Talk:List of former atheists and agnostics

Untitled

 * Archive 1

No atheist would EVER become a theist in any shape or form aside from outwright brainwashing and indoctrination.
Further, without tests and studies done on all of these 'converts' how will we know if ANY of them were/are in a capable state mind. Theists, are by definition, insane, after all; should they really allowed to partake siginifact roles in our society? (politics, science, medicine, warfare, diplomacy, education, etc)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cute. ill rise to the bait. I was an agnostic, i became a theist (in the broadest possible meaning of the term), and i received absolutely no brainwashing or indoctrination of any kind. it was entirely voluntary, and based on my own desire to fully examine the world. i dont know if i am right in my beliefs (logically none of us can know this, as we dont know what new information will come along to refute our beliefs), but i do know that almost all the greatest minds in human history were theists, almost all known law and social custom was designed by theists, either independently or collectively. In a land of insane people (society being almost entirely theistic), the sane (atheists by your statements) will be considered outcasts, the "insane". however you slice it, your statement cannot hold water. However, if you want to try to establish an "atheocracy" and enforce your religious views (which is what they are), please do so. Of course, you may be railing against established religion, which is entirely different from theism. the railing against religion is, by the way, done mainly by theists, again with a small minority of atheists providing valuable criticism of the bulk, even the necessity, of established religion (the last point a valid argument that even a theist can put forth). but enough said. If you want to promote your argument here, just provide reliable sources which state what you surmise.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is cited and I have worked with an atheist on it. If you have a specific name you feel is poorly sourced I will consider removal, but just a personal disbelief it can happen is insufficient. Otherwise all "former lists" would have to be removed because there are certainly Catholics who believe no one stops being Catholic, Muslims who believe no Muslim would reject it if they understand it, etc. (Oddly I could maybe support removing all "former" lists, but I think I leaned toward keeping them as some are well-done and relevant)
 * Further the list does not actually make a judgment on their mental state one way or other. I would like to avoid people whose "conversion" happened after severe brain injury or dementia, but even then I don't think it's any kind of rule as of yet. There are people in this list that are either disreputable or in some sense "abnormal." Larry Darby is a Holocaust denier, Giovanni Papini was a fascist, George R. Price committed suicide, Carlos the Jackal a terrorist, and I've heard good reason to think Dave Sim is nuts. Most of the rest are indeed admirable and reasonable people, but I don't think I/we have limited to that.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So Price is not an admirable person because he committed suicide?130.18.83.230 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I meant him as "abnormal" rather than "disreputable." However you're right that the wording is potentially offensive. To me "abnormal" can just mean "not normal, particularly in a way that is perhaps dysfunctional." I think some abnormal people are pretty darn neat and Price sounds like one of those, but many do mean "abnormal" as more of an insult. Although possibly a suicidal person could fit Abnormality (behavior) even if they are a very admirable suicidal person.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is possible, Atheism is quite like religion in a certain way. It does strong unverifiable claims. It claims, that the idea of god can be falsified, this is nonsense. The term god is usually ill-defined and the model from which it comes forth hasn't any predictive powers. It is like trying to proof that electrons have feelings, but never show it. Only agnosticism or one of the more apathic positions are defendable. 31.151.223.189 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who identifies as an atheist I would only TECHNICALLY agree; your description of agnosticism as the most defendable path not only works for gods, but also things like unicorns and Santa. Do you personally think that the view that Santa doesn't exist is not defencible, or that one should take an agnostic view to his existence? Presumably you will say that whilst TECHNICALLY we cannot know FOR SURE that there is no Santa, the chances of him existing are SO low that for all intents and purposes it is best to say that we think he doesn't exist, lest we mislead people about what we actually believe. talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Were they really atheists?
Some of these, thinking particularly of C S Lewis, can scarcely be believed when they say they were atheists. A person "angry with God for not existing" is not an atheist. He may have strong doubts, but still his anger is directed at an entity he still believes exists in some way. --JimWae (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually don't think Lewis was ever an atheist and I think I briefly removed him. However I think he could count as a former agnostic judging by some things he said. Still I'm not that opposed to removing him, but I think there should be a consensus on the matter before doing so.


 * However people like Annie Besant, Francis Collins, Eugene D. Genovese, Will Herberg, Peter Hitchens, William J. Murray, Rosalind Picard, George R. Price, Mary Doria Russell, J. Neil Schulman, and John C. Wright seem to pretty clearly have recorded self-description as atheist in their past while no longer being atheist in the present.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Of cause they were, in particular if you go with the "modern definition" given by such people as Dawkins which practically equates modern "Atheism" with Agnosticism(under the older more rigid definitions). You cannot have your "Modern definition of the word Atheist is just like Agnostic" cake and eat it too. Colliric (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting
I'm not entirely sure why you broke the list into sublists, but it could work. I'm not entirely satisfied with the sub-lists so far, but I'm working on them.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the article makes more sense all in the same page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't undone the change, but I was a bit annoyed about it. I'm just trying to work with things as I'm not atheist so I might be deemed suspect.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

From a position of Logic, atheism is not possible
“The atheistic position that there is "no God" is illogical. In order to know that there is no God without a doubt, a person would have to examine every piece of evidence that is available. Since no person has ever examined all of the evidence in the world for the existence of God, they really do not know whether or not He exists. Therefore, the most that anyone can honestly say is "I don't know if there is a God." A true atheist is someone who has examined all of the available evidence and concluded that "there is no proof for God." Since no one could possibly examine all of the evidence for God, by definition, being a true atheist is not possible.” —Rob Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertCliftonRobinson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By this "logic" no one could ever say that there is a God either, for the same reasons. At most it would be "I believe that there is". Or perhaps you demand a ridiculously high burden of proof here?Mcc1789 (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Anne Rice an atheist again?
I see her page says she's a Secular humanist. Although the source used she says America is secular humanist so I'm not entirely certain that means atheism or even agnosticism to her. If she is non-theist though maybe we should remove her.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of former atheists and agnostics. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecpa.org/christianbookawards/gm1994.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409214808/http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/dobson_astronomer_000507.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/dobson_astronomer_000507.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184355/http://voiceofdharma.com/books/hibh/ch1.htm to http://voiceofdharma.com/books/hibh/ch1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613213102/http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0413%2Chendrix%2C52244%2C10.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0413%2Chendrix%2C52244%2C10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

First section
Shouldn't this go on the List of converts to Christianity from nontheism page? It specifically says we should look to there for such a list, yet one is here too.Mcc1789 (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Now these names are doubled. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)