested in people holding a certain 2699:") whereas "agnosticism" can apply to 998:Minimize possibility of BLP violations 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2828:(broadly defined), or alternatively, 2781:List of atheists and other nontheists 1321:Regarding the question of "Subgroups 1173:As Griswaldo says, we already have a 1147:policy was created expressly because 1133:"I've never believed in any religion" 234:Statistics in Encyclopædia Britannica 7: 1995:belief. An agnostic may not be sure 2619:the idea is a wholesale merger, I 2476:because there are agnostic theists 2341:high-temperature superconductivity 2300:high-temperature superconductivity 2250:, 30 April 2006, Magazine, Pg. 8. 2145:non-belief applies in each case." 2079:("List of..."), or not relevant(?) 2018:that suggests it as less than the 1400:) that they regard as untenable. 24: 2865:Please offer your view on an Rfc 441:article will suffice for context. 1895:(and more strictly) referenced. 470: 29: 1125:List of atheists and nontheists 2814:List of atheists or nontheists 2626:I thought the proposal was to 687:No specific inclusion criteria 1: 1932:" can hardly now be called a 1204:19:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1187:13:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1166:12:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1112:04:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1069:15:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 1055:15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 1030:15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 926:20:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 912:20:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 898:20:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 884:18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 861:16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 665:13:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 638:03:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 623:02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 594:02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 579:23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 560:23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 545:22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 526:21:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 500:14:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 485:14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 451:14:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 418:13:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 400:13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 376:13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 307:01:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 289:19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 270:08:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 222:22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 195:16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 169:16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 146:15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 119:15:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 103:15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 2884:19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 1392:share a non-acceptance of a 1251:12:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1229:12:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 968:13:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 957:12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 822:18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 782:18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 755:18:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 732:17:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 718:17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 702:16:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 2845:01:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 1958:Chambers English Dictionary 1336:List of ath/agn/non artists 2899: 2224: 2195: 2170: 1514:moderately strongly oppose 940:album, he's in? And so on. 2717:03:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 2661:09:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 2591:03:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 2577:02:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 2548:15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 2520:15:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 2491:non-theists' -- and thus 2470:13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 2454:11:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 2163: 2154: 1949:04:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1905:14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1840:12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1751:10:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1718:01:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1661:16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1625:16:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1558:15:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1527:15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1500:15:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1410:22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1373:20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1352:20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1313:20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1295:18:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 1270:06:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 328:Oxford English Dictionary 239:Many, or most, agnostics 2176:João Cabral de Melo Neto 2116:scientific rationalists 1129:"I don't believe in God" 2683:, 1852) than the word " 2630:the 'List of atheists' 2124:godless heathens. It's 1736:includes agnosticism: " 1121:"I dont believe in God" 2857: 2810:For your consideration 2671:By the way, the word " 2329:Nobel Prize in Physics 2288:Nobel Prize in Physics 2011:saying 'non-theists'. 1801: 1770: 1434:We already know that: 1241:list need amending... 18:Talk:Lists of atheists 2856: 1483:viewpoint in question 1040:- There already is a 42:of past discussions. 2611:regardless of their 2432:Philip W. Anderson, 2319:University of Surrey 2278:University of Surrey 1510:the idea of sublists 1485:. Clear and concise. 514:List of LGBT writers 430:it is my perspective 2689:Thomas Henry Huxley 2315:Theoretical Physics 2274:Theoretical Physics 2096:a list of atheists 1863:List of non-theists 1632:loss of information 1152:and "atheist" (see 2858: 2795:List of nontheists 2337:antiferromagnetism 2325:Philip W. Anderson 2296:antiferromagnetism 2284:Philip W. Anderson 1479:List of Nontheists 1417:Comment / Question 390:editorial decision 342:World Encyclopedia 2854: 2775:Søren Kierkegaard 2675:" is actually of 2254: 2253: 2248:The Sunday Herald 2016:WP:NAMINGCRITERIA 1649:WP:NAMINGCRITERIA 1645:WP:NAMINGCRITERIA 1332:List of agnostics 1285: 1175:List of Agnostics 1042:List of agnostics 1013:List of agnostics 743:List of Agnostics 359:Charles Bradlaugh 209:List of agnostics 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2890: 2881: 2855: 2749:List of atheists 2437: 2430: 2424: 2415:Jim Al-Khalili, 2413: 2407: 2400: 2394: 2383: 2377: 2370: 2364: 2357: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2152: 2141:word 'atheist'. 2136:Actually, there 2120:'not religious' 1328:List of atheists 1283: 1258:Strongly support 1154:Agnostic atheism 1009:List of atheists 661: 656: 575: 570: 541: 536: 474: 266: 261: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2898: 2897: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2879: 2863: 2861:Input requested 2849: 2681:George Holyoake 2621:strongly oppose 2442: 2441: 2440: 2431: 2427: 2414: 2410: 2401: 2397: 2384: 2380: 2374:The Independent 2371: 2367: 2358: 2354: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2161:Known as / for 2029:Recognizability 2022:thing to use: 2004:Agnostic theism 1802: 1771: 986: 918:Anythingyouwant 890:Anythingyouwant 866:Also note that 853:Anythingyouwant 849:BLP Noticeboard 838: 689: 659: 654: 573: 568: 539: 534: 510:List of Mormons 264: 259: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2896: 2894: 2862: 2859: 2807: 2806: 2792: 2778: 2760: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2669: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2439: 2438: 2425: 2408: 2395: 2378: 2365: 2351: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2322: 2311:Jim Al-Khalili 2304: 2303: 2281: 2270:Jim Al-Khalili 2252: 2251: 2244: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2223: 2222: 2219: 2216:Ballykissangel 2212: 2209: 2206: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2169: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2159: 2156: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2070: 2060: 2046: 2036: 1985: 1984: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1785: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1691: 1686:1. Mainstream 1681: 1680: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1503: 1502: 1487: 1486: 1473: 1472: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1431: 1430: 1421: 1420: 1413: 1412: 1375: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1316: 1315: 1297: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1206: 1189: 1168: 1114: 1071: 1057: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1005: 1002: 999: 996: 985: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 945: 941: 932: 837: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 688: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 426:do not include 422: 421: 420: 355:lack of belief 347: 346: 345: 338: 332: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 292: 291: 273: 272: 250: 237: 230: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 151: 150: 149: 148: 122: 121: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2895: 2886: 2885: 2882: 2877: 2873: 2868: 2860: 2847: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2833: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2793: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2779: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2740: 2735: 2729: 2727: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2558: 2557: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2532: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2435: 2429: 2426: 2422: 2421:BBC.co.uk.com 2418: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2391:BBC.co.uk.com 2388: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2356: 2353: 2349: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2323: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306:would become 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2282: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2261: 2257: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2239: 2236: 2231: 2225: 2220: 2217: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2202: 2201:Peter Caffrey 2196: 2191: 2188: 2185: 2182: 2177: 2171: 2160: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2139: 2134: 2132: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2090: 2088: 2078: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2021: 2017: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2000: 1998: 1992: 1989: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1935: 1931: 1926: 1924: 1920: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1815: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1800: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1769: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1436: 1435: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1376: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1301: 1298: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1280: 1277: 1276: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1216: 1210: 1207: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1190: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1060:Strong oppose 1058: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1043: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1003: 1000: 997: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 983: 969: 966: 965: 960: 959: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 933: 929: 928: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 887: 886: 885: 881: 877: 874: 869: 865: 864: 863: 862: 858: 854: 850: 845: 843: 840:According to 835: 823: 819: 815: 810: 805: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 783: 779: 775: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 735: 734: 733: 729: 725: 721: 720: 719: 715: 711: 706: 705: 704: 703: 699: 695: 686: 666: 663: 662: 657: 649: 645: 641: 640: 639: 635: 631: 626: 625: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 605: 601: 597: 596: 595: 591: 587: 582: 581: 580: 577: 576: 571: 563: 562: 561: 557: 553: 548: 547: 546: 543: 542: 537: 529: 528: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 502: 501: 497: 493: 489: 488: 487: 486: 483: 482: 477: 473: 452: 448: 444: 440: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 416: 415: 410: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 398: 397: 391: 386: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 364: 363:as opposed to 360: 356: 352: 348: 343: 339: 336: 333: 330: 329: 325: 324: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 308: 304: 300: 296: 295: 294: 293: 290: 286: 282: 277: 276: 275: 274: 271: 268: 267: 262: 255: 251: 248: 245: 242: 238: 235: 231: 229: 226: 225: 224: 223: 219: 215: 210: 196: 192: 188: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 170: 166: 162: 157: 156: 155: 154: 153: 152: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 126: 125: 124: 123: 120: 116: 112: 107: 106: 105: 104: 100: 96: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2864: 2834: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2808: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2743: 2738: 2733: 2730: 2725: 2723: 2704: 2700: 2679:coinage (by 2676: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2631: 2627: 2625: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2571: 2568: 2563: 2560: 2555: 2553: 2535: 2530: 2525: 2507: 2492: 2488: 2475: 2443: 2436:, page 177. 2433: 2428: 2420: 2411: 2406:, page 177. 2403: 2398: 2390: 2381: 2373: 2368: 2361:The Guardian 2360: 2355: 2347: 2333:localization 2305: 2292:localization 2264: 2259: 2258: 2255: 2247: 2230:Simon Callow 2147: 2143: 2137: 2135: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104:antitheists 2101: 2097: 2093: 2091: 2086: 2084: 2076: 2072: 2066: 2062: 2056: 2048: 2042: 2038: 2032: 2028: 2019: 2013: 2007: 2001: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1938: 1927: 1921:: I'm with 1918: 1917: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1834: 1831: 1826: 1823: 1818: 1816: 1812: 1798: 1781: 1766: 1737: 1712: 1709: 1704: 1701: 1696: 1694: 1677: 1640: 1635: 1631: 1590: 1585: 1580: 1544: 1540: 1535: 1513: 1509: 1482: 1478: 1469:sine qua non 1468: 1464: 1460: 1426: 1416: 1377: 1360: 1339: 1322: 1299: 1278: 1262:Skashifakram 1257: 1238: 1234: 1208: 1191: 1170: 1148: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1120: 1116: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1073: 1063: 1059: 1037: 1020:Comments? -- 1019: 987: 962: 936: 871: 846: 839: 808: 803: 690: 652: 648:unreasonable 647: 643: 606: 600:is not clear 599: 566: 532: 479: 475: 467: 433: 429: 425: 412: 408: 394: 389: 384: 362: 354: 350: 341: 334: 326: 257: 205: 129: 91: 78: 43: 37: 2837:Nick Graves 2685:agnosticism 2073:Consistency 2063:Conciseness 2039:Naturalness 1997:if there is 1814:categories. 1459:So far, so 1196:GoetheFromm 1104:Nick Graves 873:reputation. 774:Nick Graves 694:Nick Graves 161:Nick Graves 111:Nick Graves 36:This is an 2726:Suggestion 2709:Nihil novi 2641:sensu lato 2348:References 2208:1949–2008 2183:1920–1999 2167:Reference 2043:sensu lato 1941:Nihil novi 1928:The word " 1461:ad nauseam 1402:Nihil novi 1398:divinities 1390:nontheists 1305:Tryptofish 1179:Dougweller 1149:Categories 937:particular 931:Armstrong? 79:Archive 10 2880:Chihuahua 2830:nontheist 2822:nontheist 2673:nontheism 2583:Noleander 2540:Noleander 2508:something 2462:Noleander 2265:So this: 2112:infidels 2108:skeptics 2049:Precision 1977:non-event 1934:neologism 1930:nontheism 1743:IRWolfie- 1653:Noleander 1593:thing :-) 1550:Noleander 1536:exclusion 1508:And, ref 1445:agnostic. 1386:agnostics 1365:Noleander 1344:Noleander 1287:IRWolfie- 1158:Noleander 1145:WP:BLPCAT 1099:nontheist 1091:nontheist 1047:Griswaldo 1022:Noleander 944:intended. 904:Griswaldo 876:Griswaldo 868:WP:BLPCAT 814:Griswaldo 747:Noleander 724:Griswaldo 710:Noleander 630:Noleander 615:Griswaldo 586:Noleander 552:Noleander 518:Noleander 492:Griswaldo 443:Griswaldo 368:Griswaldo 351:disbelief 340:Oxford's 299:Noleander 281:Griswaldo 254:WP:BLPCAT 232:Also see 214:Noleander 187:Griswaldo 138:Griswaldo 95:Griswaldo 73:Archive 9 68:Archive 8 60:Archive 5 2803:Weakness 2799:Strength 2789:Weakness 2785:Strength 2771:Weakness 2767:Strength 2757:Weakness 2753:Strength 2739:position 2705:whatever 2701:anything 2693:divinity 2609:en masse 2531:does not 1973:non-hero 1382:Atheists 1209:Question 1083:position 1078:does not 809:personal 804:personal 611:bisexual 476:Facepalm 409:stronger 353:, but a 2826:atheist 2818:atheist 2677:earlier 2649:sources 2613:beliefs 2605:Comment 2526:against 2186:Author 2053:precise 2008:certain 1954:Comment 1919:Comment 1871:as well 1867:as well 1636:clearly 1517:again. 1394:concept 1378:Support 1361:Comment 1279:Support 1117:Support 1095:atheist 1087:atheist 1074:Support 604:lesbian 506:atheism 439:atheism 249:either. 244:believe 130:current 93:Cheers. 39:archive 2876:Killer 2697:theism 2687:" (by 2637:enough 2628:rename 2240:Actor 2237:1949– 2211:Actor 2158:Dates 1678:Oppose 1545:remove 1340:within 1323:within 1192:Oppose 1171:Oppose 1065:Errant 1045:(XXG). 1038:Oppose 964:Errant 842:WP:BLP 481:Errant 414:Errant 396:Errant 247:in God 134:WP:OWN 2653:Oolon 2512:Oolon 2493:imply 2489:other 2446:Oolon 2155:Name 2077:Check 2067:Check 2057:Check 2033:Check 1923:Oolon 1897:Oolon 1688:WP:RS 1617:Oolon 1519:Oolon 1492:Oolon 1441:term. 1243:Oolon 1221:Oolon 949:Oolon 644:label 241:don't 16:< 2867:here 2841:talk 2713:talk 2657:talk 2645:have 2587:talk 2544:talk 2536:only 2516:talk 2466:talk 2450:talk 2339:and 2298:and 2164:Who 2131:here 2020:best 1981:non- 1945:talk 1901:talk 1747:talk 1657:talk 1641:were 1621:talk 1591:good 1586:some 1581:says 1554:talk 1523:talk 1512:: I 1496:talk 1465:also 1406:talk 1388:and 1369:talk 1348:talk 1309:talk 1291:talk 1266:talk 1247:talk 1239:that 1235:sure 1225:talk 1200:talk 1183:talk 1162:talk 1141:find 1108:talk 1051:talk 1026:talk 953:talk 922:talk 908:talk 894:talk 880:talk 857:talk 818:talk 778:talk 751:talk 728:talk 714:talk 698:talk 634:talk 619:talk 590:talk 556:talk 522:talk 496:talk 447:talk 372:talk 303:talk 285:talk 256:. -- 218:talk 191:talk 165:talk 142:talk 115:talk 99:talk 2734:not 2707:. 2623:. 2510:!) 2126:all 2094:not 1969:non 1962:and 1541:not 1330:or 1135:or 1131:or 1011:or 836:BLP 802:My 660:466 574:466 540:466 265:466 2874:. 2843:) 2832:. 2820:= 2812:: 2797:- 2783:- 2765:- 2751:- 2715:) 2695:(" 2659:) 2617:If 2615:. 2589:) 2546:) 2518:) 2468:) 2452:) 2419:, 2389:, 2335:, 2294:, 2218:. 2138:is 2133:. 2122:or 2118:or 2114:or 2110:or 2106:or 2102:or 2098:or 1975:, 1947:) 1903:) 1749:) 1741:" 1659:) 1623:) 1556:) 1548:-- 1525:) 1498:) 1427:is 1408:) 1384:, 1371:) 1350:) 1311:) 1293:) 1268:) 1249:) 1227:) 1202:) 1185:) 1164:) 1110:) 1053:) 1028:) 955:) 924:) 910:) 896:) 882:) 859:) 820:) 780:) 753:) 730:) 716:) 700:) 655:JN 636:) 621:) 609:a 607:or 592:) 584:-- 569:JN 565:-- 558:) 535:JN 524:) 498:) 449:) 374:) 305:) 287:) 260:JN 220:) 193:) 167:) 144:) 117:) 101:) 64:← 2839:( 2711:( 2655:( 2585:( 2572:i 2569:m 2564:☯ 2561:n 2556:u 2542:( 2514:( 2464:( 2448:( 2423:. 2393:. 2302:. 2280:. 2069:. 2059:. 2035:. 1943:( 1899:( 1835:i 1832:m 1827:☯ 1824:n 1819:u 1745:( 1713:i 1710:m 1705:☯ 1702:n 1697:u 1655:( 1619:( 1552:( 1521:( 1494:( 1404:( 1396:( 1367:( 1346:( 1307:( 1289:( 1264:( 1245:( 1223:( 1198:( 1181:( 1160:( 1106:( 1049:( 1024:( 951:( 920:( 906:( 892:( 878:( 855:( 851:. 816:( 776:( 749:( 726:( 712:( 696:( 632:( 617:( 588:( 554:( 520:( 494:( 445:( 370:( 301:( 283:( 216:( 189:( 163:( 140:( 113:( 97:( 50:.

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

Index