Talk:List of former atheists and agnostics/Archive 1

Everyone is born an atheist

Seriously, isn't this list moot or redundant? Theism is something in which people are indoctrinated into. When you are born, you don't believe in anything. So technically-speaking, everyone is born an atheist. So for this article to even be valid, it should be rephrased to notable outspoken atheists who have embraced theism.

If this article is going to be included in Wikipedia, then we also need a listing of Notable people who previously believed in Santa Claus.

I Agree.

Or quite possibly, you believe in everything, i.e., everything is some sort of god or superior force to you. Secondly, it's pretty clear you're biased. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy to Santa Clause is not accurate. A far more appropriate analogy is Notable people who previously had baby teeth. Qed (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Argeaux (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This again. No, people aren't born atheist. "Atheism as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." Babies are not rejecting theism nor are they affirming anything. The Santa Claus analogy probably makes you sound more juvenile or misinformed than you realize. For one Santa Claus is partly based on a real person so belief in Santa is like a belief in Johnny Appleseed. For another the concept of a monotheistic God has arisen in many cultures and been accepted by people well into their adulthood. This can not be said of the mythological variants of Santa Claus.--T. Anthony 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony wrote "Babies are not rejecting theism nor are they affirming anything." Nor, necessarily, is atheism. Atheism is no more the rejection of a belief in gods any more than it is the affirmation of a lack of gods. All atheism is, is the lack of belief in gods. In that respect, it is absolutely true that everyone is born an atheist, just as it is true that everyone is born apolitical. They continue: "For one Santa Claus is partly based on a real person so belief in Santa is like a belief in Johnny Appleseed." Nonsense. The "belief in Santa Claus" that children are inculcated in isn't a belief in the historicity of a human he may have been based upon, it is the belief (1) in his present existence and (2) supernatural powers. "For another the concept of a monotheistic God has arisen in many cultures and been accepted by people well into their adulthood. This can not be said of the mythological variants of Santa Claus." Nonsense, yet again. In fact, many other similar mythical figures exist throughout throughout the world who share some of Santa Claus' characteristics, yet are unrelated to the Santa Claus mythos. Children in Norway used to be taught that Odin was an old man with a beard who flew through the sky on an 8-legged horse. Good children, who left hay for Odin's horse in their boots by the chimney, would be rewarded with gifts left for them. In Iran, children were taught to believe in Amoo Norooz, a mythical, kindly old man with a beard who gave children New Year’s gifts. So, the Santa Claus parallel is quite apt. Bricology (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I figured a category would be worse though. A list doesn't effect the articles for these people. Although there are categories like Category:Former Muslims or Category:Former Mormons, atheists are seen so badly in the US I figured a category would be meanspirited to the American atheists. Still as we do have several of these "former this and former that" I thought it fit. My only concern is that atheism isn't precisely a religion, but I couldn't find Category:People by former belief or even Category:People by philosophy--T. Anthony 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A category would be worse; this can be annotated and sourced. I'm mostly concerned though with establishing what basis there is for ever identifying these people as atheists; claims of apologists such as Josh McDowell are particularly suspect. There's also the need to specify exactly what atheism meant to these individuals, to make sure the term isn't being equivocated or misused. Postdlf 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think some of these are fairly legitimate in that they were people who explicitly believed God did not exist and then changed their mind. However I may have made some errors on starting and in time further errors crept in while I was away.--T. Anthony 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now sourced it as well I can. Granted the source on Price just says he converted to Christianity, it doesn't say what he was before then. I removed Gabriel Marcel as most sources say he had been raised agnostic rather than atheist.--T. Anthony 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is quite well sourced now, and it is an interesting list. I hope it's not deleted, especially as there are lists of formerly religious people, because whilst atheism isn't quite a religion, this article does balance the other lists Slackbuie 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't balance a religion or set of religions against the escape from religion. This list isn't a balance of anything because this list is not even sound. Muhammad, Jesus (if he existed), the Pope, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Adolph Hitler, Billy Graham and the Jonas Brothers are all former atheists turned believers, as well. This list needs to be billions of entries long to makes any kind of sense. Qed (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this article makes no since. The definition of atheism is merely a lack of belief in god. It is *NOT* the garbage given above -- in particular it is *NOT* a philosophy and cannot be made into a philosophy. Atheism is compatible with any philosophical statements excluding those that imply a belief in god. An extra requirement about affirming the non-existence of something is not part of atheism -- that's an extraneous act that is part of something called strong atheism. Nobody is born with a belief in anything. Belief is imprinted upon people only after they are introduced to the concept of belief, then the concept that is being proposed to be believed in. That means that from a purely logical point of view, this article makes no sense because everyone is born atheist, and therefore every non-atheist is a former atheist. Qed (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Took off unreferenced deal

I think it's fairly well-referenced at present. The reference for Price though just states he converted to Christianity, it doesn't confirm what he converted from. I think he does fit, but maybe I need something more conclusive. Strobel is not referenced, but I think that's acceptable.--T. Anthony 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

McGrath?

Was Alister McGrath ever an atheist? (As opposed to just not church-going) His article doesn't mention it.--T. Anthony 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a source ie McGrath himself. (Granted he could be lying, but for the sake of fairness I'm going to say he's not.)--T. Anthony 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I did take Keith Ward out as I couldn't find a source saying he ever was atheist.--T. Anthony 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Entries are alleged unless secondary sources show atheist prior to conversion.

It just struck me (prompted by a discussion in another article) that for someone studying religion who would want to know the former religion of notable figures then they would want secondary sources to confirm the former philosophy i.e. in this case "atheist".

Quite a few (all ?) records only show they are on record after the conversion e.g. in books, autobiographies or interviews etc. I know of no atheists who have converted to a theistic religion who are on record prior to their conversion as saying that they are atheists (though please prove me wrong here). I understand the difficulty of getting secondary sources that report that a person is an atheist prior to their conversion but that does mean that at best we say "Alleged" Atheist as we have no secondary sources that are able to record that they were an atheist other than the person themselves. Ttiotsw 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We have no evidence most of the people in List of ex-Roman Catholics ever really believed in Catholicism either, and some of them clearly never did. Still in the case of John C. Wright and George R. Price we clearly have men who were atheist, but then were not atheist. In both cases their conversions came in their 40s so they were on record with atheist statements. In George R. Price's case he divorced his wife partly because he was an atheist who found her Christianity annoying. On further reading I found out he stayed Christian after his conversion, I had said he dropped it but stayed theist, he just became less evangelical/intense about it later. I know more directly in the case of Wright as I read his stories when he was atheist and I first knew him as an atheist writer of science fiction. His conversion to Christianity was slightly surprising to me, I was told of it by a strongly atheist person from Eastern Germany. (The guy who told me of Wright converting was far more surprised than I and he claimed to have never known a true theist. He also found/finds the idea of theism ludicrous) There were also several raised as atheist, but admittedly their atheist statements in youth might have just been parroting their parents. Still the ex-Catholics or ex-Muslims might have just been parroting their parents ideology/belief/faith/whatever in youth too. Likewise a few were former Communist whose atheism went along with their Communism and who abandoned both more or less simultaneously. Still for consistency I decided not to use a stricter standard here than I would see in other "ex" lists. You might be happy to know that I did remove names when I found evidence they'd been agnostic instead. I'd kind of like to remove C. S. Lewis even. I've read his letters from what's called his "atheist period" and I'm fairly convinced he was never atheist. He was just strongly irreligious, but clearly believed in something "spiritual" even then. Deist/Pantheist, leaning toward Neo-Pagan, would be closer to what he was in youth. There are letters from him then that clearly state he rejected the idea of "God as Father" because he felt it was a delusion per Freudian psychology, but I don't think he ever said much that showed he rejected all conceptions of God. Still I likely couldn't remove Lewis without creating objections. I will remove some if you find evidence they were never atheist and I will even remove Lewis if we can get a concensus to do so.--T. Anthony 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In an unrelated reading on Muslims, in a Pew survey, it indicated that most religious conversions happen before the person is 35. I mention this as above I seemed to indicate the ones here who quit on atheism after age 40 could maybe be seen as "more solid." On consideration pf reading on conversions I think that's probably unfair and not a way of thinking that'd be considered in other former/convert articles. If most of the people in this list did not do anything notable before they abandoned atheism it's likely because that's generally true of people who leave/join a philosophy or religion.--T. Anthony 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, T. Anthony. I see you've removed Lewis as "kind of a test", but I'm sure many Christians who got to the article would expect to find him. I suggest we should either (a) Make it clear in the intro that a pre-conversion public record of Atheism is required for inclusion in this list (maybe even mentioning Lewis as a counterexample), and/or (b) Restore Lewis, but with a caveat regarding his inclusion, and/or (c) Restore Lewis until we can find a WP:RS that he wasn't (or was) an Atheist prior his conversion. Your interpretation of his letters, however valid, might violate WP:NOR. --Wfaxon 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I put him back even though I'm not intending to work here anymore. A different problem is I preferred the older name for this list to the current one. I argued about that, but then gave up. Someone insisted everyone is born atheist so everyone is an ex-atheist. I thought and think that's that rather spurious even if you believe it. (Everyone is born illiterate, amoral, and unable to speak by similar logic) Plus "former proponents" sounds like they were supporters of atheism as a cause, but many of these people were just atheists as a personal preference. However as I said I gave up as it wasn't worth it. Still to see Lewis as a "proponent" of atheism sounds kind of POV or misleading as even if he was an atheist he wasn't especially activists about it. (Lepp or Price seem to have been)--T. Anthony 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Ignoring whether I think this should even have an article, I think the title is disingenious. Everyone is an ex-atheist since newborn babies aren't religious. List of former proponents of atheism sounds a bit better to me. Voretus/talk 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you sincerely believe that? If you do this is why you are incorrect. Newborn babies I suppose could be implicit atheists as they have not been introduced to the concept of God. (Although I know people who would reject that) However by the same logic you could call possibly say they're nihilists as well as they have no sense of truth or meaning of any kind yet. It's just not meaningful or useful to place babies in any metaphysical position like that. Still I don't oppose the rename, but I think it was unnecessary and you should've given it more discussion. (Interestingly only Muslims seem more irked by a "former list" than atheists do.)--T. Anthony 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was a point of contention. I thought it was a given. Sorry. I wouldn't use the same logic to call them nihilists, though, as normally nihilism is asserted, whereas I've always held that anyone who doesn't believe in God, a goddess, gods, or a goddess is an atheist. I suppose it isn't explicit, as you said, but I didn't think that anyone thought that babies/young children were religious.

I'm also not irked at a former list. If other religious/philisophical views get them, atheism should too, no matter how hard atheists complain about it. It's of the same use. I just didn't like the title. The list just seems to list former active proponents anyway. Voretus 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For most people I think "atheist" means someone who doesn't believe in God. A newborn has no opinion on the matter, it's just ignorant. I think most people would find the statement "newborn babies are atheists" to be, at best, misleading or incoherent. In fact I'm not sure I'd ever heard such an expression before. Nihilism was maybe not the best example though. It'd be more like saying babies are amoral, non-democratic, and have no respect for the law. All that might be true in a sense, but it's essentially meaningless and possibly encourages inaccurate associations.--T. Anthony 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. Voretus/talk 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Should Lars von Trier be added? Existing sources say he was raised atheist and Communist, but converted to Catholicism. Judging by the interview in The Age his current beliefs seem uncertain, but they don't seem to have returned to atheism. I'm not sure though.--T. Anthony 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, his conversion is noted as being a rebellious act and he now "enthusiastically endorses pornography", so he's hardly a mainstream Catholic, but I suppose in an attempt at completeness... You can always add caveats so readers of the article won't be misled. --Wfaxon 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nahh. I mean if it was just rebellion it probably doesn't count. Although if someone else decides he still fits, as some kind of pornography endorsing theist, than I guess they can add him.--T. Anthony 03:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anywho. Do you think Peter Hitchens, Connie Purdue, J. Neil Schulman, or Merle Terlesky might fit? I'm trying not to edit anymore so figured I'd just ask instead.--T. Anthony 11:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications for inclusion on lists such as this

I have recently started a thread at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Qualifications for inclusion of "List of former (x)s" in which I am hoping we can standardize the qualifications for inclusion in such lists. Any constructive comments would be more than welcome. John Carter 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to be somewhat strict on this to increase its utility. I even took off C. S. Lewis for a time, but I'm open to new ideas so might check this out. Thanks.--T. Anthony 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In relation to Lewis I decided to add Joy Gresham.--T. Anthony 03:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable yotta yotta

I really don't think any of these lists should be called "notable Xs" and I'm disappointed that trend spread here. By definition if they're at Wikipedia it means they've met a notability guideline. Oh well.--T. Anthony 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the titling of the threads may have been to initially forestall allegations that the contents of the pages didn't meet notability requirements. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing shorter titles myself. John Carter 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That might make sense with lists with red-links or that contain articles on the verge of deletion, but those things aren't true here. It's possible that, as a failed candidate, Steve Beren's article could be AfD'd. Jeffrey Lang's could likely fit as well, but otherwise every name here is clearly notable enough to have an article.--T. Anthony 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"possible that, as a failed candidate, Steve Beren's article could be AfD'd." I guess it wasn't just possible, but probable.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Like I said, I wouldn't mind seeing the names changed myself. But, given the previous attempts to delete these articles individually and collectively, I can understand how editors might have tried to forestall some of the more obvious bases for future deletion discussions by sticking words like "notable" in wherever possible. I tend to think that by now maybe (?) those attempts have been curtailed, though, so it might make sense to shorten the titles. John Carter 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nontheists?

Should this be changed to "List of former nontheists"? (Or if you must "List of notable former proponents of nontheism?") That would take Antony Flew and Moses Hess out, but add former deists and former agnostics. I don't know if Schulman's view of God is purely theist, but as he believes he communicated with it I think he would stay in a "List of former nontheists."--T. Anthony 11:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The move

I hope it doesn't anger anyone, but it's more in line with these "former blank" categories and lists plus the name was getting incredibly long. Also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions says "Do not use a title like: Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of noted Xs, nor list of all Xs." Some argue every theist is a former atheist as everyone was born atheist, but this is a disputed notion. Muslims believe everyone is born Muslim while some atheists contend it might be more accurate to say you are born "nontheist" but not necessarily "atheist." Other atheists at Wiki contend that defining infants as theists, deists, atheists, or nontheists is essentially meaningless. See discussion at Talk:List of nontheists.--T. Anthony 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Going by Wikipedia naming conventions the word "notable" should not be here. However I'll tolerate it being brought back for consistency. For some reason none of the other "former" lists are "up to code" yet. Hopefully they will be standardized in time and then this can revert to the more proper name I moved it to.--T. Anthony 07:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Move that Rorty be deletet or an explanation added

As the primary source for including Rorty in this article clearly states, Rorty has always been anti-metaphyiscal (p.5), and as such, no such thing as a deity has a place in his thinking, which can perhaps best be described as pragmatist. The section that led to him being included in this article is mainly the following:

"Die andere Gruppe der Philosophen, die sich Atheisten nennen, neigt dazu, das Wort "Atheismus" anstelle von "Antiklerikalismus" oder "Säkularismus" zu verwenden. Ich wünsche mir jetzt, ich hätte bei entsprechender Gelegenheit statt des ersten Begriffs einen dieser beiden letzten Ausdrücke benutzt. Denn Antiklerikalismus ist keine epistemologische oder metaphysische Einstellung, sondern eine politische Ansicht. Die Ansicht, dass kirchliche Einrichtungen, auch wenn sie noch soviel Gutes tun - bei allem Trost, den sie Notleidenden oder Verzweifelten spenden -, doch das Wohl demokratischer Gesellschaften gefährden, und zwar so sehr, dass es am besten wäre, wenn sie endlich verschwinden würden." (p.11)

which translates to

"The other group of philosophers who call themselves atheists tends to use the word "atheism" instead of "anti-clericalism" or "secularism". I now wish that I had used one of the latter two terms instead of the former on relevant occasions. Because Anti-clericalism is not an epistemological or metaphysical attitude, but a political view. The opinion that all ecclesiastical institutions, whatever good they might do - whatever comfort they may provide to those in need -, still endanger the well-being of democratic societies to such an extent that it would be best if they finally disappeared."

The reason Rorty states for wishing that he had not used the term atheist is that since there is no place for metaphysics in his thinking, and "atheism" is according to him a metaphysical concept, his concept is a purely political one.

Furthermore, one of the most notable philosophers of our time, Jürgen Habermas, who was a friend of Rorty's has called (in an obituary, see: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/artikel/953/117824/ ) a "strict atheist".

In conclusion: Rorty did not convert to any sort of belief in anything metaphysical, and certainly not to any religion... In his thinking, as in every form of philosophical pragmatism, there is per definitionem no place for metaphysics. Thus, either should the section on him state that at no time did he believe in anything metaphysical - or he should be removed, since the inclusion in this article (at least without further explanation) gives the impression that Rorty at some point stopped "disbelieving" in deities, which he most certainly didn't.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.84.13 (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I took him out and added some musicians plus an author. Granted I'm thinking the musicians might have just been saying they were atheist in youth to explain their screwed up pasts, but with lists you go with what's verified and they say they were atheists.--T. Anthony 12:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm X?

Someone added him, but I'm not sure he fits. I sourced him as once having a strong hostility to religion and God, but I'm not sure that means he was ever atheist. He could've been agnostic or just angry. Feel free to remove him.--T. Anthony 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this be retooled?

What I mean is there's some reason to prefer it be List of former atheists and agnostics as that would better fit Category:Former atheists and agnostics. What say you?--T. Anthony (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes sense at least from a standpoint of convention. This list is short enough that excluding ex-agnostics makes little sense. aremisasling (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I might move it in the next few days, but I'll give a bit more time in case there's any opposition. Although your's is the first response I've gotten either way. If changed it'd mean I can put Gabriel Marcel back, which is nice.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Non-Abrahamic" category

As a category "Non-Abrahamic" only works if the Abrahamic faiths are in some kind of a supergroup. Even so, with no other supergroups, it suggests that the world is stratified by Abrahamic faiths and everyone else.

Furthermore members of Non-Abrahamic faiths are not primarily Hindus. If anything they'd be more Buddhist than Hindu. Not to mention Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Shinto. Then there are the minority religious groups like the Druze, Unitarian Universalists (started as christian, but fully diverged), Baha'i (Started as Muslim, but fully diverged), Zoroastrians, Western Neo-Pagan faiths, Aboriginal faith groups, Afro-Caribbean religions (Vodun is actually a national religion in Haiti), etc, etc, etc.

Perhaps there would be no debate on the issue, but I posted this as a preemptive justification. aremisasling (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When I started I thought I might find someone who joined some East Asian theistic philosophy. However if such a thing happened it'd be best just to separate them out as Chinese folk religion or Shinto isn't really like Hinduism. So you were right, thanks.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett?

I saw this, but for varied reasons I'm not sure it's proper to add him.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What reason could you possibly have for leaving him off your precious list???? You people are so two faced. The list itself makes no logical sense, then when there's an entry that makes religion look stupid, because it takes Alzheimer's to make someone convert you're perfectly ready to leave him off the list, even though he's more notable that nearly anyone on the list you have so far. This is just dripping with such obvious hypocrisy. Qed (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Calm down a bit. I was partly thinking of what Terry Pratchett fans would feel and whether his family might deem it unfair. Also I think some of the idea behind conversion/de-conversion lists is about listing those who made a decision when in sound mind. Additionally I've worked on de-coversion lists too. You'll see me in the history of edits for List of former Christians (where I added atheists Millosh Gjergj Nikolla and Julia Sweeney) and List of former Roman Catholics. And really Terry Pratchett is more notable than Francis Collins, Czesław Miłosz, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Ted Turner, or Evelyn Waugh? (edited to link to all names)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Do a google search on each of those names you listed and compare the number of hits to what you will get for Terry Pratchett. He has 4 times as many entries as the next highest scorer, Ted Turner. So yes, Terry Pratchett, by this objective measure is more notable than anyone you listed. Did you have a better measure? Nevertheless, I hedged and said nearly everyone on the list. BTW, who the hell is Evelyn Waugh?

And since when does Wikipedia take editorial direction from how people's fans or friends and family think? Did you think maybe we should remove mention of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist connections on his article because of what his very large and peaceful extended family might think of it? This is an encyclopedia -- facts take precedent. And what has sound mind got to do with the subject matter? You are first of all precluding the reasonable theory that ALL such conversion are from people who are not of sound mind, or at least have some kind of cognitive failure. But besides that, that's just an excuse. Either you are honest with the list (even though, as I have stated already, I think its conceptually unsound) or you are not. Qed (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Internet skews toward English-speaking people under 40. This does not mean the whole world does. However if you want to add him than do the proper sourcing, I have one which might be enough, and add him.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that Miley Cyrus (whose entire fan-base would be English speakers under 40) is not a notable person? Isn't this the English language version of Wikipedia? And if the life expectancy of an English speaking person is a little under 80, then isn't this demographic you speak of in the MAJORITY? I am not going to add the name because I have an obvious conflict of interest. The only thing I want to do with this page is either delete it, or add around 6.1 billion people to the list. Remember that from my point of view, the more nonsensical this list is, the better. Qed (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus is notable enough for an article, but I don't think she's as notable as say Margaret Thatcher even if "Miley Cyrus"[1] gets far more G-hits than Thatcher[2]. Anyway if you think the list should be deleted than put it up for AfD.

As for Pratchett articles and interviews by him later seem to indicate he's still atheist, or maybe agnostic, so wouldn't fit the article.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yusuf Islam and Mos Def

I'm not sure the sources here indicate they were ever atheist, just irreligious. Although I do recall a Cat Stevens song that had a line like "I don't want a God on my lawn" so he might fit. The additions to the Islamic section are welcome though as I fear I was making it too Christian dominant.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlos the Jackal

I'm considering adding him do to the truTV bio[3] and his writing something called Revolutionary Islam. However I don't know if his conversion is for real and I don't want to be offensive as there's no criminal former atheists in the other sections. (If I can find an atheist turned Christian criminal that might help I suppose)--T. Anthony (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish, Muslim, etc

Despite how it might look I do want more "Converted to Judaism or Islam" names. However I do think the names should have the same standard as the Christian section. Namely a source saying they were ever atheist. Or for a clear decision that says this should be changed to "List of former atheists and agnostics." However I did keep Winningham even though her atheism seems to have only lasted a day or so.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal/question: List of former atheists and agnostics

I'd really like a bit of feedback here. Many clearly want to add former agnostics, and I'm okay with the idea, but I'm not going to do it without discussion. The reason is there might be objection and besides there are ways atheists differ from agnostics. Lastly an expansion like that seems to merit discussion rather than unilateral action.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. Nick Graves (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ill at present, but I may make the change next week then.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No real atheist would ever fall back into religion. They would only be confused agnostics who can't escape their own ignorance and superstition. 4.225.19.102 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look before the name change it was simply "list of former atheists" and I insisted on sourcing in all cases as I expected some opposition. On the statement of "no real atheist" you might want to see the article No true Scotsman.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea that "no true atheist would fall back into religion" is bogus. When Antony Flew was an atheist, he coined the No true Scotsman fallacy, which is equally relavent to the religious as well as the nonreligious. "This is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it." 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Raoul Bott?

This source seems to imply he might fit, but I'm not sure.Anyone know more on him or if he'd fit?--T. Anthony (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like trick made by certain religious groups

I am not going to give names (no free publicity for you!). This list looks like like it was made to give credibility to some groups who claim "See they were Atheists and now worship our respective diety". This article stinks of intellectual dishonesty. It should be removed, it has no place on wikipedia.

P4l4d1um (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I created the list and yes I'm Catholic. However I have insisted it be sourced and worked with atheists on it when I can. In addition if you had looked at the bottom of the article you would have seen links to List of former Muslims, List of former Protestants, List of former Roman Catholics, List of former Latter Day Saints and List of former Christians. I added atheists Julia Sweeney and Millosh Gjergj Nikolla to the former Christian list. Further not all the names on this list are precisely admirable. The list includes a terrorist, a guy considered a cult leader, a controversial politician, and so forth.

I know some atheists find the idea their people can switch to be deeply offensive, but it happens and it can be documented. Possibly all these "former" lists are problematic, but I think if that's so you should be equally concerned with all of them. Still if there is any name you feel is not properly sourced or otherwise questionable tell me and I may remove it if others agree. At the same time know that vague generalized accusation are unhelpful and may be ignored in the future.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an atheist who has worked some on this list. The information is reliably sourced and presented neutrally. No editor here is putting any sort of spin on the conversions of these people. Though I may cringe when I learn that folks like Antony Flew or Anne Rice have left atheism for what I consider to be unsound reasons, it does not change the fact that they did have a change of heart or mind, and that this can be documented in reliable sources. This list has no agenda. It is encyclopedic. It belongs. Nick Graves (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT presented with neutrality otherwise Terry Pratchett would be a highlighted entry on the list. The truth is, there is a kind of poetic justice in this list. Because the two-faced nature of it is so extremely obvious it just oozes with the Christian Apologetic stench. Like the P4l4d1um said, this reeks of "Apologist Agenda" so much that it probably doesn't fool anyone. Qed (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I only found one source that said he was a former atheist and others contradict it. I would like to add more Hindus, Muslims, and Jews but I have not been able to find many at Wikipedia. I would like to add Sikhs too, but I haven't found one yet. I've also said you can add put this up for AfD.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You may now add him if you wish as your AfD ended in no consensus.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read (which isn't much, to be honest), it seems as though Terry Pratchett is still an atheist; he just appreciates religion now (or something like that). Also, Qed seems to be pretty angry... Just saying. Masternachos (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Additions to the list

Christian: former atheists, Paul C. Vitz and Frank Tipler (Quintessential1 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintessential1 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Is he Frank Tipler a Christian ?. In that same book (The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead ) that the blog link quotes then on page 309 he asks "Why I am Not a Christian". I think the main issue is him not believing with the resurrection of Jesus (See review here. Not accepting Jesus as your saviour would pretty well throws a spanner in the works for being a "Christian". Ttiotsw (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging by what I've read of him Frank Tipler is a confusing case which I'm not entirely sure how to deal with in this or any list. (I considered having him in the "Christian thinkers in science" list) He indicates he believes in Christ as "more than human" and Christianity in some form, but I believe he interprets it in an essentially naturalistic (if slightly paranormal) way that lacks a God as is normally understood. And I see there is a lack of consensus on the matter before I posted this. For a variety of reasons I think additions to this list should be done only when they can be adequately sourced and when there's no valid objection to the addition. I do not know the other person, Vitz, but will look into him.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Paul Vitz and his wife were both atheists. I heard a talk he gave some time back, I can't remember which one it was.

Ravi Zacharias also claims to have been an atheist (Let My People Think broadcast 02-21-2010, Atheism Angles for Acceptance Part 2 of 2, http://rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx).

David Livingstone was also said to have become an atheist while in college, then later experienced a horific encounter with his former atheist roomate while dying. I couldn't find any source other than from a lecture by Ravi Zacharias (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OV5US78BFg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintessential1 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

With Ravi Zacharias broadcast ( http://rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx ) how many minutes and seconds is it into the sermon ?. The sermon is 26 minutes long. Why can't these people just put in a transcript ?!.Ttiotsw (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was toward the end. I apologize for not having this in a more convenient format.

I also found a source for Paul Vitz, http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul_Vitz. If a first hand source is required, then you can use this page to download the talk he gave at Veritas, http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/01/psychology-of-atheism-by-paul-vitz-mp3.html, in which he also discusses his wife's conversion.

There is another very important figure from the early 20th century, James Edwin Orr. He was a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, the American Geographical Society, the Royal Historical Society, and the Royal Society of Literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edwin_Orr. Unfortunately this is another audio resource and I have no idea what the time frame is. http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={39660607-7118-4713-B5A1-8C27E9556BD2} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintessential1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not a reliable source. Nick Graves (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That being the case, I refer to the audio. Quintessential1 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

J. Budziszewski is another former atheist convert to Christianity, recently becoming a Catholic. "I am not an atheist simply but a repented atheist. It is not from the experience of having been an atheist that I claim to understand something of atheism but from the experience of ceasing to be one." -J. Budziszewski in Why I Am a Christian, p. 49-50, edited by Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman, Baker Books. Quintessential1 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I continuously discover Christian converts from atheism, but do not always have the opportunity or time to list them. I would hope that the ones I do list, do not just sit in the discussion area, but that the individual who is responsible for this entry will move forward.

Another addition to the list is author, philosopher, and ESN member Robert Velarde. Reference: http://www.intervarsity.org/gfm/esn/resource/conversations-with-cs-lewis

Quintessential1 (talk)

Bahai section

I imagine it's all done right, but when I feel better I'm going to have to check on the sources. The one for Maya doesn't seem to have been done right so I'm removing it for now.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)