World Famous Atheists, Agnostics and Non Theists
Options
Comments
-
A. Philip Randolph
Asa Philip Randolph was a leader in the African-American civil-rights movement, the American labor movement and socialist political parties. He organized and led the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first predominantly Black labor union.
Thomas Edison
Thomas Alva Edison was an American inventor and businessman. He developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb
Richard Branson
Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson is an English business magnate, best known for his ? Group of more than 400 companies. His first business venture was a magazine called Student at the age of 16.
Susan B. Anthony
Susan Brownell Anthony was a prominent American civil rights leader who played a pivotal role in the 19th century women's rights movement to introduce women's suffrage into the United States.
James Baldwin
James Arthur Baldwin was an American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic. Baldwin's essays, such as the collection Notes of a Native Son, explore palpable yet unspoken intricacies ...
Zora Neale Hurston
Zora Neale Hurston was an American folklorist, anthropologist, and author during the time of the Harlem Renaissance.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
Neil deGrasse Tyson (born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist and science communicator. He is currently the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. Since 2006 he has hosted the educational science television show NOVA scienceNOW on PBS and has been a frequent guest on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Jeopardy!. It was announced on August 5, 2011, that Tyson will be hosting a new sequel to Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage television series.
-
Mark Zuckerberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984) is an American computer programmer and Internet entrepreneur. He is best known as one of five co-founders of the social networking site Facebook. Zuckerberg is the chairman and chief executive of Facebook, Inc.
Born and raised in New York state, he took up writing software programs as a hobby in middle school, beginning with BASIC, with help from his father and a tutor (who called him a "prodigy"). In high school, he excelled in classic literature and fencing while studying at Phillips Exeter Academy.
He later attended Harvard University, majoring in computer science and psychology. In his sophomore year he wrote a program called Facemash as a "fun" project, letting students on the college's network vote on other students' photo attractiveness. It was shut down within days, but would become a template for his writing Facebook, a program he launched from his dormitory room. With the help of friends, he took Facebook to other campuses nationwide and soon after moved to Palo Alto, California. By 2007, Zuckerberg was a billionaire at the age of 23. By 2010, Facebook had an estimated 500 million users worldwide. Zuckerberg has since been involved in various legal disputes initiated by others who have claimed a share of the company's profits due to their help in setting it up.
Since 2010 Zuckerberg has been named among the 100 wealthiest and most influential people in the world by Time magazine's Person of the Year, In 2010 a fictionalized account of Zuckerberg creating Facebook while in college and its later start-up phase was made into a movie dramatization, The Social Network.
-
I know that this thread is really meant as a response to Judahxulu's doubts about there having been any positive influences by people who don't endorse the idea of a deity and I respect pointing it out. But I find something like this can be perceived as an attempt to sell people on this idea that if we don't endorse theism, then we are more than likely to share in having accomplished great feats as these people have. Not everyone is guaranteed to have that kind of an impact on how we deal with life.
-
West Brooklyn wrote: ».Disciplined InSight wrote: »Majority of these cats died a horrible death (Van Gogh, Bruce Lee, Charlie Parker and Che)...
No wonder Jay looks up to Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (besides being like-minded billionaires of course)...figures.
C'mon Jay...time to come clean.
A lot of people throughout history died a "horrible" death. Quotations or horrible because not everything is "horrible" across the board for all beings. Anyway, the point is not to bicker about how they died. This thread was made to showcase the diversity of non believers and the works they've done throughout their lives as well as their importance in either politics, education, the arts, or whatever and their influence they've had on others.Mao Zedong, Pol ? , & Joseph Stalin.
Augusto Pinochet, Baruch Goldstein, Adolf ? , Francisco Franco, Saddam Hussein & Jim Jones
True...there's no doubt plenty (probably more than we think) of famous non-theists/agnostics/atheists and it's obvious and I doubt all they would spend all their time arguing about the existence of a creator and focused on their works, otherwise they wouldn't be where they at in history now but at the same time some of them never expressed it openly and pushed it hard that they don't believe..say like a Richard Dawkins. But I think in judah's defense he was talking about those non-believers who just sit at home all day and could be doing something beneficial, but troll and debate 24/7 about the existence of The Most High.
Some (myself included) are fans of their works and not what they care to believe or disbelieve...I'll be the first to watch a Bruce Lee flick and not really give a damn about their belief system..that's his choice, but yes he did die a horrible death. And yes he was beneficial to the martial arts in the mainstream....sad. -
alissowack wrote: »I know that this thread is really meant as a response to Judahxulu's doubts about there having been any positive influences by people who don't endorse the idea of a deity and I respect pointing it out. But I find something like this can be perceived as an attempt to sell people on this idea that if we don't endorse theism, then we are more than likely to share in having accomplished great feats as these people have. Not everyone is guaranteed to have that kind of an impact on how we deal with life.
Originally, I thought it was a good idea to do this thread regardless of any preconceived notions. After the thread was made, I remembered what Judah said so I added that quote in the O.P. I don't have any hidden agendas. What I post is what it is -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: ».Disciplined InSight wrote: »Majority of these cats died a horrible death (Van Gogh, Bruce Lee, Charlie Parker and Che)...
No wonder Jay looks up to Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (besides being like-minded billionaires of course)...figures.
C'mon Jay...time to come clean.
A lot of people throughout history died a "horrible" death. Quotations or horrible because not everything is "horrible" across the board for all beings. Anyway, the point is not to bicker about how they died. This thread was made to showcase the diversity of non believers and the works they've done throughout their lives as well as their importance in either politics, education, the arts, or whatever and their influence they've had on others.Mao Zedong, Pol ? , & Joseph Stalin.
Augusto Pinochet, Baruch Goldstein, Adolf ? , Francisco Franco, Saddam Hussein & Jim Jones
True...there's no doubt plenty (probably more than we think) of famous non-theists/agnostics/atheists and it's obvious and I doubt all they would spend all their time arguing about the existence of a creator and focused on their works, otherwise they wouldn't be where they at in history now but at the same time some of them never expressed it openly and pushed it hard that they don't believe..say like a Richard Dawkins. But I think in judah's defense he was talking about those non-believers who just sit at home all day and could be doing something beneficial, but troll and debate 24/7 about the existence of The Most High.
Some (myself included) are fans of their works and not what they care to believe or disbelieve...I'll be the first to watch a Bruce Lee flick and not really give a damn about their belief system..that's his choice, but yes he did die a horrible death. And yes he was beneficial to the martial arts in the mainstream....sad.
Nah, he specifically saidname 3 atheists who in the past 200 years that have done ANYTHING BENEFICIAL FOR HUMANITY. ANYTHING other than debate religion. you ? aint got nobody. jdawkins? whooptie ? doo. that ? aint did ? but TALK about how superior he feels his position is but what are the FRUITS? same with you all....start naming a long list of what atheists have accomplished with humanity and then start talking all this deragatory ? towards the spiritual realm and those who acknowledge it whether they on point behaviorally or not. who the ? yall got? tyler the creator lol? the unabomber? jesse ventura? lmbao...NIGGGGGAA PLEASE. YALL ATHEISTS ARE GOOD FOR NOTHING BUT ARGUMENTS.
insinuating that atheists have no place in world history or have not done anything important. True, the debates brought to him by atheists online prompted him to say that but then, we really don't know who is talking to us behind the screen and what they do when they are not online. Putting aside the works of world renowned atheists, it's a reach to even conclude that atheists online do nothing in their lives but argue about the existence of ? (s). Debate is for intellectual purposes and benefit. I learn a lot of things from theists in this forum regardless of how I may come across or what you may perceive my attitude to be. If you are sure about your beliefs, there is no reason to be upset over what atheists say online. No one can make me upset or "troll" me over the existence of bears in North America.
Anyway, it was a ridiculous claim and challenge. There are many more ridiculous claims made by theists that include things like "atheists aren't living happy lives. On the inside, they are depressed, upset, and/or jealous", "atheists don't live spiritual lives", "atheists are evil people and are always out to hurt someone", "atheists have no moral system" etc. etc. Not only is it bad for yourself to make assumptions about people and generalize in that way but when you speak to others and say things like that, naive and gullible listeners will take what you've said and apply that to people they meet in their lives and it may cause more harm and possible embarrassment to carry that kind of attitude. I will address claims like these whenever they are made so there is no confusion and ignorance created. -
I think folks are too quick dismiss the fact that people attempted with all effort to not tell others what they believed (or don't) but once they were found out, they were killed, ostracized, abandoned and laughed at. Dawkins (a oxford professor) being the most vocal force vs vocal forces that use legislation to propagate their beliefs isn't a negative. People arguing on boards doesn't mean they aren't employed, with friends, don't discuss in public, or are out for a vendetta. There happens to be many that are surrounded by indoctrination on a constant basis and this is their only outlet to A. Get info, and B. state their views without fear of family and social repercussions.
When people mention mass murderers that were non believers, they fail to mention that those people believed mostly in themselves and created a cult of personality for people to worship them. Hence, the statues, and detailed doctrines. Other religions and cultures were a direct challenge to their rule and they professed themselves to be ? figures no different then Kings and Pharaohs. Some Kings were bold enough to recreate existing religions for their purposes.
For the most part, many people believe that religion has too much influence on the progression of society. -
George Carlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
George Denis Patrick Carlin (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008) was an American stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist, actor and writer/author, who won five Grammy Awards for his comedy albums.
Carlin was noted for his black humor as well as his thoughts on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and various taboo subjects. Carlin and his "Seven ? Words" comedy routine were central to the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a 5–4 decision by the justices affirmed the government's power to regulate indecent material on the public airwaves.
The first of his fourteen stand-up comedy specials for HBO was filmed in 1977. From the late 1980s, Carlin's routines focused on socio-cultural criticism of modern American society. He often commented on contemporary political issues in the United States and satirized the excesses of American culture. His final HBO special, It's Bad for Ya, was filmed less than four months before his death.
In 2004, Carlin placed second on the Comedy Central list of the 100 greatest stand-up comedians of all time, ahead of Lenny Bruce and behind Richard Pryor. He was a frequent performer and guest host on The Tonight Show during the three-decade Johnny Carson era, and hosted the first episode of Saturday Night Live. In 2008, he was posthumously awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor.
-
Ernest Hemingway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway
Ernest Miller Hemingway (July 21, 1899 – July 2, 1961) was an American author and journalist. His economical and understated style had a strong influence on 20th-century fiction, while his life of adventure and his public image influenced later generations. Hemingway produced most of his work between the mid-1920s and the mid-1950s, and won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1954. He published seven novels, six short story collections, and two non-fiction works. Three novels, four collections of short stories, and three non-fiction works were published posthumously. Many of these are considered classics of American literature.
Hemingway was raised in Oak Park, Illinois. After high school he reported for a few months for The Kansas City Star, before leaving for the Italian front to enlist with the World War I ambulance drivers. In 1918, he was seriously wounded and returned home. His wartime experiences formed the basis for his novel A Farewell to Arms. In 1922, he married Hadley Richardson, the first of his four wives. The couple moved to Paris, where he worked as a foreign correspondent, and fell under the influence of the modernist writers and artists of the 1920s "Lost Generation" expatriate community. The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway's first novel, was published in 1926.
After his 1927 divorce from Hadley Richardson, Hemingway married Pauline Pfeiffer. They divorced after he returned from the Spanish Civil War where he had been a journalist, and after which he wrote For Whom the Bell Tolls. Martha Gellhorn became his third wife in 1940. They separated when he met Mary Welsh in London during World War II. He was present at the Normandy Landings and the liberation of Paris.
Shortly after the publication of The Old Man and the Sea in 1952, Hemingway went on safari to Africa, where he was almost killed in two successive plane crashes that left him in pain or ill health for much of the rest of his life. Hemingway had permanent residences in Key West, Florida, and Cuba during the 1930s and 1940s, but in 1959 he moved from Cuba to Ketchum, Idaho, where he committed suicide in the summer of 1961.
-
-
Like there's seriously no good reason to believe in a ? or gods.
-
Well...there is really no good reason to believe in American government yet we (assuming you are American) still vote for someone to "deliver us".
-
Like there's seriously no good reason to believe in a ? or gods.
There's no good evidence. Some would claim feelings and their mind playing tricks on them proves ? 's existence, but that's not evidence.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »
I find it a little odd that someone would use tricks to prove anything. Maybe to deceive somebody, but not to prove something.
There is a lot of evidence for things (in your case, not for ? ) but it doesn't mean we respect the evidence or what we use it for. Evidence can be discredited or misused because we perceive it to be something that it isn't. -
You misread his post. He said the mind plays tricks on people.
-
@westbrooklyn. Yeah, but he is saying that some people are claiming that "mind games" is proof for the existence of ? . I can see if maybe he said people are tricked to believe that ? exists but to make it evidence for ? existence is a bit of a stretch. I know that's not what he intended to say, but the sentence structure says otherwise.
-
alissowack wrote: »@westbrooklyn. Yeah, but he is saying that some people are claiming that "mind games" is proof for the existence of ? . I can see if maybe he said people are tricked to believe that ? exists but to make it evidence for ? existence is a bit of a stretch. I know that's not what he intended to say, but the sentence structure says otherwise.
I'm saying people have delusions or extra sensory experiences and claim them to be divine messages and a personal proof. People also use tricks to influence others perception by preying on them when they're at their most vulnerable. Destroy and rebuild. Sketchy evidence is still better then no evidence. The critical point is whether you choose to question such evidence if there is any to speak of. -
Did this guy compare the invisible magical man to the American Gov't?
*This Can't Be Life plays* -
someone seems to be forgetting the excellent reason of "because it ? off insufferable people like Richard Dawkins"Like there's seriously no good reason to believe in a ? or gods.
-
Did this guy compare the invisible magical man to the American Gov't?
*This Can't Be Life plays*
That "comparison" was only meant for effect. I'm essentially saying there are a lot of things that let us down in life...and there is evidence for why those things let us down, but for some reason we sometimes are led to believe that maybe the next time around it will be different. You say there is no good reason to believe in ? , but what about everything else? -
Prove ? , right now.
Since the burden of proof is on the claimer.
If you do that, I will stop posting. -
alissowack wrote: »Did this guy compare the invisible magical man to the American Gov't?
*This Can't Be Life plays*
That "comparison" was only meant for effect. I'm essentially saying there are a lot of things that let us down in life...and there is evidence for why those things let us down, but for some reason we sometimes are led to believe that maybe the next time around it will be different. You say there is no good reason to believe in ? , but what about everything else?
Evidence has nothing at all to do with how we feel about it or if it disappoints us. It's there to prove the existence and relevancy or capability of something. There is nothing about ? that will "let me down" unless I'm talking about the ? in my head. I let my self down often, should i just believe in ? now? That's a giant leap of logic. The difference is; disappointment or not; wrong or right, i can go back to the drawing board, and there's a board to draw on with pencils and paint. Your statement seems to focus on the reality of existence and if you don't believe your here or everything are tricking your perception, then you should be diagnosed.
-
Prove ? , right now.
Since the burden of proof is on the claimer.
If you do that, I will stop posting.
No you won't. Where have I even begun to claim ? existence in what I have posted? I'm just making a point about what you posted. I would much rather you have posted that you didn't agree with the point I was making about needing a good reason to believe in anything than to just "change the subject". The thing is that it doesn't matter if someone proves or disproves ? if ? exists regardless of it.
Generally speaking, why would anybody need to believe that you exist...in order for you to exist? Your existence is not depended on who knows you or not. Many people have lived and died not knowing who you are and you are still here. Why wouldn't ? be any different? -
Generally speaking, why would anybody need to believe that you exist...in order for you to exist? Your existence is not depended on who knows you or not. Many people have lived and died not knowing who you are and you are still here. Why wouldn't ? be any different?
Because supposedly the Bible ? wants mankind to know and accept him. If we're talking something like deism, then it's different but the Christian ? is personal.
