Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. I personally found the "keep" arguments more persuasive, but viewed objectively, both sides make arguments that have not been refuted. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

List of former atheists and agnostics

List of former atheists and agnostics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SOAP The list has a definitional problem in that if we take the weak atheist definition then everyone is born an atheist and therefore every believer is technically a former atheist. However, the purpose of the list is to highlight those particular believers who are notable and make a point of declaring themselves to have been former atheists. But believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda. Qed (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Any notable person of faith who wanted to put themselves on the list could simply recount the moment that they first believed in god, then proclaim that they were atheist until that point. As such the list merely is a record of those believers who decided to do that and does not in any way reflect anything of significance regarding their faith or atheism. Qed (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify/correct myself: when I say "But believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda", what I mean is that the use of a public forum to showcase "conversions from atheism" is usually an apologist tactic. I am not intending on impugning believers who do not engage in this sort of propaganda. Qed (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - your reasoning is ingenious, but I think this list should be deleted simply because it will become impractically large, as the inclusion criteria are way too wide. If we're going to have a list on "former atheists", it really needs to be about individuals whose conversion came later in life and was prominent. Also, the range of human belief systems are too wide- I hope it will not be too harsh to draw the analogy:
• List of former deists
• List of former pantheists
• List of former former atheists
• List of former anti-theists

I'm probably going to disagree with you about whether "believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda", and I'd suggest you might want to read WP:POINT, but I'm still in favour of getting rid of this list. Claritas § 16:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the WP:POINT reference. I do genuinely think this page should be deleted, and because its essentially a religious recruitment tool (which falls under propaganda). The existence of the list will encourage people who support this propaganda to get themselves onto the list. These are standard apologetics tactics. I thought Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a tool for activist causes. Lists on Wikipedia should observations of facts as they are, not to encourage people to be part of the "facts".

For me to be failing on WP:POINT, I supposed I would have to think the WP:SOAP rule itself is flawed and by deleting this page I would be showing just how flawed the rule is -- except that's not in any way what I am trying to do here. The rule is perfectly sound, its the page itself which is unsound. Qed (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep We need to be careful when considering whether to delete any article that is well-sourced (a rare treat on Wikipedia), and the topic of a person renouncing one set of beliefs in favor of another is encyclopedic. Arguably, there have been more notable atheists who had, in their younger years, believed very sincerely in a deity, but I would look at such a list as informational, rather than assuming it to be a promotion of atheism. The hyperbole of "this could be endless" is a frequent argument, but one that almost never works if it's clear that the scope is limited to notable persons whose inclusion can be justified with a source. "Believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda"? Are you serious? What else do "we" do? Generalizations about any group-- Christians, atheists, Muslims, Republicans, NRA members, Sierra Club members, etc. -- are not reasons to delete an article. Mandsford 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course its well sourced -- people of faith who say they were former atheists, are trying to be well sourced (by being quoted or being very vocal about it). That's the whole point of what they are doing -- that's how propaganda works. I would imagine that most WP:SOAP complaints are about things that are "well sourced". So I don't see the merit of this argument.

The list is not analogous to atheists who were formerly theist because its possible to avoid a theistic phase altogether, while it is impossible (by the weak atheist definition) to avoid an atheist phase. Notable atheists cannot just decide to put themselves on that list (at least not honestly). Furthermore, it is possible to dig up records on people externally as to having gone to seminary or something like that to independently confirm a de-conversion. So that list is actually measuring something that intrinsic to the historical nature of their faith. Whereas any notable theist can put themselves onto this page's list as soon as they wish do so just as others are not on the list only because they decide not to say anything about it.

Perhaps I was not being clear when I said "believers do this for propaganda purposes". I meant that "apologists do this for propaganda purposes" (but stating it that way is nearly tautological). I also think the practice is restricted almost entirely to apologist purposes, which I probably should have written instead. Obviously, I don't mean to claim all believers do this, but rather that those that do are doing so for apologist propaganda reasons. Qed (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I suppose that there are people who make false claims about what their former beliefs had been, for whatever reason, but I think that most are sincere when they say, "Well, I used to believe..." You'll have to educate me about what you mean by theistic and atheistic phrases, but people are genuinely interested in the philosophies of notable persons, and book authors and reporters bring up these questions because a change in beliefs is a turning point in a person's life. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not surprisingly, was asked about having been raised as a Presbyterian because people were interested in her life. While I suppose that one could look at her observations as propaganda [1], I don't have any reason to doubt her. We have an entire Category:Lists of religious converts because (a) readers are curious (b) they want to find out if what they have "heard" is true and (c) they want to be able to prove it, preferably by showing where it was written in a book. It's not just religion; people were interested in why Arlen Specter went from being a "former Republican" to being a Democrat. Mandsford 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But you are missing a key point. People have to be given religion -- they can't be born with it (there's no Christian gene). So for the period of time when you have not yet been given religion, you have no religion and no beliefs which makes you an atheist (by the weak definition.) So everyone is a "former atheist" as a matter of definition, its just a question of whether or not they are currently believers. So its not a list of anything, except people who are believers for which you can find certain logically superfluous documentation. Pointing out the M.M.O'H as an interesting case supports the list of atheists who were former believers (because some definitively were not and some were). So that doesn't support your case, it just supports the case for the other page. Similarly, the Arlen Specter case is different because people are born neither democrat nor republican. You don't get to escape being born an atheist.

Look, the asymmetry comes from the fact that atheism is not a religion. Its just the default stance. And its not a philosophy (philosophical forms of atheism are essentially akin to the strong or explicit form of atheism, which is the minority form, but this list doesn't mention strong or explicit atheism.) That's why the lists are not analogous. Qed (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone will agree with you. Mandsford 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep i see the conversion of someone from a position of atheism or agnosticism to a religion as inherently notable. As long as this list is limited to people who were notably atheistic during the span of their notability, and then made a public statement of conversion, i see no problem. i would exclude anyone who said that in their past, before they were notable, they were atheistic, and then converted after their notability (even if they were atheistic into their adulthood but before their notability). unless, they were a religious leader who became notable at the moment of their conversion. I think what ive written eliminates the problem of everyone being areligious at birth.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just don't get that. Everyone who becomes religion converts from atheism. You are saying that some 82% of the US are inherently notable? The act of that conversion alone makes someone notable? That makes no sense. If you want to make a list of notable atheists who converted to religion, then I think you have to explicitly put that in the title of the list, because that's a very different thing from from a person who converts then becomes notable, then decided to be vocal about the (redundant) fact that they used to be an atheist. And that's not made clear by the title of the article, or the introduction to the article. Qed (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I suppose some wise guy could try to add all known notable theists to this list based on the supposition that all are born atheists, but that's a pretty contentious (POV) claim, and not one that can be supported well with reliable sources. We should evaluate the list based on what it is now, not on how it could theoretically go wrong in the future. In that same vein, we shouldn't delete a list just because we imagine it might become unmanageably long in the future. At present, the list is quite manageable, and insistence on thorough sourcing by its editors has assured that, quite unlike several lists that have justifiably been deleted. As for the claim that the list has some sort of apologetic agenda--I don't see that at all, and I'm one contributor to the list who happens to be an atheist. Again, insistence on thorough sourcing has helped nullify any potential POV slant that any one editor might try to insert. Nick Graves (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying that we are all born without belief is POV? Is saying we are all born without language or pubic hair or adult teeth POV as well? The list as a whole is not immediately easy to judge since I have never heard of most of the people on it. The few that are on it that I know only express their former atheism for the very specific purpose of apologetic recruitment (Francis Collins, Kirk Cameron, C.S. Lewis, Alister McGrath, are/were all active apologists). Because that's the only real purpose this list serves.

There is also a question of how do you reliably collect names for this list? If a believer decides not to talk about or reveal their former atheism, or in fact lies and says they never were then they escape this list even though they shouldn't. So how do you even make this list not inherently inaccurate? Qed (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I really did not intend to post here, but there are Jewish and Hindu sections. I have supported those expanding so long as any new names therein are sourced. Judaism and Hinduism, as a rule, do not evangelize. That you've never heard of the names therein does not really make all of them obscure. Mary Doria Russell has one numerous awards including the Arthur C. Clarke Award and the James Tiptree, Jr. Award. Annie Besant was one of the leading Theosophist, which is a historically notable group. This isn't an argument one way or another. I could see arguing this is too broad as we don't have ones specific to other metaphysical position. No List of former deists, List of former pantheists, and so forth. Although as I created it I obviously thought it could be historically/culturally useful without necessarily being evangelistic. (I actually took C. S. Lewis off at one point, when it was still just "former atheist", as I'm unconvinced he was ever actually an atheist. I think he was probably more like an irreligious agnostic, but that would fit him in the current version.) --T. Anthony (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Nick Graves. The nominator's definitional problem seems to be a problem mostly for himself. 'Everyone is a "former atheist" as a matter of definition' is highly debatable, and clearly isn't the definition used by this list. The argument that 'Any notable person of faith who wanted to put themselves on the list could' is similarly a straw man; I somehow doubt there are a substantial number of notable people of faith willing to go to any effort to get added to yet another list in Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not debatable at all. How could someone be born believing in religion? Its not possible, and certainly I have never heard of any record of such a thing. The default position on any stance is the neutral one, which in this case is a lack of belief. But that's the definition of atheism. If you look through the discussion page for that page, you will very clearly see I am not the only one with this "problem".

Wow. You're actually debating whether or not it's debatable? Doesn't that contradiction bother you? Just a tad? :-)

Words have multiple meanings, and our article atheism starts with three of them. the rejection of belief in the existence of deities; the position that there are no deities; the absence of belief that any deities exist. You seem to be grabbing the third one, when it's pretty clear that is not the definition most, or likely any, of the people on that list would be using when saying "I used to be an atheist". I'm quite sure that almost all of the people on that list mean that they thought about it, and consciously rejected the existence of any deities, and if any simply mean "I was born knowing nothing, just like everybody else", would support that person's removal. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You also misunderstand my point about people adding themselves to the list. I am not claiming that there will be many or a substantial number people who do it. My claim is that people will do it primarily for propagandistic purposes; i.e., they are self selecting. Further they will use the existence of this page itself as a motivating factor to put themselves on the list. Qed (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Religion is self selecting - you want to join a certain religion, you make the decision, and go through a more or less difficult process, and there you are. In fct, most of our lists of people are at least partly self selecting, from List of Megadeth band members to List of lieutenant governors of Wisconsin - no one forces someone on to the List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches, most or all of the members went to great lengths to get there, and I suspect most are darn proud of it, write books about it, give speeches about it, and put it on their resumes to get similar or even better jobs (i.e., propagandistic purposes). So what? "self selecting" is not a disqualifier. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Nomination based on two unverifiable theories. This is not the place to discuss whether we are born with beliefs, or why people disclose their current and former beliefs. Should this list ever get out of hand due to size, it can easily be converted into a list of lists of converts. --Pgallert (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think I've figured out that the nominator defines an atheist as a person who "does not believe in God", rather than a person who "believes that there is no God" (more specifically, no supreme being or beings by whatever name), and there is a difference between the two. I'm willing to look at whatever dictionary definition the nominator relies upon, although a question of semantics is a reason for editing, rather than deleting an article. As far as what I'd point to, here would be three examples: "one who believes that there is no deity" [2] is; other online definitions are "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings" [3] or "someone who denies the existence of god" [4]. There is a difference between having a belief that something does not exist, and never having formed a belief at all. While we could argue all day on this, I suppose, I've yet to see a policy based reason to delete this article. Mandsford 12:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Qed's error is here: "The default position on any stance is the neutral one, which in this case is a lack of belief. But that's the definition of atheism." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, states the definition of atheist as: "one who believes that there is no deity." That is the common understood definition. In the interest of effective communication, which is necessary for consensus building, that is the definition of the word that should be understood for the title of the article under discussion. This article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory. The reason people are notable is not because they are Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, Jewish, Atheist or Agnostic. People are notable because they have accomplished something in sports, they have invented something very useful, they have been born into a royal family, or some other notable thing. It is possible to record a notable person's belief in an article, but not necessary and I would not record the fact if the subject of the article objected. The religious belief and instruction the Catholics' Pope had as a child would be pertinent to the article on Pope Benedict XVI, but the best indication of childhood beliefs is that the five year old Joseph Ratzinger said that he wanted to be a cardinal. The religious or anti-religious beliefs of authors, musicians, movie and television workers, teachers, politicians, scientists, and athletes do not make them notable. I urge that this list be deleted and then someone should nominate for deletion the [[List of nontheists (activists and educators)]], [[List of nontheists (authors)]], [[List of nontheists (film, radio, television and theater)]], [[List of nontheists (music)]], List of nontheists (philosophy)]], [[List of nontheists (politics and law)]], [[List of nontheists (science and technology)]], and [[List of nontheists (miscellaneous)]]. If I learn that they have been nominated, I will certainly call for their deletion. --Fartherred (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you also support deleting all of the lists here? Famous people are notable in part because of their expressed religious beliefs simply because many people take an interest in such information. That's why so many sources report on such matters, even if most people listed on these lists are notable primarily for something other than their beliefs. Whether lists such as these ought to exist on Wikipedia hinges not on whether individuals listed are primarily notable for their religious identity, but on whether famous adherents of certain religions are notable as a class of people. When researching a religion, it is common to inquire into the matter of famous adherents, and so these lists serve as a useful complement to the articles on Judaism, Mormonism, atheism, etc. Regardless, the argument you put forward is support for tightening of inclusion criteria (so that only those whose notability depends on their current or former religious beliefs are listed), and not a valid criterion for deletion of the entire list. Nick Graves (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have had time to read Nick Graves' comment, I write that these lists should do no harm for people who are dead and for people whose fame is inseparable from their publicly expressed views, such as Richard Dawkins and the Pope. I would hope living persons whose beliefs are unrelated to their to their fame would be removed from these lists. --Fartherred (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be okay to limiting it to the dead, I'm just not sure I know of a way to enforce that or a precedent to justify it. I'd also be okay with limiting to those who are partly/largely notable for being an ex-atheist or ex-agnostic, but I have a feeling if I did so it would be more irritating to the nominator. As a general rule in the past I've defended "list of XYZ religion members" but been more open to deleting "List of former members of XYZ-religion" as the latter seems to be defining people by what they're not anymore. Still I did create this one so I guess my traditional view was they should either all stay or all go. Although possibly I can see how "atheists or agnostics" is a bit broader or different, in a way, than the extent "former blank" lists.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Fartherred (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• comment: Listing people according to religious belief, anti-religious belief or the lack of such beliefs allows for the discrimination between people of one sort of belief and another in situations in which such discrimination is improper. One should not hear in an employment interview the question of whether or not one attends Sunday worship services unless the potential employment is as a Sunday school teacher. If the information is listed on Wikipedia, it would be easy to find without asking improper questions. --Fartherred (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford. As long as the criteria are limited to 1) Notable people, who 2) were RS'ed as atheists or agnostic at one point, and 3) have had an RS'ed conversion to a different belief system, where 4) no subsequent RS has described them leaving the newfound faith, I don't see a problem. With all that RS'ing, each list entry should easily meet the GNG! Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I can see no reason to delete this article. As mentioned, it's good to see a sourced list on wikipedia. However, the nominator raises good points that can perhaps improve the direction of the article- in particular, making sure that the person's previous atheist status is verified. --George100 (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.