Atheism

"Atheist" redirects here. For the band, see Atheist (band).

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is commonly defined as the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).

Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Additionally, although atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism, rationalism and materialism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

Atheists are often considered to be irreligious or non-spiritual;. however, some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities. Atheism is also sometimes equated with antitheism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion), although many atheists do not hold such views.

The 18th-century French author Baron d'Holbach was one of the first self-described atheists.

Etymology

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative α- + θεος "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th Century BCE, severing relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs ("atheism"). Cicero transliterated atheos into Latin. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

In English, the term atheism was adopted from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist, in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571; the Italian atheoi is recorded as early as 1568. Atheist in the sense of practical godlessness was first attested in 1577. The French word is derived from athée ("godless, atheist"), which in turn comes from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, and followed by theism and deism in 1678 and 1682, 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.

Originally simply used as a slur for "godlessness", atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God. In the 20th century, globalization 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". Additionally, in recent decades there has increasingly been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as "absence of belief in deities" rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though it has not attained mainstream usage.

Types and typologies of atheism

Many writers have disagreed on how best to define atheism, and much of the literature on the subject is erroneous or confusing. There are many discrepancies in the use of terminology between proponents and opponents of atheism, and even divergent definitions among those who share near-identical beliefs. Disagreement continues to arise over whether atheism can be fairly applied to those who do not make the positive assertion that no gods exist; over whether it can be applied to those who have not consciously rejected belief in gods; over whether it denotes a belief, or merely the absence of a belief; and over what supernatural entities atheism specifically denotes disbelief in.

Scope of atheism

The variety of different conceptions of God and gods has led to differing understandings of both theism and atheism.

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 conceptions of God and deities leads to differing ideas regarding what is entailed in atheism.

In contexts where theism is defined as the belief in a singular personal God, for example, people who believe in a variety of other deities may be classified as atheists, including deists and even polytheists. In the 20th century, this view has fallen into disfavor as theism has come to be understood as encompassing belief in all divinities, not just the Abrahamic one. However, in the Western world arguments against the Christian God often continue to be seen as arguments for atheism, because of the strong influence of traditional theological thought.

A problematic consequence of the broader redefinition of theism is that atheism can be seen as disbelief in almost anything; many pantheists, in particular, believe in a "God" that is synonymous with the natural world, which would make disbelieving in such a God result in disbelief in nature. Increasingly vague, abstract, or figurative conceptions of divinity have led some sources to circumvent the problem by defining atheism as disbelief in all "immaterial beings", rejection of the supernatural world altogether, or simply as irreligion. However, god-centered definitions of atheism remain more common.

Positive definition: atheism as the belief that no deities exist

There are three major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions. The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe that no god or gods exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists (weak atheism). George H. Smith, Michael Martin, and Antony Flew fall into this tradition, though they do not use the same terminology. The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism. Ernest Nagel, Paul Edwards and Kai Nielsen are prominent members of this camp.

A third tradition, seldom used by atheists, understands atheism even more narrowly than that. Here, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the positive belief that there are no deities. Under this definition, all weak atheism, whether implicit or explicit, may be considered non-atheistic. However, this usage is not exclusive to theists; atheistic philosopher Theodore Drange uses this definition.

The definition of atheism as a "belief" or "doctrine" reflects a view of atheism as a specific ideological stance, as opposed to the rejection or simple absence of a belief.

In philosophical and atheist circles, however, this definition is often disputed and even rejected. The broader, negative has become increasingly popular in recent decades, with many specialized textbooks dealing with atheism favoring it. One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labeled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist—for he is not denying any theistic claims."

Some atheists argue for a positive definition of atheism on the grounds that defining atheism negatively, as "the negation of theistic belief", makes it "parasitic on religion" and not an ideology in its own right. While most atheists welcome having atheism cast as non-ideological, in order to avoid potentially framing their view as one requiring "faith", writers such as Julian Baggini prefers to analyze atheism as part of a general philosophical movement towards naturalism in order to emphasize the explanatory power of a non-supernatural worldview. Baggini rejects the negative definition based on his view that it implies that atheism is dependent on theism for its existence: "atheism no more needs religion than atheists do". Harbour, Thrower, and Nielsen, similarly, have used philosophical naturalism to make a positive argument for atheism. Michael Martin notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism".

Negative definition: atheism as the absence of belief in deities

Further information: [[:Nontheism, Implicit and explicit atheism, Weak and strong atheism]]

File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.png

A chart showing the relationship between weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak.

Among modern atheists, the view that atheism simply means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency. This very broad definition is often justified by reference to the etymology (cf. privative a), as well as to the consistent usage of the word by atheists. However, others have dismissed the former justification as an etymological fallacy and the latter on the grounds that majority usage outweighs minority usage.

Although this definition of atheism is frequently disputed, it is not a recent invention; as far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God". More recently, George H. Smith (1979) put forth a similar view:

"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."

Smith coined the terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism to avoid confusing these two varieties of atheism. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while explicit atheism—the form commonly held to be the only true form of atheism—is an absence of theistic belief due to conscious rejection.

Many similar dichotomies have since sprung up to subcategorize the broader definition of atheism. Strong, or positive, atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. It is a form of explicit atheism. A strong atheist consciously rejects theism, and may even argue that certain deities logically cannot exist; strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge of the nonexistence of deities or the supernatural, although gnostic atheists such as Paul Keller do exist. Gnostic atheism is the position that it is known by facts and reason alone that there is no god and no supernatural. Weak, or negative, atheism is either the absence of the belief that gods exist (in which case anyone who is not a theist is a weak atheist), or of both the belief that gods exist and the belief that they do not exist (in which case anyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist is a weak atheist). While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have existed for some time. The terms negative atheism and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.

Contrary to the common view of theological agnosticism—the denial of knowledge or certainty of the existence of deities—as a "midway point" between theism and atheism, under this understanding of atheism, many agnostics may qualify as weak atheists (cf. agnostic atheism). However, others may be agnostic theists. Many agnostics and/or weak atheists are critical of strong atheism, seeing it as a position that is no more justified than theism, or as one that requires equal "faith".

Pejorative definition: atheism as immorality

Further information: [[:Discrimination against atheists]]

Opponents of atheism have frequently associated atheism with immorality and evil, often characterizing it as a willful and malicious repudiation of God or gods. This, in fact, is the original definition and sense of the word, but changing sensibilities and the normalization of non-religious viewpoints have caused the term to lose most of its pejorative connotations in general parlance.

The first attempts to define a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism. Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Practical atheists were said to behave as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism. Jacques Maritain's typology of atheism (1953, Chapter 8) proved influential in Catholic circles; it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism, and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew.

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." Karen Armstrong notes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic.... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."

On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. The existence of God was considered self-evident; this is why Borne finds it necessary to respond that "to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only practical atheists who through pride or idleness disregard the Divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question".

When denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like secularist, empiricist, agnostic, or Bright is that atheism still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism; like the word godless, it is sometimes still used as an abusive epithet today. J.C.A. Gaskin abandoned the term atheism in favor of unbelief, citing "the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist". However, many atheists persist in using the term and seek to change its connotations.

In modern times, atheism continues to be conflated with such beliefs as nihilism, irreligion, and antitheism. Antitheism typically refers to a direct opposition to theism; however, antitheism is also sometimes used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to God or divinity, rather than to the belief in God. Under the latter definition, it may actually be necessary to be a theist in order to be an antitheist, to oppose God itself and not the idea of God. This position is seldom expressed, though opponents of atheism often claim that atheists hate God. Under the former definition, antitheists may be atheists who believe that theism is harmful to human progression, or simply ones who have little tolerance for views they perceive as irrational (cf. faith and rationality). A related stance is militant atheism, which is generally characterized by antireligious views.

History

Main article: History of atheism

Karl Marx's atheistic and antireligious views had a strong influence on 20th-century politics.

The word atheist is an ancient greek term first used by ancient pagan philosophers to refer to early Christians and Jews, because they denied the many gods of the Greek and Roman Pantheons as was not common practice. Although the term atheism came into popular use in 16th-century France, the ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic certainly existed before the advent of Classical antiquity, as the word atheist is actually applied to Socrates in Platos's Dialogue The Apology. Eastern philosophy has a long history of nontheistic belief, beginning in the 6th century BC with the rise of Jainism, Buddhism, and certain sects of Hinduism in India, and of Taoism in China.

Western atheism has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment. The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist", and strongly criticized religion and mysticism. Epicurus was an early philosopher to dispute many religious beliefs, including the existence of an afterlife or a personal deity.

Atheists have been subject to significant persecution and discrimination throughout history. Atheism has been a criminal offense in many parts of the world, and in some cases a "wrong belief" was equated with "unbelief" in order to condemn someone with differing beliefs as an "atheist". For example, despite having expressed belief in various divinities, Socrates was called an atheos and ultimately sentenced to death for impiety on the grounds that he inspired questioning of the state gods. During the late Roman Empire, many Christians were executed for "atheism" because of their rejection of the Roman gods, and "heresy" and "godlessness" were serious capital offenses following the rise of Christianity.

Atheistic sentiment was virtually unknown in medieval Europe, but flourished in the empirical Carvaka school of India. Criticism of religion became increasingly frequent in the 16th century, and the word athéisme originated as a slur—invariably denied by the accused—used against such critics, as well as against deists, scientists, and materialists. The first openly atheistic thinkers, such as Baron d'Holbach, appeared in the late 18th century, when expressing disbelief in God became a less dangerous position. Following the French Revolution, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophies, and many prominent 19th-century German philosophers denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche (see "God is dead").

In the 20th century, atheism, though still a minority view, became increasingly common in many parts of the world, often being spread as aspects of a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, relativism, logical positivism, Marxism, and the general scientific and rationalist movement. In some cases, these philosophies became associated with atheism to the extent that atheists were vilified for the broader view, such as when the word atheist entered popular parlance in the United States as synonymous with being unpatriotic (cf. "godless commie") during the Cold War. Some "Communist states", such as the Soviet Union, promoted state atheism and opposed religion, often by violent means; Enver Hoxha went further than most and officially banned religion in Albania. These policies helped reinforce the negative associations of atheism, especially where anti-communist sentiment was strong, despite the fact that many prominent atheists, such as Ayn Rand, were anti-communist.

Other prominent atheists in recent times have included comedian Woody Allen, biologist Richard Dawkins, actress Katharine Hepburn, author Douglas Adams, philosopher Bertrand Russell, dictator Joseph Stalin, and activist Margaret Sanger.

Demographics

Main article: Demographics of atheism

The percentage of people in European countries who said in 2005 that they "believe there is a God".

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, discrimination, and persecution in certain regions.

Despite these problems, atheism is known to be relatively common in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, former and present Communist states, and to a lesser extent, the United States. A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious make up about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell finds that all but four reported such a connection, and concludes that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind." A survey published in Nature confirms that belief in a personal god or afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.

A recent poll (November-December 2006) published in the Financial Times gives more recent 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%). Indeed, in France, the rate of people who declares to be atheist rises to 32% (and 32 % of agnostics).

Atheist organizations and gatherings

Noteworthy organizations that are atheistic or have atheistic sympathies include:

American Atheists Brights movement Atheist Foundation of Australia Ayn Rand Institute Camp Quest Center for Inquiry Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion Council for Secular Humanism Danish Atheist Society Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations Freedom From Religion Foundation

Internet Infidels Italian Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers National Secular Society Rationalist International Rational Response Squad Secular Coalition for America Secular Student Alliance Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Society of the Godless

Many organizations that promote skepticism of paranormal claims have strong atheistic leanings but remain officially neutral on the existence of God. Examples include Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), The Skeptics Society, and the James Randi Educational Foundation. Martin Gardner, a noted member of the first two of these organizations, is a deist.

In 2002, a group of people organized the "Godless Americans March on Washington". Though it was broadcast on C-SPAN, the march was not well attended and received little or no press coverage.

The James Randi Educational Foundation holds an annual conference, The Amaz!ng Meeting, typically in Las Vegas, casting a critical eye on various forms of supernatural phenomena, including religious ones.

The Skeptics Society holds an annual conference at Caltech (California Institute of Technology) in Pasadena, California. Subjects of skepticism, including religion, are often discussed.

The CSER (Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion) questions the validity of religion at its annual conference.

Atheism, religion and morality

Main articles: Atheism and religion and Secular ethics

Because of its lack of a personal God, Buddhism is commonly described as atheistic.

Although people who self-identify as being atheists are almost invariably assumed to be irreligious, there are many atheists who describe themselves as adhering to a certain religion, and even major religions that have been described as having atheistic leanings, particularly under the negative definition. Atheism in Hinduism, in Buddhism, and in other Eastern religions has an especially long history, but in recent years certain liberal religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as Jewish atheists (cf. humanistic Judaism) and Christian atheists (cf. Unitarian Universalism).

As 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 moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code (such as utilitarianism) should be applied consistently to all humans (cf. human rights), to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless.

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 intelligibly attained without appealing to God. Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend upon a lawmaker in the same way that laws do, based on the Euthyphro dilemma, which either renders God unnecessary or morality arbitrary. Some atheists also assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior, merely blind obedience.

Many atheists, in fact, have argued that atheism is a superior basis for ethics than theism. It is argued 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 that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism. This argument, combined with historical events which are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the inquisitions and witch trials, is often used by some atheists to justify their antireligious views; however, theists have made very similar arguments against atheists based on the state atheism of communist states. In both cases, critics argue that the connection is a weak one based on the correlation implies causation and guilt by association fallacies.

Reasons for atheism

Atheists assert various reasons for their position, including a lack of empirical evidence for deities, or the conviction that the non-existence of deities (in general or particular) is better supported rationally.

Scientific and historical reasons

American Atheists represent atheism with an atom, symbolizing the importance of science to many atheists.

Science is on the observation that certain aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws that can be discerned through repeatable experiments, together with a belief that those aspects of human experience which are perceived to be susceptible to repetition are more worthy of focus than those aspects of human experience which are perceived not to be. There is evidence to suggest that the scientific method serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions of certain types of repeatably emperically observable phenomena, including those involved in engineering (cf. faith and rationality, science and religion). Like scientists, scientific skeptics use critical thinking (cf. the true-believer syndrome) to decide claims, and claim not to base claims on faith or other unfalsifiable categories, (Other philosphers have suggested that certain elements of the scientific method, such as inferential logic, are not themselves falsifiable). Some philosophers and academics, such as philosopher Jurgen Habermas, adhere to "methodological atheism", a more specific form of science's methodological naturalism, to indicate that whatever their personal beliefs, they do not include theistic presuppositions in their methods for learning about or explaining the world.

Most theistic religions teach that mankind and the universe were created by one or more deities and that this deity continues to act in the universe. Many people—theists and atheists alike—feel that this view conflicts with the discoveries of modern science (especially in cosmology, astronomy, biology and quantum physics). Many believers of the validity of science, seeing such a contradiction, do not believe in the existence of a deity or deities actively involved in the universe.

Science presents a vastly different view of humankind's place in the universe from theistic religions. Scientific progress has continually eroded the basis for religion. Historically, religions have involved supernatural entities and forces linked to unexplained physical phenomena. In ancient Greece, for instance, Helios was the god of the sun, Zeus the god of thunder, and Poseidon the god of earthquakes and the sea. In the absence of a credible scientific theory explaining phenomena, people attributed them to supernatural forces. Science has since eliminated the need for appealing to supernatural explanations. The idea that the role of deities is to fill in the remaining "gaps" in scientific understanding has come to be known as the God of the gaps.

Anthropologists consider religions to be social constructs (see development of religion) that should be analyzed with an unbiased, historical viewpoint. Atheists often argue that nearly all cultures have their own creation myths and gods, and there is no apparent reason to believe that a certain god (e.g., Yahweh) has a special status above gods otherwise not believed to be real (e.g., Zeus), or that one culture's god is more correct than another's. In the same way, all cultures have different, and often incompatible, religious beliefs, none any more likely to be true than another, making the selection of a single specific religion seemingly arbitrary.

However, when theological claims move from the specific and observable to the general and metaphysical, atheistic objections tend to shift from the scientific to the philosophical:

"Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries."

Philosophical and logical reasons

Many atheists will point out that in philosophy and science, the default position on any matter is a lack of belief. If reliable evidence or sound arguments are not presented in support of a belief, then the "burden of proof" remains upon believers, not nonbelievers, to justify their view. Consequently, many atheists assert that they are not theists simply because they remain unconvinced by theistic arguments and evidence. As such, many atheists have argued against the most famous proposed proofs of God's existence, including the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments.

Other atheists base their position on a more active logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. The arguments against the existence of God aim at showing that the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of God either is inherently meaningless, is internally inconsistent, or contradicts known scientific or historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described does not exist.

The most common of these arguments is the problem of evil, which Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called "atheism's killer argument." The argument is that the presence of evil in the world disproves the existence of any god that is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, because any benevolent god would want to eliminate evil, and any omnipotent god would be able to do so. Theists commonly respond by invoking free will to justify evil (cf. argument from free will), but this leaves unresolved the related argument from nonbelief, also known as the argument from divine hiddenness, which states that if an omnipotent God existed and wanted to be believed in by all, it would prove its existence to all because it would invariably be able to do so. Since there are unbelievers, either there is no omnipotent God or God does not want to be believed in.

Another such argument is theological noncognitivism, which holds that religious language, and specifically words like God, is not cognitively meaningful. This argument was popular in the early 20th century among logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A.J. Ayer, who held that talk of deities is literally nonsense. Such arguments have since fallen into disfavor among philosophers, but continue to see use among ignostics, who view the question of whether deities exist as meaningless or unanswerable, and apatheists, who view it as entirely irrelevant. Similarly, the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG), a reversal of the more well-known theistic argument, argues that logic, science, and morality can only be justified by appealing to a non-theistic worldview.

Personal, social, and ethical reasons

Some atheists have found social, psychological, practical, and other personal reasons for their disbelief. Some believe that it is more conducive to living well, or that it is more ethical and has more utility than theism. Such atheists may hold that searching for explanations in natural science is more beneficial than seeking to explain phenomena supernaturally. Some atheists also assert that atheism allows—or perhaps even requires—people to take personal responsibility for their actions. In contrast, they feel that many religions blame bad deeds on extrinsic factors and require threats of punishment and promises of reward to keep a person moral and socially acceptable.

Some atheists dislike the restrictions religious codes of conduct place on their personal freedoms. From their point of view, such morality is subjective and arbitrary. Some atheists even argue that theism can promote immorality. Much violence—e.g., warfare, executions, murders, and terrorism—has been brought about, condoned, or justified by religious beliefs and practices.

In areas dominated by certain Christian denominations, many atheists find it difficult to accept that faith could be more important than good works: While a murderer can go to heaven simply by accepting Jesus in some Christian sects, a farmer in a remote Asian countryside will go to hell for not hearing the "good news". Furthermore, some find Hell to be the epitome of cruel and unusual punishment, making it impossible that a good God would permit such a place's existence.

Just as some people of faith come to their faith based upon perceived spiritual or religious experiences, some atheists base their view on an absence of such an experience (or on explaining such experiences through natural causes). Although they may not foreclose the possibility of a supernatural world, unless they believe through experience that such a world exists, they generally refuse to accept a metaphysical belief system based upon faith. Atheists argue that religion's emphasis on "faith" can undermine the desire to continually seek new knowledge and explanations.

Additionally, some atheists grow up in environments where atheism is relatively common, just as people who grow up in a predominantly Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian cultures tend to adopt the prevalent religion there. However, because of the relative uncommonness of atheism, a majority of atheists were not brought up in atheist households or communities.

Criticism of atheism

Main article: Criticism of atheism

The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that it is simply untrue: arguments for the existence of God are thus considered arguments against atheism. However, many theists dismiss or object to atheism on other grounds.

Until recently, most theologians considered the existence of God so self-evident and universally-accepted that whether or not true atheism even existed was frequently questioned. This view is based on theistic innatism, the belief that all people believe in God from birth and that atheists are simply in denial. It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists will readily make deathbed conversions or that "there are no atheists in foxholes". This view has fallen into disfavor among most philosophers of religion.

When the existence of atheism is accepted, it is often criticized by agnostics, and some theists, on the grounds that atheism requires just as much faith as religious positions, making it no more likely to be true than theism. This is based on the view that because the existence of deities cannot be proven or disproven with certainty, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that deities do or do not exist. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions; that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus or an Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster; and that the fact that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven with complete certainty does not make it equally likely that God does or doesn't exist.

It is commonly argued that the lack of belief in a deity who administers justice may lead to poor morals or ethics (cf. secular ethics). It is also argued that atheism makes life meaningless and miserable; Blaise Pascal made this argument in 1670. Atheists generally dismiss these arguments as appeals to consequences with no bearing on whether God actually exists, and many disagree that atheism leads to amorality or misery. In fact, many atheists argue that atheistic morality is more valid than theistic morality because while religious ethics rely on an arbitrary authority figure, atheistic morality is derived from logic and reason.

Quotes

• "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Isaac Asimov
• "I have never seen the slightest proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal god." Thomas Edison
• "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." Albert Einstein
• "All thinking men are athiests." - A Farewell to Arms - Ernest Hemingway
• "I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in." Bill Gates
• "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." Clarence Darrow

External links

Articles and essays

• Atheism at Religious Tolerance.org
• Atheism and Secularism at Bane of Monotheism
• Atheism: The Capital Man
• Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns by Phil Zuckerman
• Religion & Ethics - Atheism at bbc.co.uk
• God is imaginary
• Lecture on Atheism by Erkki Hartikainen
• Libertan Project Atheist news and essays
• The Philosophy of Atheism by Emma Goldman
• God and Hitler
• Population Statistics of Religions, Atheists and Non-Believers at Atheist Empire
• Theism, Atheism, and Rationality by Alvin Plantinga
• Types of Atheistic Belief at UberKuh
• Why won't God heal amputees?: Understanding delusion
• A Guide for the Godless: The Secular Path to Meaning
• 10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism
• The Militant Atheist at Freethought Today
• New Atheism & Militant Atheism: Should Atheists Respect Religion and Theism? by Austin Cline
• Militant Atheists at Atheist Ethicist
• The Backlash is Winding Up at Pharyngula

Atheist associations and communities

• Atheist Nation
• American Atheists
• Atheist Foundation of Australia
• Atheists of Silicon Valley
• The Brights
• Church of Reality
• Daylight Atheism
• The Ethical Atheist
• Freedom From Religion Foundation
• Freethinkers
• National Secular Society (UK)
• New York City Atheists
• Positive Atheism
• Rational Response Squad
• Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
• Secular Coalition for America
• The Secular Web
• nontheism.org

Internet radio

• Atheist Network
• The Infidel Guy Radio Show
• Dogma Free America Podcast

References

• ^{^} Altizer, Thomas J. J. (1967). The Gospel of Christian Atheism. London: Collins. pp. 102–103. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• ^{^} Ayer, Alfred Jules (1967). "What I Believe". Humanist. 81 (8): 226–228. Retrieved 2006-10-27. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• ^{^} The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition ed.). Houghton Mifflin. 2000. 0395825172. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• ^{a b c} Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage. ISBN 0-09-927367-5.
• ^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m} Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280424-3.
• ^a BBC. "Ethics and Religion - Atheism". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2006-10-22.
• ^{^} Berman, David (1982). "The Repressive Denials of Atheism in Britain in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries". Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 82c (9): 211–246.
• ^{^} Berman, David (1983). "David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism". Journal of the History of Philosophy. 21 (3): 375–387. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• ^{^} Berman, David (1990). A History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-04727-7.
• ^{a b} Borne, Étienne (1961). Atheism. New York: Hawthorn Books. ISBN 0-415-04727-7.
• ^{^} Bradlaugh Bonner, Hypatia (1908). Charles Bradlaugh: A record of his life and work. London: T. Fisher Unwin. p. 334.
• ^{^} Britannica (2002). Britannica Concise Encyclopædia. Encyclopedia Britannica Corp. ISBN 0-85229-832-3. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• ^{^} Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th Edition ed.). {{cite journal}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• ^{^} Britannica (1992). "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1 (15th Edition ed.): 666. 0852294735. Retrieved 2006-10-27. {{cite journal}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Buckley, M. J. (1987). At the origins of modern atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• ^{^} Chambers Dictionary (Ninth Edition ed.). 2003. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• ^{a b} Cline, Austin (2005). Buddhism and Atheism "Buddhism and Atheism". about.com. Retrieved 2006-10-21. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
• ^{a b c d} Cline, Austin (2006). "What Is the Definition of Atheism?". about.com. Retrieved 2006-10-21.
• ^{a b} Cline, Austin (2006). "Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference?". about.com. Retrieved 2006-10-21.
• ^{^} Cudworth, Ralph (1678). The True Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated.
• ^{a b} d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). Good Sense. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• ^{^} d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). The system of nature. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• de Mornay, Philippe (1587). A woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists. London.
• ^{^} Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-201-8. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• ^{^} Drange, Theodore M. (2005). "On Defending Atheism". Retrieved 2006-03-05.
• Everitt, Nicholas (2004). The Non-Existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-30107-6.
• Lovgren, Stefan (2004). "Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say". National Geographic. Retrieved 2006-10-27. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Flew, Antony (1966). God and Philosophy. London: Hutchinson & Co.
• ^{^} Flew, Antony (1972). "The Presumption of Atheism". Canadian Journal of Philosophy (2): 29–46.
• Flew, Antony (1984a). God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 0-87975-127-4.
• ^{^} Flew, Antony (1984b). The Presumption of Atheism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• ^{^} Gaskin, J.C.A., ed. (1989). Varieties of Unbelief: From Epicurus to Sartre. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-340681-X.
• ^{^} Harbour, Daniel. An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3229-9.
• ^{^} Harris, Sam. "An Atheist Manifesto". Truthdig. Retrieved 2006-10-29.
• ^{a b} Harris, Sam. "The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos". Free Inquiry. Retrieved 2006-10-29.
• ^{^} Hitchens, Christopher (2001). Letters to a Young Contrarian. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03032-7. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• ^{^} Krueger, D. E. (1998). What is atheism?: A short introduction. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1-57392-214-5.
• Le Poidevin, R. (1996). Arguing for atheism: An introduction to the philosophy of religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09338-4.
• ^{^} Levin, S. (1995). "Jewish Atheism". New Humanist. 110 (2): 13–15. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• ^{^} Lowder, Jeffery Jay (1997). "Atheism and Society". Retrieved 2007-01-10.
• ^{^} Lowder, Jeffery Jay (2000). "An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism". Retrieved 2007-01-09.
• ^{^} Lyas, Colin (1970). "On the Coherence of Christian Atheism". Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. 45 (171): 1–19. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• ^{^} Lyngzeidetson, Albert (2003). Comparative Religions: A Guide to World Religions. QuickStudy: BarCharts, Inc. ISBN 1-57222-744-3.
• Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-824682-X. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• ^a Maritain, Jacques (1953). The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• ^{a b} Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-943-0.
• ^{a b} Martin, Michael (Ed.) (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60367-6.
• Martin, Michael & Monnier, R. (Eds.) (2003). The impossibility of God. New York: Prometheus.
• ^{^} McGrath, Alister (2005). The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. ISBN 0-385-50062-9. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis (1927). The Nature of Existence. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis (1930). Some Dogmas of Religion. London: Edward Arnold & Co., new edition. [First published 1906]
• ^{^} Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition ed.). Merriam-Webster. 2003. ISBN 0-87779-808-7. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Mills, David (2004). Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It. Xlibris. ISBN 1-4134-3481-9.
• ^{^} Moyle, Kenneth (1996). "Atheism Defended". Atheists Anonymous. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• Müller, Friedrich Max (1889). Natural Religion: The Gifford Lectures, 1888. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
• ^{^} Nagel, Ernest (1965). "A Defence of Atheism". A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and contemporary sources. New York: Free Press: 460–472.
• Nielsen, Kai (1985). Philosophy and Atheism. New York: Prometheus. ISBN ISBN 0-87975-289-0.
• Nielsen, Kai (2001). Naturalism and religion. New York: Prometheus.
• ^{a b} The Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition ed.). Oxford University Press, USA. 1989. ISBN 0-19-861186-2. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• ^{^} Random House (2006). Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (Second Edition ed.). Random House Reference. ISBN 0-375-42599-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• ^{^} Reid, J.P. (1967). "Atheism". New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: McGraw-Hill: 1000–1003.
• Rizzuto, Ana-Maria (1998). Why did Freud reject God?: A psychoanalytic interpretation. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07525-1.
• Robinson, Richard (1964). An Atheist's Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• ^{^} Routledge (1998). "Atheism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 0415073103.
• Sharpe, R.A. (1997). The Moral Case Against Religious Belief. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0-334-02680-6.
• ^{a b c d e f} Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0-87975-124-X. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
• Smith, George H. (1990). Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0-87975-124-X. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
• Sobel, Jordan H. (2004). Logic and theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-87975-307-2.
• Soltis, P.S.; et al. (1995). "Genetic variation in Tragopogan Species: Additional Origins of Allotetraploids T. mirius and T. miscellus (Compositae)". American Journal of Botany. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Strenger, Victor J. (2003). "Has science found God?". New York: Prometheus.
• Stein, Gordon (Ed.) (1984). The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0-87975-307-2.
• ^{^} Stein, Gordon (Ed.) (1980). An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. New York: Prometheus.
• ^{^} Thrower, James (1971). A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton. ISBN 0-301-71101-1.
• Timmons, Milton (1977). Lucifer's Handbook. Los Angeles: Academic Associates. ISBN 0-918260-01-9.
• Vitz, Paul C. (1999). Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. Dallas, Texas: Spence. ISBN 1-890626-12-0. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
• ^{a b c d} Winston, Robert (Ed.) (2004). Human. New York: DK Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-7566-1901-7.