Category talk:Atheist philosophers

Nietzsche?
Are the editors of this sure it is appropriate to have Nietzsche here, as many regard him NOT to be an atheist?
 * Having studied each and everyone of Nietzsche's published works as well as much of his early and late writings both in private and at university time and again: YES, he definitly was an atheist.

84.56.110.103 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To Nietzsche God is seen only as an authority, an authority that in his time he felt had "died". Hence, "God is dead". But Nietzsche certainly did not believe in any THEISTIC God, which does in fact make him an atheist. In order to properly understand the definition of ATHEIST we need first address the term THEIST. A theist is one who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. Even if Nietzsche were to believe in some sort of higher power it would not qualify him as a theist because the said higher power would not possess these traits. Nietzsche is as much an atheist as Sartre, as their theories stem from similar branches of existentialism, and they are frequently contrasted with the theistic existentialists such as Kierkegaard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.162.207 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Having only studied Jenseits von Gut und Boese, his main criticism seems to be of religion, which he regards as proposterous on a moral basis and ridiculous on a Reasonable one. He, much like Kant, though, refers to "Nature", which would appear to show a belief in some sort of being, just not necessarily an omnipotent, benevolent (he describes Nature as being totally indifferent toward mankind) one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.156.219 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A "theist" is defined as anyone who believes in God or gods, regardless of their, or his qualities. There is not a single idea of God, so why should theism be defined as a belief in a specific God?--108.20.189.221 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "Theist" does not mean "Christian", and even in Christianism opinions differ about God's qualities. Kedez Iklam (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Betrand Russell?
Nor should Bertrand Russell be included: he is a self-confessed agnostic. (Which, of course, is clearly distinguishable from atheism as an agnostic simply doesn't know; and a atheist does know, but denies.)

Russell distinguished between atheism and agnosticism on the basis of his audience. He was, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. He said that if he were talking to the public, then he would describe himself as an atheist, but if he had been speaking to colleagues, he would have called himself an agnostic. I think based on his own writings (such as his famous quote "I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.") He simply avoided saying that he was an atheist because he thought that such a term implied that he could prove there was no god. The definition of an atheist, as I understand it, is a person who does not believe in a god or gods--Russell fits quite well into this category.

"The definition of an atheist, as I understand it, is a person who does not believe in a god or gods--Russell fits quite well into this category." I think that athiests make a full blown assertion e.g. "there is no bearded man in the sky" where as agnostics might say, "I have no evidence to believe there is a bearded man in the sky." Nevertheless I think that Russell is importantly associated with the secularist movement and should be included. Not sure about Hume though.


 * There are multiple definitions of atheism, one of which is: The absence of belief in god or god, and strictly speaking, epistemological agnosticism (it is unprovable that any kind of god exists or doesn't exist) has as a rational consequence a lack of a belief in any god. Russell was atheist, agnostic and anti-theist, secular humanist and much more. He should definitly be included, having produced many an argument in favor of anti-theism, agnosticism AND atheism.

84.56.110.103 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism neither denies, nor accepts the existence of God. It sits in between the fence. It's not even "disbelief." Why do so many people make this common fallacy? It is mere nothingness. There is a void rather than a decision.--108.20.189.221 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Karl Popper?
I have yet to find a reference to Karl Popper identifying himself as an atheist. If such a reference exists, I would like to see it.


 * Indeed, in 'The Self and Its Brain: an argument for interactionism', by Popper and John C. Eccles (Routledge, 1983), the introduction states: "One of us (Eccles) is a believer in God and the supernatural, while the other (Popper) may be described as agnostic."   Now, although this is evidence of Popper self-identifying as 'agnostic', it doesn't help us in determining what his actual position was.  It may, objectively, have been negative/weak atheist. --Dannyno 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No atheist philosophers from Latin America?
Aren't there any philosophers from Latin Amrica that are atheist? At least, I haven't found any on that list.

Subcategory/Schopenhauer?
What purpose does the Schopenhauer Subcategory serve? Not only does it seem random and out of place, but I'm pretty sure Schopenhauer wasn't an atheist. Ejectgoose 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He was definitely an atheist, having objected to both pantheism and theism on the grounds that this world appears neither to be the work of a god nor to have itself a divine nature. It is really sorry that such unprepared neophytes are allowed to comment on correct editions. A person just above argued that "Nietzsche wasn't an atheist"...

To "Ejectgoose": though it may appear that Nietzsche was an obvious atheist, many dispute this claim. If you have read his stuff you'll know that much of his arguments were not quite against god, but mans relation to god, what man used god for and the values man took from god. In the anti Christ he quite clealy celebrates the Jews and the Buddhists. But he was surely not a powerful theist. Perhaps a weird combination, it's hard to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.230.51 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. Nietzsche clearly does direct arguments against God as such. In general, he thought creating arguments against God is not a very fruitful enterprise because other arguments for God's existence could be created on and on, so, to deal a final blow to belief in God, one should instead demonstrate how the idea of God penetrated the human mind as an error. And Nietzsche explicitly set out to do so in the Twilight of the Idols. He says here that belief in God is a mistake born out of allegiance to agent-based metaphysics. Nietzsche did not believe in agents or selves, but in impersonal processes that are incorrectly reified by means of verbal conceptualization and transformed in the human mind into agents, subjects and ultimately — when this belief is generalized into the universe as a whole — God. Rejection of agent-based metaphysics is wholly inconsistent with belief in God, and is instead found in atheistic philosophers such as the Buddhists, Hume, and Lichtenberg, among those who preceded Nietzsche. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sade?
Marquis de Sade?

Clearly the grand philosopher of the flesh would register as an atheist philosopher.

"Return to your senses preacher, your Jesus is not better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucious, who did after all have some wise things to say while the others did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all mere frauds; philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them, and justice ought to have hanged them." -- Donatien Alphonse Francois Sade


 * He was a writer sure, but not a philosopher :/... To include him means we would have to include anybody who has had a thought on anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

David Hume?
Surely the man who took down Thomas Aquinas would constitute as an atheist.

Hume identifies closer to theism, certainly NOT an atheist. The introduction of his "Natural History of Religion" states: "The whole frame of nature bespeaks and intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion." While much of his writing may put him closer to what would later become known as "deism", he certainly was not an atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.2.27 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Hobbes?
This list needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.72.3 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Victor Stenger
A link should be provided to Victor Stenger's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.13.186 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins?
I know his main focus may not be philosophy, but i think Dawkins has definitely contributed enough to atheist philosophy to be included on this list! Moomoopashoo (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

'Atheist Writer' != 'Atheist Philosopher'
While one could easily argue that everyone on this list is (or was) an atheist, not all of them are "philosophers." Marquis de Sade, Alan Turing, Victor Stenger, and Max Stirner -- just off the top of my head -- do not belong here. Nor does Richard Dawkins. This list needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)