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 delete all. Consensus is that this is not a useful or discriminate classification of people, and partly redundant to List of atheists. To allow for selective mergers to List of atheists, I'm implementing this closure with a redirection to List of atheistsfor now. After a suitable time for merging has passed, the redirects should be nominated for speedy deletion with reference to this AfD. Sandstein 10:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of nontheists violates WP:OR. The list claims some famous people as "nontheists". Interestingly very few people call themselves nontheists. Most people in the list are atheists who have expressed disbelief in God. I am also nominating the following related pages because they claim famous atheists as "nontheists" and they are totally irrelevant.
Weak keep: A quick scan shows that most of the statements are sourced, meaning it is not an OR violation. I have not thoroughly examined the sources, so I don't know if they say something different, but it seems OK on the surface...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to List of atheists; every one of those sources references atheists. I realize this would not be a fun task for the closing nom.
Delete because 1) We have an overlapping List of atheists, 2) Lists are not a good idea here, because there are probably thousands of notable atheists in the world - categories serve much better here. 3) The idea of a "nontheism" was probably unknown to many persons in the list - we possibly conduct an original research here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The idea of a "nontheism" was probably unknown to many persons in the list". I'm not sure of your point here. They qualify for the list if and only if they do/did not believe in deities. Awareness of the term is not part of its definition. Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but WP:OR says: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." It looks like the lists are a synthesis of biographies and serve as a support of the idea of "nontheism" while nobody in the list defines himself/herself as nontheist. I do not see another reason why to mantain separate list of nontheists and list of atheists.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It looks like the lists are a synthesis of biographies and serve as a support of the idea of "nontheism" while nobody in the list defines himself/herself as nontheist". This position seems untenable. If a man says he has a wife, is it original research to describe him as a husband? Likewise, if he says he has no belief in gods, how is it original research to describe him as a nontheist? "I do not see another reason why to mantain separate list of nontheists and list of atheists". The problem with the term atheist is its ambiguity. It's meant a lot of things over the years, and still has at least two distinct meanings today. So while it's my opinion that there should be only one list, I think it should be of nontheists rather than atheists, purely to avoid the terminological issues that the latter would cause. Ilkali (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction in labelling a religious person as a nontheist, since not all religions involve deities. Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no "inexplicably", or in fact any "mixing" at all, since someone who practices an Eastern religion but does not believe in god is still an atheist/agnostic by definition. This makes about as much sense as saying that it inexplicably mixes atheists and agnostics with people who play football - your statement assumes that people practicing religions cannot be atheists or agnostics, which is incorrect. So even if we deleted this article, we'd still have to move those people to whatever article we use in its place. Mdwh (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with lists of agnostics, atheists, etc. This is actually already in progress. The list format is useful, I think, because it presents people with information pertinent to the entrant's nontheism that would be absent from or difficult to find in a biographical article. And the term 'nontheist' is useful in that it cuts through the ambiguity surrounding terms like 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I worked on List of nontheists I tried to limit it to people who used that exact term or who said they were "not a theist" without further specification. I'd even wanted consideration of people, like James Tiptree, Jr, who believed in some supernatural concepts yet rejected the idea of a personal God/Gods. (This idea, I believe, was mostly rejected) This was difficult and if I'd done it strictly it might've amounted to just three people. (Charles T. Beaird, Eugenie Scott, Sherwin Wine. Possibly Bishop Spong too) So I'm fine with deletion, but I guess I'd also be fine if there are actually enough for a reasonable list.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the first time I have heard the word "nontheists." I am guessing it is not really a very notable expression. Redddogg (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term might not be widely known, but its meaning is quite clear from its composition and it usefully cuts through ambiguity over terms like 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Ilkali (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how long it's been around, but I remember "nontheist" gained some support among some humanist and skeptic groups. I think the idea was the term "unites" the agnostic element with the atheist one. Although logically "nontheism" would seem to include everything that's not theism, including deism and pantheist, I don't see it used that way.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd understood "theism" as meaning belief in an interventionist God/gods. (Meaning God(s) that can influence events within the Universe and may do so) However you're right that that it seems to be belief in any kind of God/gods. Okay I guess nontheism is just agnostics and atheists.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nontheism is disbelief in a personal god. It is possible for a nontheist to believe in an impersonal god or non-theistic god. This list is quite misleading. List of nontheists should be deleted for the betterment of Wikipedia. RS190010:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should atheists be in this list? The broad definition of nontheism is the definition of atheism. Including atheists in this list is misleading. RS190011:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part where I said "Merge with lists of agnostics, atheists, etc"? It's the first thing I said. Do you agree that terms like atheist and agnostic are extremely ambiguous? If we have lists of 'atheists' and 'agnostics', people are always going to disagree with the inclusion criteria. Do you agree that an atheist is by definition a nontheist? What is misleading about labelling them as such? Ilkali (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali, why don't you get it? Those who say "I am an atheist" will be included in List of atheists and those who say "I am an agnostic" will be listed in List of agnostics. Where is the problem? If we have this list there will be far more problems. RS190011:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People expect inclusion criteria to be based on what a person is rather than how they identify. A lot of atheists are agnostic and a lot of agnostics are atheistic. What matters - at least to most people, I suspect - is that they don't believe in gods. I've yet to see a good argument for maintaining separate lists of 'atheists' and 'agnostics'. Maintaining a single list, with a field to represent how each person self-identifies, is a far better solution. Ilkali (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali, that type of list will be very long and controversial. Separate lists will be far better. Some agnostics are against atheism. Will you support the creation of List of monotheists and list all Muslims, Christians & other monotheists in that list? RS190011:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long? Didn't you just re-add about 200K of content to List of atheists? Anyway, the length problem can be solved by appropriate splitting or pruning. Controversial? I'm not proposing we label anybody as an atheist. Again: People expect inclusion criteria to be based on what position a person holds rather than what word he uses to describe himself. Your approach defies that expectation. Ilkali (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A nontheist is someone who does not believe in a personal god. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any god. Agnostics, atheists, buddhists, deists & many other groups are nontheists - that means, they don't believe in a personal god. Don't you think it will be crazy to list them all in one list? RS190011:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A nontheist is someone who does not believe in a personal god". As I've already said, that's not the normal definition. Usually it just denotes those who don't believe in any god. I would recommend separate lists for buddhists and deists, since they don't have the terminological problems that I've been describing and you've been ignoring. Ilkali (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, I told you, it will be controversial. Many people define non-theist as someone who doesn't believe in a personal God. 'Atheist' is usually defined as those who don't believe in any god. Thus, if super-list is to be created, that list should contain agnostics, atheists, buddhists, deists & many other non-theistic groups. RS190012:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wrong about the definitions, but I also think it doesn't matter. I already answered your point about buddhists and deists and such. Ilkali (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali, please see the meaning of 'atheist' in any dictionary. You will find this: Atheist n. A person who doesn't believe in God. The Oxford English Dictionary (2007) define "non-theist" as "not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity." It is possible for a nontheist to believe in an impersonal god or a non-theistic god. So, my definitions are correct. RS190012:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play the dictionary game with you. Read my last comment again. Focus on the part after the comma. Ilkali (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more out of curiosity than anything. What about people who believe in a "supernatural force" that is not a god. (It does not transcend the Universe and is not omniscient) Would these people be atheist as they don't believe in God(s)?--T. Anthony (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the dominant definitions, yes. They would be atheists. This is part of why RS1900's objections are incoherent - he insists that 'nontheist' does not distinguish 'atheists' from 'Buddhists', without realising that Buddhists (at least, the ones he describes) are atheists. Ilkali (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding to what I said above: The current problems with List of atheists, List of agnostics, List of nontheists, etc are compound. They need to be approached with a solution that addresses all of them - simply cutting off one of the heads is not remotely helpful. Those who want to see the end of List of nontheists in its current state should contribute to ongoing discussions on how to improve the whole situation. Deletion of any of the lists should at least wait until said discussions are completed. Ilkali (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument made is not an argument for deletion, but rather, I would suggest a rename to something like List of people who do not believe in god, if we are worried about issues of self-identification. But there comes a point where if something fits the definition, we shouldn't be afraid to use it ("nontheist" is supported by references, and does not seem to be ambiguous like atheist or agnostic can be). Also, what about people who clearly did not believe in God, but did not identify as "nontheist" or "atheist" because the terms did not exist? This is perhaps a similar issue to other lists such as List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, in that you could have people who were clearly gay or bi but did not identify the term, either (a) because they didn't like the term, (b) we don't know but we don't have a reference for them identifying with the term, or (c) the term didn't exist when they lived. Should this mean such people can't be listed at all? Mdwh (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the editor believes that some people should be listed as atheists rather than nontheists, then I would suggest moving those people is more appropriate than an entire deletion. In particular, if the article is deleted, we lose all the lists of people and references and would be unable to move them across! Mdwh (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list of prominent persons who have not believed in a god or gods, and does not burden these individuals with the connotations that have come to encrust terms such as "atheist" and "agnostic." Use of the term "nontheist" elegantly resolves the terminological disputes that had long plagued this field on Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RS1900, I think Ilkali and I agree with you really, especially about the dictionary. Thing is, we've been down that road before in the List of Atheists. The problem was that people who 'merely' do/did not believe in god(s) -- what might be called explicit weak atheism ('EWA' for convenience) -- were being rejected on the grounds that some reputable sources equally explicitly denied that EWA is atheism at all. To include EWAs, then, was a POV problem. And yet, we had no grounds to keep out those people who were undoubtedly 'merely' EWAs if they self-identified. That led to a list of muddled content. And thus, it was proposed that 'nontheist' was a good catch-all term. Ilkali, David and I all (iirc) considered the term 'atheist' to be more appropriate and better understood... but given the (illusory?) POV problem, we tried to compromise.
The crux of the problem can be seen in the discussions about Clarence Darrow -- a mere "agnostic" who, nevertheless, did not believe in God because he did not believe in Mother Goose! An atheist by rather a lot of people's standards... but he seems to have preferred the term 'agnostic'. I'd have had him in both lists, personally.
I for one hadn't considered that there'd be a problem with the term 'nontheist'... but then, I've moved in 'nontheism' circles (IIDB, Talk Rational etc) for many years. I now see that it is confusing, as people might expect it to contain self-identifying "nontheists" -- a rather small group.
I'll also note that this list (these lists!) were being discussed, with a view to putting the details in some sort of table format so as to include details of the person's identification, so that people could see for themselves whether the person is an EWA, strong atheist, rationalist, humanist, bright, atheist-agnostic or whatever. So Darrow would be included, with his Mother Goose quote, and let people decide just how 'atheist' that makes him.
I therefore propose... again... that the List of Atheists remains, and includes those expressing disbelief in gods: Strong Atheists (by definition, explicit) and EWAs. Or, that these pages remain, and the List of Atheists is subsumed in it.
Or in short, if anyone's got any bloody better ideas, they better spit 'em out PDQ. Basically, I don't care how we do it, but we need a 'list of atheists' that includes EWAs, because, with dictionary support, many people consider such persons 'atheists'.
Strong delete or rename to reflect a list of those who follow the nontheist/nondeist religions. As per Ecoleetage ("Sloppy article that inexplicably mixes atheists and agnostics with people who practice Eastern religion") etc. Oolon, I did not want to compromise on the silly way it was, not being able to include Darrow as an atheist for example - I just gave up. As per Oolon, all types of atheists should be included in the List of atheists. One thing wrong with including any type of (rationalist) atheist on the List of nontheists is that rationalists, in general, are comfortable being grouped with religionists. Article should not be deleted until reorganisation can be effected. -- David from Downunder (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heh. Yeah David, I used 'compromise' as a euphemism -- I too gave up. I'll vote for Delete all of these, provided we have no more Darrow and Chaplin nonsense in the List of Atheists. Just revise the definitional stuff at the top of that to state who's likely to be in it: all those on the right-hand half of this: -- Oolon (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
