| Revision as of 17:45, 12 May 2009 view sourceTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,478 editsm rv excess line breaks← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:50, 12 May 2009 view source 75.13.89.141 (talk) ←Replaced content with 'atheist suck dildos and regularly perform frottage on there monkey partners. Also some of the weirdest people I've met are atheist and honestly how many wars ha…'Tag: blankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| atheist suck dildos and regularly perform frottage on there monkey partners. Also some of the weirdest people I've met are atheist and honestly how many wars have been about religion except the crusades. | |||
| {{pp-move-indef}} | |||
| {{featured article}} | |||
| {{Redirect|Atheist||Atheist (disambiguation)}} | |||
| <!--Before changing this definition, please consider the following: | |||
| Talk:Atheism/Archive_27#A_survey_of_definitions_for_atheism | |||
| Talk:Atheism/Archive_29#List_of_definitions--> | |||
| {{atheism2}} | |||
| '''Atheism''' is the position that ] ],<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |first=William L. |last=Rowe |authorlink=William L. Rowe |encyclopedia=] |title=Atheism |year=1998 |editor=Edward Craig}}</ref> or the rejection of ].<ref>''Theism'' is used here in its most general sense, that is ''belief in one or more deities''. This would then define atheism as ''the rejection of belief that any deities exist'', regardless of whether the further conclusion is drawn that ''deities do not exist''. | |||
| *{{cite encyclopedia |first=Kai |last=Nielsen |authorlink=Kai Nielsen |encyclopedia=] |title=Atheism |url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism |year=2009 |accessdate=2007-04-28}} "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for on how God is being conceived." | |||
| *{{cite encyclopedia |title=Atheism |first=Paul |last=Edwards |authorlink=Paul Edwards (philosopher)|publisher=Collier-MacMillan |year=1967 |encyclopedia=] |volume=Vol. 1 |page=175 |quote=On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion }}</ref> | |||
| In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of ].<ref>]'s short article on suggests that there is no consensus on the defintion of the term. ] summarizes the situation in ]: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none." Most dictionaries (see the ] query for ) first list one of the more narrow definitions. | |||
| * {{cite book |url=http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html |title=Dictionary of Philosophy |first=Dagobert D.(editor) |last=Runes |authorlink=Dagobert D. Runes |year=1942 edition |publisher=Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library |location=New Jersey |isbn=0064634612 |quote=(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought}} - entry by ] | |||
| </ref> | |||
| The term ''atheism'' originated from the Greek {{lang|grc|]}} (''atheos''), which was derogatively applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. With the spread of ], ], and subsequent increase in ], application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as ].<ref name="Britannica demographics"/> Up to 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers; and up to 48% in Russia.<ref name=Zuckerman/> The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).<ref name=Zuckerman>Zuckerman, Phil. , ''The Cambridge Companion to Atheism'', ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005.</ref> | |||
| Atheism tends towards ] regarding ] claims, citing a lack of ] evidence. Common rationales include the ], the ], and the ]. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. | |||
| In ], atheists are frequently assumed to be ] or unspiritual.<ref name=cline-buddhism>{{cite web | last = Cline | first = Austin | title = Buddhism and Atheism | url = http://atheism.about.com/b/a/220595.htm | accessdate = 2006-10-21 | year = 2005 | publisher = ]}}</ref> However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of ] that do not advocate belief in gods, have been described as atheistic.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kedar |first=Nath Tiwari |year=1997 |title=Comparative Religion |publisher=] |id=ISBN 8120802934 |pages=p. 50}}</ref> Although some atheists tend toward ] philosophies such as ],<ref>Honderich, Ted (Ed.) (1995). "Humanism". ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy''. Oxford University Press. p 376. ISBN 0198661320.</ref> ], and ],<ref>Fales, Evan. "Naturalism and Physicalism", in {{harvnb|Martin|2007|pp=122–131}}.</ref> there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|pp=3–4}}.</ref> | |||
| {{TOClimit|limit=3}} | |||
| ==Etymology== | |||
| ] ({{bibleverse-nb||Ephesians|2:12}}) on the early 3rd-century ]. It is usually translated into English as " without God".<ref>The word {{lang|grc|αθεοι}}—in any of its forms—appears nowhere else in the ] or the ]. {{cite book |last=Robertson |first=A.T. |title=Word Pictures in the New Testament |origyear=1932 |accessdate=2007-04-12 |year=1960 |publisher=Broadman Press |chapter=Ephesians: Chapter 2 |chapterurl=http://www.ccel.org/r/robertson_at/wordpictures/htm/EPH2.RWP.html |quote=Old Greek word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the original sense of being without God and also in the sense of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See Paul's words in Ro 1:18–32.}}</ref>]] | |||
| In early ], the adjective ''{{transl|grc|atheos}}'' ({{lang|grc|]}}, from the ] + {{lang|grc|]}} "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century ], acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ] (''{{transl|grc|asebēs}}'') or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render ''{{transl|grc|atheos}}'' as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also {{lang|grc|]}} (''{{transl|grc|atheotēs}}''), "atheism". ] transliterated the Greek word into the ] ''{{lang|la|]}}''. The term found frequent use in the debate between ] and ], with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.<ref name=drachmann>{{cite book |last=Drachmann |first=A. B. |title=Atheism in Pagan Antiquity |publisher=Chicago: Ares Publishers |year=1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition") |isbn=0-89005-201-8 |quote = Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said ''{{transl |grc |atheos}}'' and ''{{transl |grc |atheotēs}}''; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, ''{{transl |grc |atheos}}'' was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. }}</ref> | |||
| In ], the term ''atheism'' was derived from the ] ''{{lang|fr|]}}'' in about 1587.<ref name="Golding">Rendered as ''Athisme'': {{cite book |last=Golding |first=Arthur | coauthors = ] | authorlink = Arthur Golding |title=] Woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists, and other infidels |publisher=London |year=1587 |pages= xx. 310 |quote= Athisme, that is to say, vtter godlesnes. }} Translation of ''De la verite de la religion chrestienne'' (1581). </ref> The term ''atheist'' (from Fr. ''{{lang|fr|]}}''), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",<ref>{{OED|}}</ref> predates ''atheism'' in English, being first attested in about 1571.<ref>Rendered as ''Atheistes'': {{cite book |last=Golding |first=Arthur | authorlink = Arthur Golding |title=The Psalmes of David and others, with ]'s commentaries |year=1571 |pages= Ep. Ded. 3 |quote= The Atheistes which say..there is no God. }} Translated from French.</ref> ''Atheist'' as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hanmer |first=Meredith |title=The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius |publisher=London |year=1577 |pages= 63 |oclc= 55193813 |quote= The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men. }}</ref> Related words emerged later: ''deist'' in 1621,<ref>{{cite book |last=Burton |first=Robert | authorlink = Robert Burton (scholar) |title=] |year=1621 |pages= III. iv. II. i |quote= Cosen-germans to these men are many of our great Philosophers and Deists. }}</ref> ''theist'' in 1662;<ref>{{cite book |last=Martin |first=Edward | authorlink = |title=His opinion concerning the difference between the Church of England and Geneva |publisher=London |year=1662 |chapter= Five Letters |pages= 45 |quote= To have said my office..twice a day..among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason, Puritanes . }}</ref> '']'' in 1678;<ref>"Secondly, that nothing out of nothing, in the sense of the atheistic objectors, viz. that nothing, which once was not, could by any power whatsoever be brought into being, is absolutely false; and that, if it were true, it would make no more against theism than it does against atheism.." Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Chapter V Section II p.73</ref> and '']'' in 1682.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dryden |first=John | authorlink = John Dryden |title=Religio laici, or A laymans faith, a poem |publisher=London |year=1682 |oclc = 11081103 |pages= Preface |quote=…namely, that Deism, or the principles of natural worship, are only the faint remnants or dying flames of revealed religion in the posterity of Noah… }}</ref> ''Deism'' and ''theism'' changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of ''atheism''; ''deism'' was originally used as a synonym for today's ''theism'', but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.<ref>The '']'' also records an earlier, irregular formation, ''atheonism'', dated from about 1534. The later and now obsolete words ''athean'' and ''atheal'' are dated to 1611 and 1612 respectively. {{cite book |title=] | edition = Second Edition |year=1989 |publisher=Oxford University Press, USA |isbn=0-19-861186-2 |author=prep. by J. A. Simpson ...}}</ref> | |||
| ] writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for ] ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling ''himself'' an atheist."<ref>{{cite book |last=Armstrong |first=Karen | authorlink = Karen Armstrong |title=A History of God |year=1999 |publisher=London: Vintage |isbn=0-09-927367-5}}</ref> ''Atheism'' was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the ] ].<ref name="adevism">In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, ''atheism'' is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely drawn in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses of ''atheism'' encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in ] deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term '']'' was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in plural deities. {{cite journal |author=Britannica |title=Atheonism | journal = ] | edition = 11th Edition |year=1911}}</ref> In the 20th century, ] contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".<ref name="martin">Martin, Michael. ''''. Cambridge University Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.</ref> Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine ''atheism'' as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.<ref name="martin"/><ref>{{cite web |last=Cline |first=Austin |title=What Is the Definition of Atheism? |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm |accessdate=2006-10-21 | year | |||
| = 2006 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Flew |first=Antony | authorlink = Antony Flew |title=God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis |publisher=Buffalo, NY: Prometheus |year=1984 |isbn=0-87975-127-4}}</ref> | |||
| ==Definitions and distinctions== | |||
| ] | |||
| Writers disagree how best to define and classify ''atheism'',<ref name="eb911-atheism">{{cite web |year=1911 |url=http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Atheism |title="Atheism" |work=Encyclopedia Britannica |accessdate=2007-06-07}}</ref> contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism. | |||
| ===Range=== | |||
| Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining ''atheism'' arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like ''deity'' and ''god''. The plurality of wildly different ] and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. In contexts where '']'' is defined as the belief in a ] ], for example, people who believe in a variety of other deities have been classified as atheists, including ] (such as Thomas Paine) and even ];{{Request quotation|date=September 2008}} conversely, the ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshipping the ] deities. In the 20th century, this view has fallen into disfavor as ''theism'' has come to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.<ref name="mmartin">Martin, Michael. ''''. Cambridge University | |||
| Press. 2006. ISBN 0521842700.</ref> | |||
| With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, ], or ] concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism.<ref name="Britannica1992">{{cite journal |author=Britannica |title=Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs |url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38265/atheism |accessdate=2006-10-27 | journal = ] | edition = 15th Edition | volume = 1 |pages=666 |year=1992 |id=0852294735}}</ref> | |||
| ===Implicit vs. explicit=== | |||
| {{main|Implicit and explicit atheism}} | |||
| Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, ] said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."<ref>{{cite book |last=d'Holbach |first=P. H. T. | authorlink = Baron d'Holbach |title=Good Sense |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7319 |accessdate=2006-10-27 |year=1772}}</ref> Similarly, ] (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1979|p=14}}.</ref> Smith coined the term ''implicit atheism'' to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and ''explicit atheism'' to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. | |||
| In Western civilization, the view that children are born atheist is relatively recent. Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called ''theistic ]''—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cudworth |first=Ralph | authorlink = Ralph Cudworth |title=The True Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated |year=1678}}</ref> There is a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make ]s, or that "there are no ]."<ref>See, for instance, {{cite web|url=http://www.lds-mormon.com/atheist.shtml|title=Atheists call for church head to retract slur|date=1996-09-03|accessdate=2008-07-02}}</ref> Some proponents of this view claim that the ] is that religious faith enables humans to endure hardships better (cf.] Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique | |||
| of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher | |||
| February, 1844). Some atheists emphasize the fact that there have been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes."<ref>{{cite web |last=Lowder |first=Jeffery Jay |year=1997 |title=Atheism and Society |url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/society.html |accessdate=2007-01-10 }}</ref> | |||
| ===Strong vs. weak=== | |||
| {{main|Weak and strong atheism}} | |||
| Philosophers such as ]<ref name="presumption">Flew, Antony. "The Presumption of Atheism". ''The Presumption of Atheism and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality''. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1976. pp 14ff.</ref>, ]<ref name="martin"/>, and ]<ref name="RoweRoutledge">Rowe, William L. "Atheism". ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Edward Craig (editor). Routledge: June 1998. ISBN 0415187060. 530-534.</ref> have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.<ref>{{cite web |last=Cline |first=Austin |title=Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference? |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm |accessdate=2006-10-21 |year=2006 |publisher=]}}</ref> The terms ''weak'' and ''strong'' are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms ''negative'' and ''positive'' atheism have been used in the philosophical literature<ref name="presumption"/> and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm |title=On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism |journal=The Review of Politics |first=Jacques |last=Maritain |year=1949 |month=July |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=267–280}}</ref> Under this demarcation of atheism, most ] qualify as weak atheists. | |||
| While ], for example, asserts that ] entails weak atheism,<ref name="martin"/> most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.<ref>{{cite book |first=Anthony |last=Kenny |authorlink=Anthony Kenny |title=What I believe |chapter=Why I Am Not an Atheist |publisher=Continuum |isbn=0-8264-8971-0 |quote=The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism … a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed. |year=2006}}</ref> The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a ].<ref>{{cite news |title=Atheists take bigger leap of faith than 'believers' |first=Ken |last=Freking |url=http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jan/20050123Comm008.asp |accessdate=2007-05-30 |date=] |work=Columbia Daily Tribune}}</ref> Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven '']'' propositions deserve as much disbelief as all ''other'' unproven propositions,<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|pp=30–34}}. "Who seriously claims we should say 'I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope is a robot', or 'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turn me into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any good reasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement."</ref> and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=22}}. "A lack of proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief. This is because when we have a lack of absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is far superior to the alternatives."</ref> Scottish philosopher ] even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised ] which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."<ref name="stanford">{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |title=Atheism and Agnosticism |first=J.C.C. |last=Smart |date=2004-03-09 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |accessdate=2007-04-12}}</ref> Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as ] prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the ] assigned to the statement "God exists".<ref>Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Bantam Books: 2006, p. 50. (ISBN 0-618-68000-4)</ref> | |||
| ===Other usage of the term "Positive Atheism"=== | |||
| As mentioned above, the terms ''negative'' and ''positive'' have been used in philosophical literature in a similar manner to the terms ''weak'' and ''strong''. However, the book ''Positive Atheism'' by ], first published in 1972, introduced an alternative use for the phrase.<ref>{{cite book | last = Rao | first = Goparaju | authorlink = Goparaju Ramachandra Rao | title = Positive Atheism | publisher = Atheist Centre, Patamata, Vijayawada, India | date = 1972 | location = Vijayawada, India}}</ref> Having grown up in a hierarchical system with a religious basis, Gora called for a secular ] and suggested guidelines for a positive atheist philosophy, meaning one that promotes positive values.<ref>{{cite web | last = Walker | first = Cliff | authorlink = Cliff Walker | title = The Philosophy of Positive Atheism | url = http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH | accessdate = 2008-11-19 }}</ref> Positive atheism entails such things as a being morally upright, showing an understanding that religious people have reasons to believe, not proselytising or lecturing others about atheism, and defending oneself with truthfulness instead of aiming to 'win' any confrontations with outspoken critics. | |||
| ==Rationale== | |||
| ] who the father was who brought him into this world. The ] pointed to the sky, and to an old man sitting, and said:<br> | |||
| '' 'That one there is your body's father, and that your soul's.' ''<br> | |||
| To which the boy replied:<br> | |||
| '' 'What is above of us is of no concern to us, and I'm ashamed to be the child of such an aged man!'<br> | |||
| '' 'O what supreme impiety, not to want to recognize your father, and not to think God is your maker!' ''<ref>Translation of Latin text from "" (1552), ''Picta poesis'', by ]. Glasgow University Emblem Website. Retrieved on ].</ref> | |||
| ] illustrating practical atheism and its historical association with immorality, titled "Supreme Impiety: Atheist and Charlatan", from ''Picta poesis'', by ], 1552.]] | |||
| The broadest demarcation of atheistic rationale is between practical and theoretical atheism. The different forms of theoretical atheism each derive from a particular ] or philosophical argument. In contrast, practical atheism requires no specific argument, and can include indifference to and ignorance of the idea of gods. | |||
| ===Practical atheism=== | |||
| In ''practical'', or '']'', atheism, also known as ], individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.<ref name = "Zdybicka-p20">{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=20}}.</ref> A form of practical atheism with implications for the ] is ]—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within ] with or without fully accepting or believing it."<ref name="neps">Schafersman, Steven D. "". Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise. Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas. February 1997. Revised May 2007. Retrieved on ].</ref> | |||
| Practical atheism can take various forms: | |||
| * Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action; | |||
| * Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action; | |||
| * Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or | |||
| * Unawareness of the concept of a deity.<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=21}}.</ref> | |||
| ===Theoretical atheism=== | |||
| {{Further|]|]|]}} | |||
| Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common ] such as the ] or ]. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various forms, above all ontological, gnoseological, and epistemological, but also sometimes psychological and sociological forms. | |||
| ====Epistemological and ontological arguments==== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| ] atheism argues that people cannot know God or determine the existence of God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is ], which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of ], divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's ] is locked in the ]. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The ] agnosticism of ] and the ] only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. ], based on the ideas of ], asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God. The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.<ref name = "Zdybicka-p20"/> | |||
| Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ], including ] and ], assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." ] holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers ] and ] reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.<ref>] (1998). "". ], ''Secular Web Library''. Retrieved on ].</ref><ref>] (1946). ''Language, Truth and Logic''. Dover. pp. 115–116. In a footnote, Ayer attributes this view to "Professor H. H. Price".</ref> | |||
| ====Metaphysical arguments==== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| Metaphysical atheism is based on metaphysical ]—the view that reality is homogeneous and indivisible. Absolute metaphysical atheists subscribe to some form of ], hence they explicitly deny the existence of non-physical beings. Relative metaphysical atheists maintain an implicit denial of a particular concept of God based on the incongruity between their individual philosophies and attributes commonly applied to God, such as ], a ], or unity. Examples of relative metaphysical atheism include ], ], and ].<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=19}}.</ref> | |||
| ] is credited with first expounding the ]. ] in his '']'' (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:<ref>{{cite book|title=Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion|author=David Hume|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4583|publisher=Project Gutenberg (e-text)}}</ref> | |||
| "Is willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"]] | |||
| ====Psychological, sociological, and economical arguments==== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| Philosophers such as ]<ref>Feuerbach, Ludwig (1841) '']''</ref> and ] argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs. This is also a view of many ].<ref>Walpola Rahula, ''What the Buddha Taught.'' Grove Press, 1974. Pages 51–52.</ref> ] and ], influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to ], "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice." He reversed ]'s famous aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html |title=God and the State |accessdate=2007-04-12 |last=Bakunin |first=Michael |authorlink=Michael Bakunin |year=1916 |work= |publisher=New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association}}</ref> | |||
| Recently, ], who regards himself as part of the tradition of ], has sought to revive this tradition as an argument for atheism, amidst modern schools of philosophy that he feels are ] and ].{{fact|date=April 2009}} | |||
| ====Logical and evidential arguments==== | |||
| {{further|], ], ]}} | |||
| Logical atheism holds that the various ], such as the ] of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present ] against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, ], ], ], ], ], ], personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, ] and ].<ref>Various authors. "Logical Arguments for Atheism". ], ''The Secular Web Library''. Retrieved on ].</ref> | |||
| ] atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an ], ], and ] God is not compatible with a world where there is ] and ], and where divine love is ] from many people.<ref>] (1996). "". ], ''Secular Web Library''. Retrieved 2007-04-18.</ref> A similar argument is attributed to ], the founder of ].<ref>V.A. Gunasekara, In the Bhuridatta Jataka, "The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha."</ref> | |||
| ====Anthropocentric arguments==== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| ], or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as ].<!-- The previous wikilink is a disambig. page. Someone redirect it to human race, human nature, etc., etc. --> This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Sartre all used this argument to convey messages of liberation, ], and unfettered happiness.<ref name = "Zdybicka-p20"/> | |||
| One of the most common ] has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a just God leads to ], leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation,<ref name="misconceptions">{{cite web |url=http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=12346 |title=Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Atheism |accessdate=2006-10-21 |last=Gleeson |first=David |year=2006 |publisher=''American Chronicle''}}</ref> or renders life ] and miserable.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1979|p=275}}. "Perhaps the most common criticism of atheism is the claim that it leads inevitably to moral bankruptcy."</ref> ] argued this view in 1669.<ref>] (1669). '']'', II: "The Misery of Man Without God".</ref> | |||
| ==History== | |||
| {{main|History of atheism}} | |||
| Although the term ''atheism'' originated in 16th-century ],<ref name="Golding"/> ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented from ] and the ]. | |||
| ===Early Indic religion=== | |||
| {{main|Atheism in Hinduism}} | |||
| ] are found in ], which is otherwise a very theistic religion. The thoroughly materialistic and anti-theistic philosophical ] School that originated in ] around 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as a ] system and is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.<ref>Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. ''A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy''. (Princeton University Press: 1957, Twelfth Princeton Paperback printing 1989) pp. 227–249. ISBN 0-691-01958-4.</ref> Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Cārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| "Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."<ref>Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta. ''An Introduction to Indian Philosophy''. Eighth Reprint Edition. (University of Calcutta: 1984). p. 55.</ref> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as atheistic include ] and ]. The rejection of a personal creator God is also seen in ] and ] in India.<ref name="Joshi">{{cite journal |last=Joshi |first=L.R. |year=1966 |title= A New Interpretation of Indian Atheism |journal=Philosophy East and West |volume=16 |issue=3/4 |pages=189–206|url=http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8221(196607%2F10)16%3A3%2F4%3C189%3AANIOIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S |doi= 10.2307/1397540}}</ref> | |||
| ===Classical antiquity=== | |||
| ]'s '']'', ] (pictured) was accused by ] of not believing in the gods.]] | |||
| Western atheism has its roots in ] ], but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late ].<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|pp=73–74}}. "Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment."</ref> The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher ] is known as the "first atheist",<ref>] (1942). ''''. Cornell University Press. p 25.</ref> and strongly criticized religion and mysticism. ] viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order.<ref>"". (2007). In ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. Retrieved on April 2, 2007.</ref> ] such as ] attempted to explain the world in a purely ] way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Other pre-Socratic philosophers who probably had atheistic views included ] and ]. In the 3rd-century BCE the Greek philosophers ]<ref>Diogenes Laërtius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, ii</ref> and ]<ref>Cicero, ''Lucullus'', 121. in Reale, G., ''A History of Ancient Philosophy''. SUNY Press. (1985).</ref> also did not believe gods exist. | |||
| ] (c. 471–399 BCE), was accused of ] (see ]) on the basis that he inspired questioning of the ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/atheism.html |title=Atheism |accessdate=2007-04-12 |year=2005 |work=The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition |publisher=Columbia University Press}}</ref> Although he disputed the accusation that he was a "complete atheist",<ref>{{cite book |first=Thomas C. |last=Brickhouse |coauthors=Nicholas D. Smith |title=Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Trial of Socrates |year=2004 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=0415156815 |pages=p. 112}} In particular, he argues that the claim he is a complete atheist contradicts the other part of the indictment, that he introduced "new divinities".</ref> saying that he could not be an atheist as he believed in spirits<ref></ref>, he was ultimately ]. Socrates also prays to various gods in Plato's dialogue ]<ref></ref> and says "By Zeus" in the dialogue ].<ref></ref> | |||
| ] (c. 330–260 BCE) published his view that the gods were only the deified rulers, conquerors and founders of the past, and that their cults and religions were in essence the continuation of vanished kingdoms and earlier political structures.<ref>Fragments of Euhemerus' work in Ennius' Latin translation have been preserved in ] writings (e.g. by ] and ]), which all rely on earlier fragments in ] 5,41–46 & 6.1. Testimonies, especially in the context of polemical criticism, are found e.g. in ], ''Hymn to Zeus'' 8.</ref> Although not strictly an atheist, Euhemerus was later criticized for having "spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods".<ref>], ''Moralia—Isis and Osiris'' </ref> | |||
| Atomic materialist ] (c. 341–270 BCE) disputed many religious doctrines, including the existence of an ] or a ]; he considered the ] purely material and mortal. While ] did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist, they were unconcerned with humanity.<ref name="BBC">{{cite web |author=BBC |authorlink = BBC |title=Ethics and Religion—Atheism |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/ |accessdate=2007-04-12 |publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| The Roman poet ] (c. 99–55 BCE) agreed that, if there were gods, they were unconcerned with humanity and unable to affect the natural world. For this reason, he believed humanity should have no fear of the supernatural. He expounds his Epicurean views of the cosmos, atoms, the soul, mortality, and religion in '']'' ("On the nature of things"),<ref>{{gutenberg|no=785|name=On the Nature of Things by Lucretius}} Book I, "Substance is Eternal". Translated by W.E. Leonard. 1997. Retrieved on ].</ref> which popularized Epicurus' philosophy in ].<ref>] (100–44 BCE), who leaned considerably toward Epicureanism, also rejected the idea of an afterlife, which e.g. lead to his plea against the death sentence during the trial against ], where he spoke out against the ] ] (cf. ], ''The War With Catiline'', Caesar's speech: & Cato's reply: ).</ref> | |||
| The Roman philosopher ] held that one should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs—a form of skepticism known as ]—that nothing was inherently evil, and that ] ("peace of mind") is attainable by withholding one's judgment. His relatively large volume of surviving works had a lasting influence on later philosophers.<ref name="gordonstein">Stein, Gordon (Ed.) (1980). "". ''An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism''. New York: Prometheus. Retrieved on ].</ref> | |||
| The meaning of "atheist" changed over the course of classical antiquity. The early Christians were labeled atheists by non-Christians because of their disbelief in pagan gods.<ref name="cathencyc-atheism">{{ws|"]" in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia}}</ref> During the ], Christians were executed for their rejection of the ] in general and Emperor-worship in particular. When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under ] in 381, ] became a punishable offense.<ref>Maycock, A. L. and Ronald Knox (2003). ''''. ISBN 0766172902.</ref> | |||
| ===Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance=== | |||
| The espousal of atheistic views was rare in Europe during the ] and ] (see ]); metaphysics, religion and theology were the dominant interests.<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=4}}</ref> There were, however, movements within this period that forwarded heterodox conceptions of the Christian God, including differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God. Individuals and groups such as ], ], ], and the ] maintained Christian viewpoints with ] tendencies. ] held to a form of ] he called '']'' ("learned ignorance"), asserting that God is beyond human categorization, and our knowledge of God is limited to conjecture. ] inspired anti-metaphysical tendencies with his ] limitation of human knowledge to singular objects, and asserted that the divine ] could not be intuitively or rationally apprehended by human intellect. Followers of Ockham, such as ] and ] furthered this view. The resulting division between faith and reason influenced later theologians such as ], ], and ].<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=4}}.</ref> | |||
| The ] did much to expand the scope of freethought and skeptical inquiry. Individuals such as ] sought experimentation as a means of explanation, and opposed ]. Other critics of religion and the Church during this time included ], ], and ].<ref name="gordonstein"/> | |||
| ===Early Modern Period=== | |||
| The ] and ] eras witnessed a resurgence in religious fervor, as evidenced by the proliferation of new religious orders, confraternities, and popular devotions in the Catholic world, and the appearance of increasingly austere Protestant sects such as the ]. This era of interconfessional rivalry permitted an even wider scope of theological and philosophical speculation, much of which would later be used to advance a religiously skeptical world-view. | |||
| ] became increasingly frequent in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in France and England, where there appears to have been a religious ], according to contemporary sources. Some Protestant thinkers, such as ], espoused a materialist philosophy and skepticism toward supernatural occurrences, while the Jewish-Dutch philosopher ] rejected ] in favour of a pantheistic naturalism. By the late 17th century, ] came to be openly espoused by intellectuals such as ], and practically all the '']s'' of 18th-century France and England held to some form of Deism{{Fact|date=June 2008}}. Despite their ridicule of Christianity, many Deists held atheism in scorn. The first known atheist who threw off the mantle of deism, bluntly denying the existence of gods, was ], a French priest who lived in the early 18th century.<ref> on William Paterson University accessed at January 19, 2008</ref> He was followed by other openly atheistic thinkers, such as ] and ].<ref>{{cite book |last=d'Holbach |first=P. H. T. | authorlink = Baron d'Holbach |title=The system of nature |url=http://www.fullbooks.com/The-System-of-Nature-Vol-2.html |accessdate=2007-10-31 |year=1770}}</ref> The philosopher ] developed a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, undermining the metaphysical basis of natural theology. | |||
| ]'s '']'' (1841) would greatly influence philosophers such as ], ], ], and ]. He considered God to be a human invention and religious activities to be wish-fulfillment.]] | |||
| The ] took atheism outside the salons and into the public sphere. Attempts to enforce the ] led to anti-clerical violence and the expulsion of many clergy from France. The chaotic political events in revolutionary Paris eventually enabled the more radical ] to seize power in 1793, ushering in the ]. At its climax, the more militant atheists attempted to forcibly de-Christianize France, replacing religion with a ]. These persecutions ended with the ], but some of the secularizing measures of this period remained a permanent legacy of French politics. | |||
| The ] institutionalized the secularization of French society, and exported the revolution to northern Italy, in the hopes of creating pliable republics. In the 19th century, many atheists and other anti-religious thinkers devoted their efforts to political and social revolution, facilitating the ], the ] in Italy, and the growth of an international ] movement. | |||
| In the latter half of the 19th century, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of ] and ] philosophers. Many prominent German philosophers of this era denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including ], ], ], and ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BKz2FcDrFy0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=nietzsche+schopenhauer+marx+feuerbach&ots=Uj5_B0kDbS&sig=1lXbokGVRbwxqAIbmcOwL033N88 |title=Subjectivity and Irreligion: Atheism and Agnosticism in Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche |publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. |accessdate=2007-04-12 |last=Ray |first=Matthew Alun |year=2003}}</ref> | |||
| ===Late modern period=== | |||
| Atheism in the 20th century, particularly in the form of practical atheism, advanced in many societies. Atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ],<ref>Overall, Christine. "Feminism and Atheism", in {{harvnb|Martin|2007|pp=233–246}}.</ref> and the general scientific and ]. | |||
| Logical positivism and ] paved the way for ], ], ], and ]. Neopositivism and analytical philosophy discarded classical rationalism and metaphysics in favor of strict empiricism and epistemological ]. Proponents such as ] emphatically rejected belief in God. In his early work, ] attempted to separate metaphysical and supernatural language from rational discourse. ] asserted the unverifiability and meaninglessness of religious statements, citing his adherence to the empirical sciences. Relatedly the applied ] of ] sourced religious language to the human subconscious in denying its transcendental meaning. ] and ] argued that the existence of God is not logically necessary. Naturalists and materialistic monists such as ] considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality.<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=16}}.</ref><ref name="stanford"/> | |||
| The 20th century also saw the political advancement of atheism, spurred on by interpretation of the works of ] and ]. After the ] of 1917, increased religious freedom for minority religions lasted for a few years, before the policies of ] turned towards repression of religion. The ] and other ]s promoted ] and opposed religion, often by violent means.<ref>{{cite book|last=Solzhenitsyn |first= Aleksandr I.|title=The Gulag Archipelago|publisher=Harper Perennial Modern Classics|isbn=0-06-000776-1|year=2002}}</ref><!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| Other leaders like ] (Periyar), a prominent atheist leader of ], fought against ] and ] for discriminating and dividing people in the name of ] and religion.<ref>{{cite book |last=Michael |first=S. M. |year=1999 |chapter=Dalit Visions of a Just Society |editor= S. M. Michael (ed.) |publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers |title=Untouchable: Dalits in Modern India |isbn=1555876978 |pages=pp. 31–33}}</ref> This was highlighted in 1956 when he made the Hindu god ] wear a garland made of slippers and made ] statements.<ref>"He who created god was a fool, he who spreads his name is a scoundrel, and he who worships him is a barbarian." ] (1996). "". ], ''International Humanist News''. Retrieved on ].</ref> | |||
| In 1966, '']'' magazine asked "Is God Dead?"<ref> online. 8 Apr 1966. Retrieved 2007-04-17.</ref> in response to the ], citing the estimation that nearly half of all people in the world lived under an anti-religious power, and millions more in Africa, Asia, and South America seemed to lack knowledge of the Christian God.<ref>"". ''Time Magazine'' online. 8 Apr 1966. Retrieved 2007-04-17.</ref> The following year, the ]n government under ] announced the closure of all religious institutions in the country, declaring Albania the world's first officially atheist state.<ref>Majeska, George P. (1976). "." ''The Slavic and East European Journal.'' '''20'''(2). pp. 204–206.</ref> These regimes enhanced the negative associations of atheism, especially where anti-communist sentiment was strong in the United States, despite the fact that prominent atheists were anti-communist.<ref>{{cite journal |quotes= |last=Rafford |first=R.L. |year=1987 |title=Atheophobia—an introduction |journal= Religious Humanism|volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=32–37 }}</ref> | |||
| Since the fall of the ], the number of actively anti-religious regimes has reduced considerably. In 2006, Timothy Shah of the ] noted "a worldwide trend across all major religious groups, in which God-based and faith-based movements in general are experiencing increasing confidence and influence vis-à-vis secular movements and ideologies."<ref>"." 2006-07-18. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Retrieved 2007-04-18.</ref> But ] and Phil Zuckerman consider this a myth and suggest that the actual situation is much more complex and nuanced.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Gregory |last=Paul |authorlink=Gregory S. Paul |coauthors=Phil Zuckerman |title=Why the Gods Are Not Winning |journal=Edge |volume=209 |year=2007 |url=http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge209.html#gp |accessdate=2007-05-16}}</ref> | |||
| ==Demographics== | |||
| {{main|Demographics of atheism}} | |||
| ] | |||
| It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define "atheism" differently or draw different distinctions between ''atheism'', non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.<ref>{{cite web | |||
| |url=http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious | |||
| |title=Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents, Section on accuracy of non-Religious Demographic Data | |||
| |accessdate=2008-03-28}}</ref> In addition, people in some regions of the world refrain from reporting themselves as atheists to avoid social stigma, ], and ]. A 2005 survey published in '']'' finds that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure does not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.<ref name="Britannica demographics">{{cite web | |||
| |url=http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620 | |||
| |title=Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2005 | |||
| |publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica | |||
| |year=2005 | |||
| |accessdate=2007-04-15}} | |||
| * 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion). | |||
| * 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so. | |||
| </ref> A November–December 2006 poll published in the '']'' gives rates for the United States and five European countries. It found that Americans are more likely than Europeans to report belief in any form of god or supreme being (73%). Of the European adults surveyed, Italians are the most likely to express this belief (62%) and the French the least likely (27%). In France, 32% declared themselves atheists, and an additional 32% declared themselves ].<ref>{{cite web | |||
| |url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 | |||
| |title=Religious Views and Beliefs Vary Greatly by Country, According to the Latest Financial Times/Harris Poll | |||
| |publisher=Financial Times/Harris Interactive | |||
| |date=] | |||
| |accessdate=2007-01-17}}</ref> An official ] survey provides corresponding figures: 18% of the EU population do not believe in a god; 27% affirm the existence of some "spirit or life force", while 52% affirm belief in a specific god. The proportion of believers rises to 65% among those who had left school by age 15; survey respondents who considered themselves to be from a strict family background were more likely to believe in god than those who felt their upbringing lacked firm rules.<ref>{{cite book | |||
| |last= | |||
| |first= | |||
| |authorlink = | |||
| |coauthors = | |||
| |title =Social values, Science and Technology | |||
| |publisher =Directorate General Research, European Union | |||
| |year =2005 | |||
| |location= | |||
| |pages= pp 7–11 | |||
| |url =http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf | |||
| |doi = | |||
| |id= | |||
| |isbn= |format=PDF}}</ref> | |||
| A letter published in '']'' in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or ] was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. ], only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject God |last=Larson |first=Edward J. |coauthors=Larry Witham |year=1998 |journal=Nature |volume=394 |issue= 6691 |pages=313 |doi=10.1038/28478}} Available at , Stephen Jay Gould archive. Retrieved on ]</ref> In the same year ] of the ] and ] of ] conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a ] indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.<ref>{{cite book | |||
| |last=Shermer | |||
| |first=Michael | |||
| |authorlink =Michael Shermer | |||
| |coauthors = | |||
| |title =How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God | |||
| |publisher =William H Freeman | |||
| |year =1999 | |||
| |location=New York | |||
| |pages= pp76–79 | |||
| |url = | |||
| |doi = | |||
| |id=ISBN 071673561X }}</ref> | |||
| An inverse ] between ] has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in ''] Magazine''.<ref>According to Dawkins (2006), p. 103. Dawkins cites Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" ''Mensa Magazine'', UK Edition, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."</ref> These findings broadly agree with a 1958 statistical ] by Professor ] of the ]. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and ] among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.<ref>{{cite book | |||
| |last=Argyle | |||
| |first=Michael | |||
| |authorlink =Michael Argyle | |||
| |coauthors = | |||
| |title =Religious Behaviour | |||
| |publisher =Routledge and Kegan Paul | |||
| |year =1958 | |||
| |location=London | |||
| |pages= pp 93–96 | |||
| |url = | |||
| |doi = | |||
| |isbn= 0-415-17589-5 }}</ref> | |||
| In the Australian 2006 Census of Population and Housing, in the question which asked ''What is the person's religion?'' Of the total population, 18.7% ticked the box marked ''no religion'' or wrote in a response which was classified as non religious (e.g. humanism, agnostic, atheist). This question was optional and 11.2% did not answer the question.<ref>Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing, 2006, </ref> In 2006, the New Zealand census asked, ''What is your religion?''. Of those answering, 34.7% indicated no religion. 12.2% did not respond or objected to answering the question.<ref>Statistics New Zealand, </ref> | |||
| ==Atheism, religion and morality== | |||
| {{See also|Atheism and religion|Criticism of atheism|Secular ethics}} | |||
| ] of a ], ] is commonly described as nontheistic.]] | |||
| Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be ], some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.<ref name="winston2">{{cite book |last=Winston |first=Robert (Ed.) |title=Human |publisher=New York: DK Publishing, Inc |year=2004 |isbn=0-7566-1901-7 |pages=p. 299 | quote=Nonbelief has existed for centuries. For example, Buddhism and Jainism have been called atheistic religions because they do not advocate belief in gods.}}</ref> In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as ] or ]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/humanistic.shtml |title=Humanistic Judaism |date=] |accessdate=2006-10-25 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Levin |first=S. |year=1995 | month = May |title=Jewish Atheism | journal = New Humanist | volume = 110 | issue = 2 |pages=13–15}}</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml |title=Christian Atheism |date=] |accessdate=2006-10-25 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Altizer |first=Thomas J. J. | authorlink = Thomas J. J. Altizer |title=The Gospel of Christian Atheism |url=http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523 |accessdate=2006-10-27 |year=1967 |publisher=London: Collins |pages=102–103}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Lyas |first=Colin |year=1970 | month = January |title=On the Coherence of Christian Atheism | journal = Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy | volume = 45 | issue = 171 |pages=1–19}}</ref> | |||
| As the strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the ] of ], which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to ], which holds that morality is meaningless.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1979|pp=21-22}}.</ref> | |||
| Although it is a philosophical truism, encapsulated in Plato's ] that the role of the gods in determining right from wrong is either unnecessary or arbitrary, the argument that morality must be derived from God and cannot exist without a wise creator has been a persistent feature of political if not so much philosophical debate. <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1979|p=275}}. "Among the many myths associated with religion, none is more widespread -or more disastrous in its effects -than the myth that moral values cannot be divorced from the belief in a god."</ref><ref>In ]'s '']'' (Book Eleven: ''Brother Ivan Fyodorovich'', Chapter 4) there is the famous argument that ''If there is no God, all things are permitted.'': "'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?'"</ref><ref name = "Kant CPR A811"> For ], the presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams..." (''Critique of Pure Reason'', A811).</ref> Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as ]s, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a ], and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=38}}.</ref> | |||
| Philosophers ]<ref>{{cite video| people =]| title =Beyond Belief Session 6| medium =Conference| publisher =The Science Network| location =], La Jolla, CA|date= November 6, 2006 }}</ref> and ]<ref> {{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=40}}</ref> (among others) assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Baggini argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics, claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary to evaluate the morality of the imperatives themselves - to be able to discern, for example, that "thou shalt steal" is immoral even if one's religion instructs it - and that atheists, therefore, have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=43}}.</ref> The contemporary British political philosopher Martin Cohen has offered the more historically telling example of Biblical injunctions in favour of torture and slavery as evidence of how religious injunctions follow political and social customs, rather than vice versa, but also noted that the same tendency seems to be true of supposedly dispassionate and objective philosophers. <ref> 101 Ethical Dilemmas, 2nd edition, by Cohen, M., Routledge 2007, pp184-5. (Cohen notes particularly that Plato and Aristotle produced arguments in favour of slavery.) </ref> Cohen extends this argument in more detail in ''Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao'' in the case of the ] which he sees as having had a generally unfortunate role in preserving medieval social codes through changes in secular society. <ref> Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, by Cohen, M, Second edition 2008 </ref> | |||
| Nonetheless, atheists such as ] have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to ] and ]tism.<ref>{{cite web |last=Harris |first=Sam | authorlink = Sam Harris (author) |title=The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos |url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3 |accessdate=2006-10-29 |publisher=] |year=2006a}}</ref> Indeed, ] and ] (when religion is held because it serves other, more ultimate interests<ref name=Moreira-almeida2006>{{cite journal |author=Moreira-almeida, A. | coauthors = Lotufo Neto, F.; Koenig, H.G. |year=2006 |title=Religiousness and mental health: a review | journal = Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria | volume = 28 |pages=242–250 |url=http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1516-44462006000300018&script=sci_arttext |accessdate=2007-07-12 }}</ref>) have been correlated with authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice.<ref>See for example: Kahoe, R.D. (June 1977). "". ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion''. '''16'''(2). pp. 179-182. Also see: Altemeyer, Bob and Bruce Hunsberger (1992). "". ''International Journal for the Psychology of Religion''. '''2'''(2). pp. 113-133.</ref> This argument, combined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the ]s, ]s, and ], are often used by ] atheists to justify their views.<ref>{{cite web |last=Harris |first=Sam | authorlink = Sam Harris (author) |title=An Atheist Manifesto |url=http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/200512_an_atheist_manifesto |accessdate=2006-10-29 |publisher=] |year=2005 | quote = In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree.}}</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{Col-begin}} | |||
| {{Col-1-of-3}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{Col-2-of-3}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{Col-3-of-3}} | |||
| {{portal|Atheism|Atom_of_Atheism_(lowres)-Zanaq.png}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| *] | |||
| {{col-end}} | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| |last= Baggini | |||
| |first= Julian | |||
| |authorlink = Julian Baggini | |||
| |title=Atheism: A Very Short Introduction | |||
| |year= 2003 | |||
| |publisher=Oxford: Oxford University Press | |||
| |id= ISBN 0-19-280424-3}} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| |editor-last = Martin | |||
| |editor-first = Michael | |||
| |editor-link = Michael Martin (philosopher) | |||
| |title=The Cambridge Companion to Atheism | |||
| |publisher=Cambridge: Cambridge University Press | |||
| |year= 2007 | |||
| |id= ISBN 0-521-60367-6}} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| |last= Smith | |||
| |first= George H. | |||
| |authorlink = George H. Smith | |||
| |title=Atheism: The Case Against God | |||
| |year= 1979 | |||
| |publisher=Buffalo, New York: Prometheus | |||
| |id= ISBN 0-87975-124-X}} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| |last= Zdybicka | |||
| |first= Zofia J. | |||
| |authorlink = Zofia Zdybicka | |||
| |year= 2005 | |||
| |contribution = Atheism | |||
| |contribution-url = http://www.ptta.pl/pef/angielski/hasla/a/atheism.pdf | |||
| |editor-first = Andrzej | |||
| |editor-last = Maryniarczyk | |||
| |title=Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy | |||
| |volume = 1 | |||
| |publisher=Polish Thomas Aquinas Association | |||
| |accessdate=2007-08-25}} | |||
| == Further reading == | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Berman | |||
| |first= David | |||
| |title=A History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell | |||
| |year= 1990 | |||
| |publisher=London: Routledge | |||
| |isbn= 0-415-04727-7}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Buckley | |||
| |first= M. J. | |||
| |title=At the Origins of Modern Atheism | |||
| |year= 1990 | |||
| |isbn= 0300048971 | |||
| |publisher=New Haven, CT: Yale University Press}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Dawkins | |||
| |first= Richard | |||
| |authorlink = Richard Dawkins | |||
| |title=] | |||
| |year= 2006 | |||
| |publisher=Bantam Press | |||
| |isbn= 0593055489 }} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Flew | |||
| |first= Antony | |||
| |authorlink = Antony Flew | |||
| |title=God and Philosophy | |||
| |publisher=Prometheus Books | |||
| |isbn= 1591023300 | |||
| |year= 2005}} | |||
| * Flynn, Tom, ed. (2007). ''The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief''. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1591023912. | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| |editor= Gaskin, J.C.A. | |||
| |title=Varieties of Unbelief: From Epicurus to Sartre | |||
| |publisher=New York: Macmillan | |||
| |year= 1989 | |||
| |id= ISBN 0-02-340681-X}} | |||
| * {{cite journal | |||
| |last = Germani | |||
| |first = Alan | |||
| |title = The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists | |||
| |journal = The Objective Standard | |||
| |volume = 3 | |||
| |issue = 3 | |||
| |publisher = Glen Allen Press | |||
| |date = ] | |||
| |url = http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mystical-ethics-new-atheists.asp | |||
| |format = ] | |||
| |accessdate = 2008-09-15 }} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Harbour | |||
| |first= Daniel | |||
| |title=] | |||
| |publisher=London: Duckworth | |||
| |isbn= 0-7156-3229-9 | |||
| |year= 2003}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Harris | |||
| |first= Sam | |||
| |authorlink = Sam Harris (author) | |||
| |title=] | |||
| |publisher=Knopf | |||
| |isbn= 978-0307265777 | |||
| |year= 2006}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Hitchens | |||
| |first= Christopher | |||
| |authorlink = Christopher Hitchens | |||
| |title=] | |||
| |publisher=Twelve | |||
| |isbn= 978-0446579803 | |||
| |year= 2007}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Jacoby | |||
| |first= Susan | |||
| |authorlink = Susan Jacoby | |||
| |title=Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism | |||
| |year= 2004 | |||
| |publisher=Metropolitan Books | |||
| |isbn= 978-0805074420}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Krueger | |||
| |first= D. E. | |||
| |title=What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction | |||
| |publisher=New York: Prometheus | |||
| |year= 1998 | |||
| |isbn= 1-57392-214-5}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Le Poidevin | |||
| |first= R. | |||
| |title=Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion | |||
| |publisher=London: Routledge | |||
| |year= 1996 | |||
| |isbn= 0-415-09338-4}} | |||
| * ] (1982). ''The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God.'' Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 019824682X | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Maritain | |||
| |first= Jacques | |||
| |title=The Range of Reason | |||
| |publisher=London: Geoffrey Bles | |||
| |year= 1953 | |||
| |id= ISBN B0007DKP00 | |||
| |url=http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range.htm | |||
| |accessdate=2006-10-27}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Martin | |||
| |first= Michael | |||
| |authorlink = Michael Martin (philosopher) | |||
| |title=Atheism: A Philosophical Justification | |||
| |publisher=Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press | |||
| |year= 1990 | |||
| |isbn= 0-87722-943-0}} | |||
| * Martin, Michael, ed. (2007). ''The Cambridge Companion to Atheism.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521603676 | |||
| * Martin, Michael & Monnier, R., eds. (2003). ''The Impossibility of God.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 1591021200 | |||
| * Martin, Michael & Monnier, R., eds. (2006). ''The Improbability of God.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 1591023815 | |||
| * McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis (1930). ''Some Dogmas of Religion.'' London: Edward Arnold & Co., new edition. ISBN 0548149550 | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Nielsen | |||
| |first= Kai | |||
| |authorlink = Kai Nielsen | |||
| |title=Philosophy and Atheism | |||
| |year= 1985 | |||
| |publisher=New York: Prometheus | |||
| |id= ISBN ISBN 0-87975-289-0}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Nielsen | |||
| |first= Kai | |||
| |authorlink = Kai Nielsen | |||
| |title=Naturalism and Religion | |||
| |year= 2001 | |||
| |isbn= 1573928534 | |||
| |publisher=New York: Prometheus}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Oppy | |||
| |first= Graham | |||
| |authorlink = Graham Oppy | |||
| |year= 2006 | |||
| |title=Arguing about Gods | |||
| |publisher=Cambridge University Press | |||
| |isbn= 0521863864}} | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Robinson | |||
| |first= Richard | |||
| |title=An Atheist's Values | |||
| |url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/athval0.htm | |||
| |isbn= 0198241917 | |||
| |publisher=Oxford: Clarendon Press | |||
| |year= 1964}} | |||
| * Russell, Paul, (2005). (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Sharpe | |||
| |first= R.A. | |||
| |title=The Moral Case Against Religious Belief | |||
| |publisher=London: SCM Press | |||
| |year= 1997 | |||
| |isbn= 0-334-02680-6}} | |||
| * ] ''Atheism: The Case Against God'', (1974). ISBN 087975124X | |||
| * Stenger, Victor J. (2007). ''God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 1591024811 | |||
| * {{cite book | |||
| |last= Thrower | |||
| |first= James | |||
| |title=A Short History of Western Atheism | |||
| |publisher=London: Pemberton | |||
| |year= 1971 | |||
| |isbn= 0-301-71101-1}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| <!--Per Misplaced Pages conventions, there should be no more than 10–15 external links in this section. External links that don't merit inclusion here should either be removed altogether, moved to daughter articles, or incorporated into the article text as references.-->{{sisterlinks}} | |||
| * {{sep entry|atheism-agnosticism|Atheism and Agnosticism|J. J. C. Smart}} | |||
| * {{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Atheism/|Atheism}} - Includes links to organizations and websites. | |||
| * Foundation dedicated to protecting the separation of church and state. | |||
| * Historical writing sorted by authors. | |||
| * at ]. | |||
| * - Library of both historical and modern writings, a comprehensive online resource for freely available material on atheism. | |||
| * - A study on the demographics of Atheism by Wolfgang Jagodzinski (University of Cologne) and Andrew Greeley (University of Chicago and University of Arizona). | |||
| * - Complete work by Dr. D.M. Brooks. | |||
| * by ]–On Faith at washingtonpost.com. | |||
| * The theoretical atheism of ] | |||
| {{Atheism}} | |||
| {{belief systems}} | |||
| {{Religion topics}} | |||
| {{Philosophy topics}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Link FA|de}} | |||
| {{Link FA|vi}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 23:50, 12 May 2009
atheist suck dildos and regularly perform frottage on there monkey partners. Also some of the weirdest people I've met are atheist and honestly how many wars have been about religion except the crusades.