| Revision as of 21:50, 2 June 2007 view sourceJoelholdsworth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users787 edits →External links← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:38, 3 June 2007 view source 24.242.79.165 (talk) ←Replaced page with '.'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| . | |||
| {{featured article}} | |||
| {{redirect|Atheist|the heavy metal band|Atheist (band)}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| 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 | |||
| --> | |||
| ] was one of the first self-described atheists. In '']'' (1770), he describes the universe in terms of philosophical materialism, strict determinism, and atheism. This and his ''Common Sense'' (1772) were condemned by the ], and copies of the books were publicly burned.]] | |||
| '''Atheism''', defined as a ] view, is the position that either affirms the ] of ]<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |first=William L. |last=Rowe |authorlink=William L. Rowe |encyclopedia=] |title=Atheism |year=1998 |editor=Edward Craig |quote=Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.}}</ref> or rejects ].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |first=Kai |last=Nielsen |authorlink=Kai Nielsen |encyclopedia=] |title=Atheism |url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109479/atheism |accessdate=2007-04-28}} "...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."</ref> In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in ], sometimes called ].<ref>]'s short article on suggests that there is no consensus on the definition 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.</ref> Although atheists are commonly assumed to be ], some religions, such as ], have been characterized as atheistic.<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><ref>{{cite book |last=Kedar |first=Nath Tiwari |year=1997 |title=Comparative Religion |publisher=] |id=ISBN 8120802934 |pages=p. 50}}</ref> | |||
| Many ] atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding ] claims, citing a lack of ] evidence for the existence of deities. Other arguments for atheism are philosophical, social or historical. Although many self-described 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> | |||
| The term ''atheism'' originated as a ] ] applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of ], ], and ], the term began to gather a more specific meaning and was sometimes used as a self-description by atheists. | |||
| ==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 |date=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|θεός}} "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the ], severing relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than ''{{transl|grc|asebēs}}'', or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate ''{{transl|grc|atheos}}'' as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ''{{transl|grc|atheotēs}}'' ({{lang|grc|ἀθεότης}}), "atheism". ] transliterated the Greek word into the ] ''{{lang|la|atheos}}''. The term found frequent use in the debate between ] and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.<ref>{{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") | id = 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|athéisme}}'' in about 1587.<ref>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|athée}}''), 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> The words ''deist'' and ''theist'' entered English after ''atheism'', being first attested 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> and 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> respectively, and followed by '']'' and '']'' in 1678<ref>{{cite book | last = Cudworth | first = Ralph | authorlink = Ralph Cudworth |title = The true intellectual system of the universe |publisher = London | year = 1678 |pages= Preface |quote= Nor indeed out of a meer Partiall Regard to that Cause of Theism neither, which we were engaged in. }}</ref> and 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> respectively. ''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 | id = ISBN 0-19-861186-2}}</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 | id = 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'' negatively, 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 | id = ISBN 0-87975-127-4}}</ref> | |||
| ==Definitions and distinctions== | |||
| ] | |||
| Writers have disagreed on how best to define and classify ''atheism'',<ref>"Atheism", Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 Edition, fetched April 2007.</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, most of which treat atheism as "absence of belief in deities" in order to explore the varieties of this nontheism. | |||
| ===Range=== | |||
| Part of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining ''atheism'' arises from the similar ambiguity and controversy in defining 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 may be classified as atheists, including ] and even ]. In the 20th century, this view has fallen into disfavor as ''theism'' has come to be understood as encompassing belief in all divinities.<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 god, 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}} | |||
| There are multiple demarcations concerning the degree to which theism is not accepted. Minimally, atheism may be seen as the absence of belief in one or more gods. It has been contended that this broad definition includes 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> ] (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 without 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. | |||
| The view that children are born atheist is relatively recent. Prior to the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted 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> It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists make ]s, or that "there are no ]." Atheistic philosophers such as ], ], ], and ] dispute this claim;<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> also, atheist organizations of military personnel have been created in response.<ref>Two such organizations are and the ].</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> and ]<ref name="martin"/> 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 ] would qualify as weak atheists. | |||
| Many atheists object to the 'weak/strong' terminology because it can convey the inference that the 'weak' position is less philosophically rigorous than the 'strong' perspective. The principle argument which distinguishes the two positions concerns whether or not it is possible to prove that something does not exist. A sizable segment of the atheistic community is critical of 'strong' atheism, seeing it as a position that is no more justified than theism, or as one that requires equal conviction.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|pp=30–34}}.</ref><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> | |||
| Theist critics assert the unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God as indication that atheism requires a ] just as much as theism.<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 it is ] to conflate ] with all unproven propositions—that ] is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of ], an ], or a ];<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> and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal ] of either possibility.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=22}}.</ref> | |||
| ==Rationale== | |||
| " (1552), ''Picta poesis'', by ]. Glasgow University Emblem Website. Retrieved on ].</ref><br/><br/>] illustrating practical atheism and its historical association with immorality, titled "Supreme Impiety: Atheist and Charlatan", from ''Picta poesis'', by ], 1552.]] | |||
| The broadest demarcation with respect to atheistic rationale is between practical and theoretical atheism. The different forms of theoretical atheism each derive from a particular rationale 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>{{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 | |||
| *Ignorance—the complete absence of the idea of gods from one's life.<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=21}}.</ref> | |||
| Historically, ] has been associated with moral failure, willful ignorance and impiety. Those considered practical atheists were said to behave as though God, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced ]. According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law."<ref>{{cite book | last = Borne | first = Étienne | |||
| | title = Atheism | year = 1961 | publisher = New York: Hawthorn Books | id = ISBN 0-415-04727-7}}</ref> | |||
| ] first explained his ] in '']'' (1669): "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."]] | |||
| ===Theoretical atheism=== | |||
| {{Further|]}} | |||
| Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common ] such as the ] or ]. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological forms. | |||
| ====Epistemological arguments==== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| Epistemological 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 agnosticism of ], the ] is considered an absolute, and all human thought is locked within the ]. 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 world-view.<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=20}}.</ref> | |||
| Other forms of atheistic argumentation that may qualify as epistemological, 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 classify 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. 115–16. In a footnote, Ayer attributes this view to "Professor H. H. Price".</ref> | |||
| ====Metaphysical arguments==== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| Metaphysical atheism is based on metaphysical ]—the "homogeneity of reality". Absolute metaphysical atheists, arguing for materialistic monism, cite the trend toward philosophical ] as rationale for explicitly denying the existence of God. Relative metaphysical atheists maintain an implicit denial 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> | |||
| ====Psychological, sociological and economical arguments==== | |||
| ] is credited with first expounding the ]. ] in his '']'' (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:<br/><br/>"Is willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"]] | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| Philosophers such as ] and ] argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs. ] 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>] (1916). ''''. New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association. Retrieved on ].</ref> | |||
| ====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> | |||
| ====Anthropocentric arguments==== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| ], or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as ]. 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>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=20}}.</ref> | |||
| One of the most common criticisms of atheism 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"/> 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 ], ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented from ] and the ]. | |||
| ===Early Indic religion=== | |||
| ] are found in ], which is otherwise a very theistic religion. The thoroughly materialistic and anti-religious philosophical ] School that originated in ] around ] 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 Carvaka 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 organised school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for reputation, 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 }}</ref> | |||
| ===Classical antiquity=== | |||
| ] '']'', ] was accused by ] of not believing in gods at all.]] | |||
| 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>Solmsen, Friedrich (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 ].</ref> ] such as ] and ] explained the world in a purely ] way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Other pre-Socratic philosophers with atheistic views included ], ], and ]. | |||
| Another atomic materialist, ], 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> | |||
| Following in the footsteps of materialists like Epicurus, the Roman poet ] 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. In '']'' ("On the nature of things"), he expounds his Epicurean views of the cosmos, atoms, the soul, mortality, and religion.<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> | |||
| One of the greatest Roman philosophers to affirm skeptical inquiry was ].{{Fact|date=June 2007}} He held that one should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs—a form of skepticism known as ]. He held the view 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 Greek philosopher ] was called an atheist for ] 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 |id=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> he was ultimately ]. | |||
| 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>"Atheism", Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, fetched April 2007.</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 Theodosius in 381, ] became a punishable offense.<ref>Maycock, A. L. and Ronald Knox (2003). ''''. ISBN 0766172902.</ref> | |||
| ===Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance=== | |||
| ]'s principle of ], ], is used in debates about God to this day.<ref>Mathew (1997). "". ], ''Secular Web Library''. Retrieved on ].</ref>]] | |||
| The espousal of atheistic views was rare in Europe during the ] and ]; 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 ] era 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 worldview. | |||
| ] became increasingly frequent in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in France and England, where there appears to have been a religious malaise, according to contemporary sources. Some Protestant thinkers, such as ], espoused a materialist philosophy and skepticism toward supernatural occurrences. In the late 17th century, ] came to be openly espoused by English intellectuals such as ], and practically all of the '']s'' of eighteenth century France or England held some form of deism. Despite their ridicule of Christianity, many deists held atheism in scorn. The first openly atheistic thinkers, such as ], appeared in the late 18th century, when expressing disbelief in God became a less dangerous position.<ref>{{cite book | last = d'Holbach | first = P. H. T. | authorlink = Baron d'Holbach | title = The system of nature | url = http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/holbach/system/0syscontents.htm | accessdate = 2006-10-27 | year = 1770}}</ref> ] was the most systematic exponent of Enlightenment thought, developing a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, undermining the metaphysical basis of natural theology. | |||
| ]'s '']'' 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 nineteenth 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 |date=]}}</ref> | |||
| <br style="clear: left" /> | |||
| ===The 20th Century=== | |||
| 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 the existence of 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 ]. Following the ], ]s in Russia made war against followers of religion.<ref>{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=17}}.</ref> 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|id=ISBN 0-06-000776-1}}</ref> | |||
| Other leaders like ], well known as ], a prominent atheist leader of India, 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 |id=ISBN 1555876978 |pages=pp. 31–33}}</ref> This was highlighted in 1956, when he made Hindu god Rama to wear a garland made of slippers and made ] statements, "He who created god was a fool, he who spreads his name is a scoundrel, and he who worships him is a barbarian."<ref>] (1996). "". ], ''International Humanist News''. Retrieved on ].</ref> Today even when ] hate him, people from the depressed classes consider him as a great leader. | |||
| In ], ] asked "Is God Dead?"<ref> online. 8 Apr 1966. Retrieved 2007-04-17.</ref> in response to the ], citing the estimation that nearly one in two people in the world lived under an antireligious 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 ] the world's first 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 ], despite the fact that many prominent atheists, such as ], 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 antireligious 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> Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman consider this a myth, and suggest that the actual situation is 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. Different people interpret "atheist" and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between ''atheism'', non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, ], and ] in certain regions. | |||
| A 2005 survey published in ] states that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists around 2.3%. This figure does not include those who follow atheistic religions such as some forms of Buddhism.<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 | |||
| |date=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> | |||
| According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the UK ''] Magazine'' in 2002, there is an inverse ] between ]. 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>Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" ''Mensa Magazine'', UK Edition, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13</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 ], only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the US general 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}} Available at , Stephen Jay Gould archive. Retrieved on ]</ref> | |||
| A November–December 2006 poll published in the '']'' gives rates for the USA and five European countries; this poll shows that Americans are more likely than Europeans to believe 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, in contrast, the French are the least likely (27%). In France, 32% declared themselves to be atheists, with an additional 32% declaring 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> | |||
| ==Atheism, religion and morality== | |||
| {{main|Atheism and religion|Secular ethics}} | |||
| ] of a ], ] is commonly described as atheistic.]] | |||
| Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be ], some sects within major religions have atheistic beliefs, and even reject the existence of a personal, creator God.<ref name="winston2">{{cite book | last = Winston | first = Robert (Ed.) | title = Human | publisher = New York: DK Publishing, Inc | year = 2004 | id = 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 Christian atheists.<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 God, 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> | |||
| However, throughout its history, atheism has commonly been equated with immorality, based on the belief that morality is directly derived from God, and thus cannot be attained without appealing to God.<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 upon a lawmaker in the same way that laws do,<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=38}}.</ref> based on the ], which either renders God unnecessary or morality arbitrary.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=39}}.</ref> | |||
| Philosopher ] asserts that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior, merely blind obedience.<ref> {{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=40}}.</ref> He argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics than theism, claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary in order 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 therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=43}}.</ref> | |||
| 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 ] 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 ]s, 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/item/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> however, theists have made very similar arguments against atheists based on the ] of ]s.<ref>{{cite book | last = McGrath | first = Alister | authorlink = Alister McGrath | title = The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World | year = 2005 | url = http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/march/21.36.html | accessdate = 2006-10-27 | id = ISBN 0-385-50062-9}}</ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| *{{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.kul.lublin.pl/efk/angielski/hasla/a/atheism.pdf | |||
| | editor-first = Andrzej | |||
| | editor-last = Maryniarczyk | |||
| | title = Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy | |||
| | volume = 1 | |||
| | publisher = Polish Thomas Aquinas Association | |||
| | accessdate = 2007-04-07}} | |||
| == Further reading == | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Berman | |||
| | first = David | |||
| | title = A History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell | |||
| | year = 1990 | |||
| | publisher = London: Routledge | |||
| | id = ISBN 0-415-04727-7}} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Buckley | |||
| | first = M. J. | |||
| | title = At the Origins of Modern Atheism | |||
| | year = 1990 | |||
| | id = ISBN 0300048971 | |||
| | publisher = New Haven, CT: Yale University Press}} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Dawkins | |||
| | first = Richard | |||
| | authorlink = Richard Dawkins | |||
| | title = The God Delusion | |||
| | year = 2006 | |||
| | publisher = Bantam Press | |||
| | id = ISBN 0593055489 }} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Flew | |||
| | first = Antony | |||
| | authorlink = Antony Flew | |||
| | title = God and Philosophy | |||
| | publisher = Prometheus Books | |||
| | id = 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 book | |||
| | last = Harbour | |||
| | first = Daniel | |||
| | title = ] | |||
| | publisher = London: Duckworth | |||
| | id = ISBN 0-7156-3229-9}} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Harris | |||
| | first = Sam | |||
| | authorlink = Sam Harris (author) | |||
| | title = ] | |||
| | publisher = Knopf (September 19, 2006) | |||
| | id = ISBN 978-0307265777}} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Hitchens | |||
| | first = Christopher | |||
| | authorlink = Christopher Hitchens | |||
| | title = ] | |||
| | publisher = Twelve (May 1, 2007) | |||
| | id = ISBN 978-0446579803}} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Krueger | |||
| | first = D. E. | |||
| | title = What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction | |||
| | publisher = New York: Prometheus | |||
| | year = 1998 | |||
| | id = 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 | |||
| | id = 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 | |||
| | id = ISBN 0-87722-943-0}} | |||
| *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. | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Mills | |||
| | first = David | |||
| | title = ] | |||
| | year = 2004 | |||
| | publisher = ] | |||
| | id = ISBN 1-4134-3481-9}} | |||
| *{{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 | |||
| | id = 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 | |||
| | id = ISBN 0521863864}} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Robinson | |||
| | first = Richard | |||
| | title = An Atheist's Values | |||
| | url = http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/athval0.htm | |||
| | id = ISBN 0198241917 | |||
| | publisher = Oxford: Clarendon Press | |||
| | year = 1964}} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Sharpe | |||
| | first = R.A. | |||
| | title = The Moral Case Against Religious Belief | |||
| | publisher = London: SCM Press | |||
| | year = 1997 | |||
| | id = ISBN 0-334-02680-6}} | |||
| *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 | |||
| | id = 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.--> | |||
| {{wiktionary}} | |||
| {{wikiquote}} | |||
| {{wikibooks}} | |||
| * —includes links to organizations and websites. | |||
| * at ]. | |||
| * —library of both historical and modern writings, probably the most comprehensive online resource for freely available material on atheism. | |||
| * —historical writing sorted by authors, contains a few items not in the Secular web library. | |||
| * | |||
| * —large directory of apologetic websites. | |||
| * —part of the About.com family of websites | |||
| {{Atheism}} | |||
| {{belief systems}} | |||
| {{Philosophy navigation}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Link FA|de}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 00:38, 3 June 2007
.