Talk:List of atheists (miscellaneous)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose of Page?[edit]

I am an athiest myself, however I don't understand the reason for this page's existence. Was it intended to convey that atheism is popular in our culture? Or a McCarthy-esque blackbook list that 'honest' god-fearing persons can consult to determine if their favorite celebrity is a heretic? RabidDutchman (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the Lists of atheists; 'miscellaneous' was split off along with the others when the original, single list got way too long. I've no idea who started the original, but it's been around for quite a while.
I suppose the point of it is to be Wikipedia's version of things like Celebrity Atheists, which seem popular and useful enough. Only this one is better, since it does not concentrate on 'celebrities' but on anyone notable enough to get a WP page, and is much better referenced.
-- Well, no, this one is worse, because it now definitely looks like "The Unqualified, Ergo General", thus *inherently, implicitly comprehensive(!)* list of atheists. Which is, needless to say, ridiculously stupid. I actually couldn't believe my eyes when bumped into this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.18.184 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it's both a black book for the faithheads, and a "Ooh wow, is he? Yay!" for the rest of us. Or in other words, it's as useful -- or not -- as any other WP 'list'. Either 'lots', or 'not at all', depending on your point of view!
And, I'm in the process of a major rearrangement of these lists: see the Talk here.
Cheers, Oolon Oolon (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Bill Hicks image.jpg[edit]

The image File:Bill Hicks image.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hicks should probably be in the list, surprised he's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.212.240 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Jansen[edit]

Do we think this is good enough? It's a little ambiguous, but he's only really expressing in his caveats what plenty of others have. Reference is:

" An interview with the creator reveals that they are a product of his ongoing experiment of "redoing the Creation" using inorganic material. "I'm not a creationist, but I think a human being is more than just an object. I believe in evolution, but evolution explains just a small part of our coming about. I don't believe in God necessarily; I don't believe in intelligent design, but there are still a lot of mysteries about our consciousness," Jansen says, adding that evolutionary theory doesn't explain anything about how consciousness arises. "I'm really looking forward to those answers, to know how our consciousness comes [about], how we are aware of our evolution." " Ikuko Kitagawa, 'Theo Jansen: Art that evolves', The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo), 6 February 2009 Pg. 14.

Harry Findlay[edit]

He's redlinked in Denman (horse), and there's plenty online about him, so I'm putting this info here till someone does a page for him. Ref is:

"Before the semis, I just broke down. I went behind the stand, cried a little and then threw up. I don't believe in God or religion but before the final, which I didn't think Big Fella could win, I looked up at the clouds and thought, 'If there's anyone up there, if there is anything you can do to let Big Fella win, please, please do it'." David Walsh interviewing Findlay, 'Risky Business', The Sunday Times (London), 1 March 2009, Sport, Pg. 18.

James Woudhuysen[edit]

Professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort University, Leicester

Looks like this chap ought to have a page, so here's some details for when it happens. I'm guessing he'd best fit under 'Business', but feel free to put him somewhere more appropriate when his link turns blue, if you can figure out where that might be.

Reference:

(ref>" With the "science" of climate change becoming enshrined in the public consciousness, does that make green the new god? "I'm an atheist," he says. "But I will say one thing for religion: it is supposed to be about the transcendence of the here and now, the aspiration to a better world or experience. Do we identify that kind of vision with our green friends?" The look on Woudhuysen's face suggests otherwise. "It's more a case of 'stop the world, I want to get off'. This idea that we have to be pushed back because we have made a mistake is stunting our ambition and innovation – which is what's going to save us." " Krystal Sim interviewing Woudhuysen, 'BSD Interview: James Woudhuysen', June 2009 (accessed 26 May 2009).</ref)

Oolon (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kolbeinsen[edit]

Closedmouth sensibly removed this chap for being redlinked. A brief Googling suggests he's non-notable, but I've archived the entry here on the off-chance. Suggest deleting this section in, say, six months' time (November 2009) if no further info or a page about him has happened by then.

Now I come to think of it, I'm not sure the quote really is a statement of atheism as such either... thoughts?

Oolon (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sports) Sarah Outen[edit]

She's notable-ish -- see eg this bit in the Telegraph -- but doesn't have a page yet. If and when she gets one, here's a reference for her:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4099,A-mid-ocean-read,Sarah-Outen-Richard-Dawkins

Oolon (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finally noticed that she now has the page she deserves, so she's now added. Oolon (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article linked to above returns a 404 page, and I can't find another source corroborating what I presume it said (I say "presume" because I can't actually read it to find out). Do we have another means of verifying this? Otherwise, we may have a problem. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we've got another source called 'Google' :-p :-D Simply plugging in 'Sarah Outen Dawkins' brings us to the same page. Looks like the Dawkins site simply archived a load of older bits. The link is now: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4099-a-mid-ocean-read and I've fixed it in the list. Well done spotting it though. :-) Oolon (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For some reason I didn't try that combo - tried 'atheist' and 'religion' instead. Must work on Google search approach it seems. :P I'm happy with this one. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Branson[edit]

On Piers Morgan tonight on CNN on 9/14/2011, Branson confirmed that he does not believe in God. He stated that despite his near-death experience swimming in the Atlantic Ocean, he still does not believe in God although he would like to, because he imagines it to be comforting. As the episode Piers Morgan show is currently still running at this moment, there is no transcript available to support this. Can we post anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike450 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dara Ó Briain[edit]

Comedy show, by it's very nature is not a serious and reliable source for any person's personal belief.--Skashifakram (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten seconds with Google has provided a better reference. Try it some time.
And by the way, your assertion is false. Are we to suppose that, for instance, Tim Minchin might in fact actually hold the Pope in high regard, because he's written a comedy song about him? You'll be telling us next that Bill Hicks's routines are not a serious and reliable source on the matter of whether he'd ever indulged in pot, fags or porn. Oolon (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Armstrong[edit]

Lance Armstong is listed on here as being an atheist; however, his profile page states he is agnostic and makes reference to the same source as this list. Admittedly the difference between the two can be a subjective issue as much as anything, but as things stand this is slightly confusing. I haven't read the source in question so I'm not sure whether it's best to take him off this list or edit the profile page to state he is an atheist instead. Any suggestions? WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael[edit]

We should be extremely careful including a 16th century Italian in this list. The inclusion is backed by some authors that cite Giorgio Vasari, who said Raphael was thought as an "atheist". I remind you that the label "atheist" was used at that time to denote purported lack of respect towards religion, and it was not understood as today. The case of Thomas Hobbes illustrates this perfecly: He was accused of being an atheist and a materialist, yet in his magnum opus The Leviathan, he mentioned God, Christ and "Our Saviour" countless times. François Rabelais suffered the same accusation , yet modern scholarhip upholds that he was a Christian humanist. Therefore, I think it's almost certain that Raphael was a Roman Catholic, like 99.99999% of Italians at that time.

Good point. I'll remove him from this list. Ninmacer20 (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee[edit]

There are gradations to being an atheist. Including someone who believed in spiritual demons and that he would 'come back' is not your typical atheist, even if he didn't believe in one, all powerful being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.168.26 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin[edit]

Carlin is a very complex character. He has spoken against the existence of God in his comedy routines, and he told the AV Club the following:

No. No, there's no God, but there might be some sort of an organizing intelligence, and I think to understand it is way beyond our ability. It's certainly not a judgmental entity. It's certainly not paternalistic and all these qualities that have been attributed to God. It's probably a dispassionate... That's why I say, "Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He just doesn't give a shit?" That's the kind of thing that might be at work.

But he's clearly on the fence here, saying there has never been the kind of simplistic God figure that he was taught in Catholic school. He says, however, that God might exist as something outside of human comprehension.

This quality of being on the fence pervades everything he has said and written. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person who constantly used to say "There is no God. None, not one, never was. No God" on his comedy routines and has explicitly answered "No, there's no God" to the question "Is there a God?" is clearly not on the fence. And he has not said that "God might exist as something outside of human comprehension", but that "there might be some sort of an organizing intelligence, and I think to understand it is way beyond our ability". He has not stated what kind of intelligence that could be, nor has he stated this entity or being is supernatural or metaphysical in any shape or form. As far as we know, Carlin could have been alluding to very advanced aliens who are far superior to us. We'll never know exactly what he meant by that seeing as he is dead now, but he has left no doubt that he was an atheist. If you still do not agree, I suggest you invite other contributors of the article to ask their opinion. Then we would solve that issue based on the consensus. Clausgroi (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zuckerberg is not an atheist[edit]

Mark Zuckerberg stated yesterday on his verified account that he isn't an atheist. Why is he listed as one in this article?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of atheists (miscellaneous). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of atheists (miscellaneous). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of atheists (miscellaneous). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of atheists (miscellaneous). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?[edit]

Why is there a "list of atheists"?

I had to do a double-take when I found this page. With a follow-up search I found that Wikipedia also has lists of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. What the hell is the purpose of listing people specifically by their religion or lack thereof? To make them targets for bigoted extremist nuts?

If the Wikipedia community really thinks this is OK, then why aren't their also lists of racists, bigots, white supremecists, etc.? Shouldn't we also have a list of MAGA-hat wearers?

Fair is fair, after all. 74.95.43.253 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (miscellaneous)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (miscellaneous) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5 § List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (miscellaneous) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_atheists_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1203877989"