Jump to content

Talk:List of atheist philosophers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

User adding non atheists to the list

Somebody might want to comb through the people Oolon Colluphid has added. He recently added Roger Scruton an Anglican and leading Conservative philosopher. Obviously a huge slur to label this person as godless. In this 2005 interview he tackles the question directly.[1]

  • Interviewer: Do you believe in God now?
  • Roger Scruton: Yes

Please do not add potentially libelous information to the article. - The Cavendish (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oi, don't get all snotty with me, sunshine. I've personally more than doubled the number of people in these lists, every one of them a bloody sight better sourced than many that were already here. So one slipped through, based on a decent-seeming source. Well whoopee do-dah. You know what? I doubt anybody researches a potential entrant's entire background. All that happens is that a reputable source for the person turns up. This time, it seems the 'libel' is the Independent journalist's. So please pass my apologies on to Mr Scruton for me. Oolon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Ludwig Wittgenstein? Wikidea 23:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


"He...embraced the Christianity that he had previously opposed" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#Final_years_and_death) Wittgenstein wasn't an atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OExaltedOne (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Just a notion about Nietzsche. Even though he said "God is dead" he didn't mean it in atheistic sense. He was just appalled because the world is so evil, so he concluded that God has to be dead. He was against Christianity, yes, but he obviously believed in some kind of a god. Unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.240.123 (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find "atheist philosophers" to be an oxymoron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.209.248 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Madhyamika Aryadeva and Candrakirti

Why is it required to put a quotation to Madhyamaka philosophers like Aryadeva and Candrakirti, that says they are atheists, when the Madhyamaka itself refutes the existence of an absolute creator? --Madden (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Russell said: "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist... None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line." Am I an Agnostic or an Atheist?, from Last Philosophical Testament 1943–1968, (1997) Routledge ISBN 0-415-09409-7. Your reference is sufficient to prove that Russell was actually an agnostic & sceptic--Skashifakram (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And yet by exactly the same reasoning, so is Richard Dawkins. He says so himself. Are you seriously suggesting that Dawkins is "actually" (ie 'only') an agnostic and sceptic too?
From The God Delusion, pages 55-56:
6 Very low probability [of God's existence], but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
[...]
Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
People with even passing acquaintance with philosophy (people such as Russell and Chomsky, eh perchance?) are well aware of the impossibility of proving a negative. And so they are technically agnostic. And -- knock me down with a feather -- they may even say so!
Well whoopee doo-dah. Unless you're contending that 'atheist' means only those who claim absolute philosophical certainty that gods 100% do not exist, I humbly suggest that your objection -- here and for Chomsky -- is spurious cobblers.
Just out of interest, which part of Russell's "if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist" are you finding conceptually problematic?
Oolon (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
You are giving a very poor reasoning!We are not in a linguistic war over the interpretation of the term Atheism, we are saying when a philosopher like Russell,who understood the term ‘Agnosticism’ well and called himself an agnostic, we are no-one to assign another meaning to the word.Russell was almost anti-christian, so he rebels against christian God,& so you misunderstood him to be an atheist.However,in that time atheism's unpopularity and people's ignorance about the philosophical implication of the term agnosticism led Russell to comment like this 'ordinary people in the street' argument.
Regarding Dawkins, he self-identify as atheist but if you can prove that he is actually an agnostic, we are ready to delete from Lists of atheists, I promise!--Skashifakram (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Skashifakram, but Oolon Colluphid has a point here. There is such a term called agnostic atheism (Please look it up). Just because a person says that he is an agnostic, doesn't means that he can't also be an atheist. In fact, Russell himself came up with the concept, known as Russell's teapot (please look into it), to justify his position as both an agnostic and an atheist. Here is a quote from Russell's himself, "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely." - Bertrand Russell. Citation: Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist’s teapot". Ars Disputandi 10: 9–22. (Note: You can find this citation also on the Russell's teapot article.)

By the way, Richard Dawkins himself, has said before that he was an agnostic. World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic. Daily Mail.co.uk However, that does not rule out the fact that he stills considered himself to be an atheist. Just because a person is unsure about the existence of God, doesn't forbid the person to not believe in him as well. For example, I'm unsure about the existence of the Tooth fairy, however, due to lack of any evidence for this entity, I don't tend to believe in it. Do you see my point? Ninmacer20 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong,because:

1)agnostic atheism is not atheism, but even if it is, Russell is an agnostic atheist about christian God, so am I.But that doesn't say explicitly that Russell is an atheist.

2)As regards Dawkins,his atheism is quoted by far numerous sources, far more than his agnosticism, but I don't deny that he may be actually agnostic, but then the burden of proof is on you.He is not the main issue here.

However, there is one way out, if you move Lists of atheists to List of Nontheists,I have no problem seeing Russell in the list .

Thank you..........--Skashifakram (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it sounds like you are trying to nit pick and get people excluded from the list on a perceived technicality. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not, I am just following wikipedia guidlines, please provide a sound logic.Skashifakram (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
We call him an atheist by exactly the same reasoning as we call Richard Dawkins an atheist, i.e Bertrand Russell is an agnostic atheist: Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Noam Chomsky

"Like everyone participating I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny." Noam Chomsky, Edge Discussion of Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival, November 2006 (accessed April 21, 2008).

Your reference alone is enough to suffice that he didn't self-identify as an atheist.He is ofcourse a secular,irreligious but does not know what to deny.--Skashifakram (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, more nit picking. I'm what's called here a "secular atheist", hence suitability for the list. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What about the point in the quote-" except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny."Skashifakram (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you look at Agnostic atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I've already looked at it, i am surprised and upset at your arbitary and senseless logic and high inflexibility in discussion.There are no problems if these people are atheists but it seems we are uncertain...--Skashifakram (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion on the main article is relevant to the point. There is an overlap of atheism and agnoticism. Also note that Richard Dawkins doesn't self identify as a atheist but I think it is also apparent that he belongs on this list. An compromise could be to rename the article List of atheist and agnostic philosophers if you wish. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a decent proposal.Thank You..--Skashifakram (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok great, I will suggest the merge and see if there is more feedback. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Atheist skeptics

Bertrand Russell, Noam Chomsky and Richard Dawkins all offer essentially the same argument concerning self-labeling as an "atheist" — that one cannot prove a negative. Should they be excommunicated from the assembly of prominent atheists merely for their scruples over the nature of proof?

Any self-declared atheist, if he understands these three atheists' logical argument and doesn't explicitly or tacitly endorse it, would have to be regarded as either a shallow thinker or a hypocrite. The lists of atheists would then devolve into lists of atheist imbeciles and atheist hypocrites. Nihil novi (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you think God and Christian God are basically same thing???--Skashifakram (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify your question. Nihil novi (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry mate, but to me, his leading question looks pretty straightforward :-p ;-) See, Russell (and similar others) specifically denied the Christian god, rather than just 'god(s)'. Now, we might think that, since he lived in a time and place where the only god worth mentioning was the Christian one, being more specific is neither here nor there. But that would be special pleading and unforgivable interpolation on our part. Because he was specific about the Christian god, it's the only one we can be sure he disbelieved. Okay he was an atheist about the Christian god in particular, but for all we know from his words, he may however have harboured a deep and abiding belief in, say, Quetzalcoatl. And probably leprechauns too, since he didn't deny them either. Ergo he wasn't an atheist. Simples. Oolon (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That sort of reasoning doesn't apply here. We defer to reliable sources, which call them atheists. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
And for anyone who doesn't get the irony and sarcasm dripping from each of my words there: Yup Wolfie, precisely. :-) Oolon (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Aha, sorry I couldn't be sure. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell stated that the label atheist conveyed a more accurate understanding of his views in a popular context. Hence he belongs on this list. Reliable sources call him an atheist, so should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
IRWolfie, you are forcing us to believe what you think should be, now take this word,"I am called muslim but I don't know whether I believe in Islam or for the matter God" Do you then consider the one who quotes it a muslim? Please refer to the definition of Atheist & for the time being, don't change it!Thank You....Skashifakram (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no single definition of atheism, that is explicit in the atheist article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Nontheism is not Atheism and wikipedia definition is never a good reference.The main point is atheism is different from agnosticism..--Skashifakram (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, we don't work on definitions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Change Title

Someone needs to remove the "and agnostic" part from the article's title along with said non-atheists (Example: Kant). Agnostic philosophers have their own list. I would do it myself, but I can't seem to figure out how to edit article titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.240.59 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Kant and James were neither atheists nor agnostics

Immanuel Kant was a Lutheran who tried to show that God's existence was reasonable in his "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. and William James was a Catholic who wrote "the Will to Believe" and argued that agnosticism cannot be a choice.

Not being a registered user, I don't have the credentials to remove these errors without them being reverted automatically, but I couldn't just sit there and not point them out. --69.251.85.113 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This list

Should this list be at List of atheist philosophers or List of atheist and agnostic philosophers? KillerChihuahua 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This list was moved in June 2012 to include agnostics, without any discussion that I have been able to locate. I have moved it back. There is already a List of agnostics; and the main List of atheists article lists the following lists:

Please note none of these include agnostics, and indeed the title of this article was not changed there; the List of atheist philosophers link merely redirected to List of atheist and agnostic philosophers. This is not consistent; it is duplication of information given in the list of agnostics; and it misleads and confuses the reader. Further, input was not sought at the Talk:List of atheists nor at the Talk:List of agnostics, nor any other input sought that I have been able to locate. I have moved the article back, to be consistent with the other lists, and removed (so far as I have been able to determine) any non-atheists on this list. Before moving it back or beginning an edit war to include non-atheists, I strongly advise a well-advertised WP:Rfc, listed at Rfc:Philosophy and religion as well as at Talk:Atheism, Talk:List of atheists, Talk:Agnosticism, and Talk:List of agnostics. KillerChihuahua 17:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't try to look foolish, read the discussion about Russell and Chomsky! have you tried enough!--Skashifakram (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I did read that. You and one other editor, IRWolfie, who made the move, were the only ones involved in that discussion. I submit for your consideration that the two of you were insufficient to determine a wide consensus for this move, which conflicts with both the consistency of the lists of atheists as well as the list of agnostics. As you have chosen not to open an rfc, I am doing so. KillerChihuahua 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I see nothin but fights when it comes to distinguishing agnostics from atheists. Some people consider them two entirely seperate groups, and some people consider agnostics to be a subgroup of atheist, IE "weak atheism". Perhaps a fair compromise would be to simply describe in the lead how we are defining "atheist" and include a link to the agnostic list? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I would champion this idea from PraetorianFury. It seems to be defined well in the lead already. Just link to the list of agnostics with something like "For those not identifying specifically with the narrow definition but instead concerning themselves with the question of whether the existence of gods is knowable..." That seems like the least work for the most consistency. Spacexplosion[talk] 19:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • RfC Comment - Pretty much agree with what Tryptofish said above. We will always have problems, for instance, regarding how to define Buddhists, many of whom believe in nothing like a "personal" God, and can thus reasonably be considered atheists on that basis, even if they are Buddhists. And in some other cases, where a person from pre-Reformation Europe can clearly be said to have not been a Judeo-Christian theist, there are sometimes serious questions whether they were actively atheist or anything else or whether they simply weren't Judeo-Christians as that term was understood at the time. Personally I'm inclined to keep the list as "atheist" only, with some sort of definition at the top of the page indicating how the word is specifically definied in this instance, as that seems the best proximate answer to deal with this specific question, and hope that in time the broader questions get sorted out on their own. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the most important thing is to keep everything consistent. I think that it is important to make a distinction and not lump Atheism and Agnosticism together, so at the very least it needs to be clarified in the lead. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Listcruft of this kind should not exist in the first place. Hans Adler 11:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You raise a good point. Couldn't this just be converted to a category? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems much easier to keep everything consistent by lumping everyone together; it's quite difficult to clearly distinguish agnosticism from atheism, one of the definitions given in the main article is "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" which fits over many agnostics. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment But not all. Most notably, agnostic theists. Atheism is about (lack of) belief, agnosticism is about (lack of) knowledge. Sure, there's overlap -- Dawkins himself is agnostic -- but broad-church (as it were ;-) ) atheism isn't synonymous and interchangeable with agnosticism. Oolon (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing

Reasonable arguments have been presented on both sides, and I think the discussion could be closed either way. I see a majority in favor of maintaining the status quo separating atheists from agnostics. The argument goes that they are not the same. The counter-argument goes that the terms are not easily defined in reference to real people. I would say most of the time it is known whether someone is an atheist or agnostic, so the distinction has meaning. Therefore, the majority in this discussion is reasonable, and it carries the day (or the month...). Non-admin closure. Chutznik (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments

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)

Criteria for inclusion

IP editor 47.137.175.229 has recently been deleting many of the entries on this page on the basis that the persons, although philosophers and atheists, do not have advocacy on behalf of atheism as the central aspect of their philosophies. I am concerned that this may be an overly strict criterion, resulting in the deletion of useful content from the list. (I have no objection to deleting atheists who are not actually philosophers.)

According to the page lead, the list should include philosophers "whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life, and who have publicly identified themselves as atheists." I think that's reasonable. Therefore, it seems to me that philosophers who self-identify as atheists, and whose atheism is sufficiently prominent as to be notable within either their philosophic works or within their public life, should be included. This, it seems to me, is a somewhat broader criterion, and allows for some philosophers who are best known for work that is not primarily about atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur.
Articles (e.g., "Mononymous person"), List-articles (e.g., "Physician writer"), and categories (e.g., "Category:Deaths from tuberculosis") often list persons who are better known for other characteristics or life events.
I think that eligible individuals should be restored to the List of atheist philosophers.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Given what you said, I have, at least temporarily, restored all of the deleted material and left a note at the IP's talk page to please come to this discussion. I'm receptive to undoing parts of my revert, but I think that there needs to be discussion and consensus before material like this gets removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Same IP has been removing entries from List of atheists (miscellaneous). Beach drifter (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that I left them a talk message but they have chosen not to discuss it here, I'd say just revert until they come to talk. I see that you reverted but relocated those entries, which was a very good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not a great supporter of these sorts of "List of" articles when they seem to overlap what could be better accomplished by categories – they require too much upkeep and are too detached from their subjects.
But if we are to have such a list, I agree that the criteria for being on the list must not include prominent advocacy of atheism.
Inclusion on the list should be based on proper sourcing
  • do we accept a statement by the subject that they are or are not an atheist?
  • do we require stronger evidence when a third party calls the subject an atheist?
  • What if they are atheists at some point in their careers, but not at other points?
What we end up with should be a list that represents the intersection of (philosophers notable enough for Wikipedia) and (people who can be identified as atheists).  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A. J. Ayer

These edits: [2], [3], [4], [5], raise a similar issue. Apollo The Logician argues that Ayer should not be included because he is a practical atheist. I'm inclined to think that the distinction does not matter, according the discussion just above, as well as the sources cited at A. J. Ayer#Philosophical ideas (permalink), where Ayer self-describes as an "atheist" without the "practical" qualifier. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur on that as well. I understand that there's supposed to be an ideological distinction between "practical atheist" and your general run-of-the-mill atheist, but for the purposes of this list that's still atheist.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The distinction between practical atheism and atheism certainly does matter. One can be both a practical atheist and a theist so the distinction does matter. True he does do that but he is known for being ignostic. That could just be before he became an ignostic or he used the word atheist instead of practical atheistApollo The Logician (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
We never addressed the question of what to do for a person who was, for some period, an atheist, but at other times was not.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It should probably be renamed to List of atheists and former atheists and split into two sections.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
For me, that would raise a big question of whether there should be a list at all.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Those concerns could apply for an individual who was religious for part of his life and an atheist for other parts, but that's not what we are dealing with here. Based on the sources at his bio page, he was a practical atheist pretty much throughout his philosophical career, until later on, when he began referring to himself as an atheist, without the modifier. The sources include direct quotes from Ayer, saying in his own words that he does not believe in God, and saying that he is an atheist. So this is very much not a case of a philosopher who was sometimes a theist of any sort. To argue that he cannot be in this list, because his atheism wasn't pure enough for part of his career, strikes me as a very unconvincing argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And now John Harris, bioethicist and philosopher, removed because allegedly "not a philosopher"? What's going on?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What's going on is that this has become an unreasonable pattern of one IP editor followed by one registered editor, who keep removing entries in their entirety for reasons that do not get support from other editors on this talk page. I'm restoring the status quo now, and I think that any further deletions should be based on getting consensus on this talk page first. Editors who, going forward, make removals without prior discussion are going to be acting disruptively, as far as I am concerned. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of atheist philosophers. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of atheist philosophers. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of atheist philosophers. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Friedrich Engels

Did Engels' opinion on atheism differ from Marx's? Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia "Friedrich Engels" article, "Engels developed atheistic beliefs and his relationship with his parents became strained."[1]
  1. ^ Friedrich Engels. "Letters of Marx and Engels, 1845". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2010-02-13.
Nihil novi (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Added Engels to the List of atheist philosophers.
Nihil novi (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

1 Problems Major in regards Categorical Reductions

N_1: These are written out in easy form to facilitate discussion, and present plans for improvement: the primary motivation is understood after understanding wherefore people search for this page. — A longer discussion in another section may be held, but it seems apparent this page serves more for reference.

1. There should be a distinction between philosophers who have confessed agnostic/atheistic beliefs, and those who are active critics of religion: Noam Chomsky has referred to himself as agnostic/atheistic; David Hume developed an individual system, but also wrote critiques such as ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’.

1.1 It would be wise to create a further distinction between professors (one who professes) a system without God, and one who actively champions the dismissal of theological notions, in example, we ought to create a distinction between J. Bentham and B. Russell: whereas creating a moral or epistemological system without transcendent elements can be created by deists (Locke’s tabula rasa), they are not primarily “atheistic” works; Russell’s ‘Why I Am Not A Christian’ is the use of his system attempting the dismantling of theological principles - he similarly has written academic refutations in his History, and his work recording his lectures on Leibniz’ philosophy.

1.1.2 Still distinct is the polemicist, such as Rhazes or Voltaire. And, still yet, ‘populist activism’

Conc. 1 There needs to be a distinction between: a. philosophers who have confessed, b. philosophers who have developed independent systems, c. philosophers who have made academic critiques, d. philosophers who have written polemical treatises, e. Philosophers who have attempted populist activism.

PS. After this as Step 1, and then further cataloguing, whether by Age, or subject, the names also need to be reviewed, and a “Controversial” ss should be created.

(My comp. crashed and so about 1/3 editing and expanding this is lost. Ah well! Advice, criticism, and help much appreciated!)--Shimizu Shora (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Needs organising into chronological order

There currently appears to be no organisation to this list, whether alphabetical or chronological. I suggest making it chronological, by date of birth. Hyuhanon (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam

Where in the sources does it say that Putnam was an atheist? The firstthings article only states that he did not believe in divine intervention or an afterlife. 89.246.123.135 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

sources for Nietzsche being an atheist?

There are multiple statements about Nietzsche beliefs in here most of them without sources and the only source is a Spiegel article (on top of it being in german). No academic or source from Nietzsche writting. Plus the statment God is dead not equal to god doesn't exist. Bandasaka (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, when I first read this topic's title I thought it was a joke, considering that every commentaries I've read from Nietzsche's translations into Spanish agree about his atheism. You can read articles like "Nietzsche's Three Phases of Atheism", which seems a reliable source, too. Opinions held by people like Julian Young are pretty original ones and completely in the minority. Nietzsche probably represents the archetype of the modern atheist, though the complexity and originality of his philosophy. Possibly that's the reason why many academics don't even mention it, because they give it for granted. PedroAcero76 (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
My main problem is the lack of scholarly sources on Nietzsche's atheism. I realize that it is a minority view that Nietzsche was not an atheist. But I still think you should provide sources for statements about beliefs and philosophies of important philosophers. Bandasaka (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
There are too many sources... I just told you that, in every Spanish translation I've read (including the monumental complete works in 4 volumes published recently in Spain) it's mentioned, commented or taken for granted. Here it is another article, published on the academic paper Thémata (edited and published by the University of Seville, Spain). It says, on page 182: «Truth in Nietzsche concerning God's problem makes him an atheist, undoubtedly. [...] Atheism becomes absolutely necessary for Nietzsche in order to counteract that God's strenght through his vital character.»
Sorry if my translation into English from the original text in Spanish isn't perfect, and I apologize for using texts in Spanish but this is my native language and I've read all Nietzsche's work in this language. PedroAcero76 (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not disputing the sources, I'm just saying that there are no scholarly sources on Nietzsche on this page (the list of atheist philosophers). The only source on Nietzsche here is a spiegel link. So I would like to update it with some scholarly sources if possible. And if you agree that the article which you linked more scholarly then I think both of us can agree to update the source on this page about Nietzsche. Bandasaka (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I agree, but the link to Spiegel I think it was intended to be a primary source to some "Gay Science" aphorisms, though the link doesn't work on my computer (I suppose it requires registration). So I added a secondary source, as you can see, from a professor and author of a book and some articles about Nietzsche. I think it's more appropiate an article in English language considering this is Wikipedia in English. I had many other sources, like [6], [7], [8]..., but one of them may be enough. I hope you agree with my addition. PedroAcero76 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. If you want your can can add more sources, but I think this page does not need more than three sources per person. Due to it being a list of people with a very short description. Bandasaka (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (philosophy)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (philosophy) 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 (philosophy) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing Philosopher

Emil Cioran was a 20th century atheist philosopher. 73.94.98.202 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers/Archive_1&oldid=1234311484"