   #copyright

Atheism

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Philosophy

   The 18th-century French author Baron d'Holbach was one of the first
   self-described "atheists"; he did not believe in the existence of any
   deities.
   Enlarge
   The 18th-century French author Baron d'Holbach was one of the first
   self-described "atheists"; he did not believe in the existence of any
   deities.

   Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God and other deities. It
   is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (ie. the assertion
   that deities do not exist), or the deliberate rejection of theism
   (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities). 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 the unchurched or 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 no gods exist, or of negative unbelief.

   Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding
   empirical evidence for spiritual or supernatural claims. They cite a
   lack of evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for
   atheism range from the personal to the philosophical to the social to
   the historical. Additionally, while atheists tend to accept secular
   philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, they do not
   necessarily adhere to any one particular ideology, nor does atheism
   have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors.

   Atheism is very often equated with irreligion or nonspirituality in
   Western culture, but they are not the same. 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 erroneously equated with antitheism
   (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion). Some
   philosophers and academics, such as philosopher Jurgen Habermas call
   themselves " methodological atheists" (also known as or methodological
   naturalism) to denote that whatever their personal beliefs, they do not
   include theistic presuppositions in their method.

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.

   Throughout its history, 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.

   Among proponents of atheism and neutral parties, 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 gods don't 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. Using this definition of atheism,
   "implicit atheism", an absence of theism without the conscious
   rejection of it, may not be regarded as atheistic at all, and the
   umbrella term non-theism may be used in its place.

   A third tradition, more common among people who are not atheists
   themselves, 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.
   This definition is used by some atheists, however; philosopher and
   atheist Theodore Drange uses the narrow definition.

Pejorative definition: immorality

   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 favour 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.

Positive definition: the belief that no deities exist

   While it is rare to find a general-use dictionary that explicitly
   acknowledges "absence of theism" as a true form of atheism, numerous
   ones recognize the positive definition of atheism, as a "belief" or
   "doctrine". This reflects the general public's view of atheism as a
   specific ideological stance, as opposed to the simple absence of a
   belief.

   In philosophical and atheist circles, however, this common 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 labelled 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 dependant 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: the absence of belief in deities

   A chart showing the relationship between weak/strong and
   implicit/explicit atheism. Strong atheism is always explicit, and
   implicit atheism is always weak.
   Enlarge
   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; two atheist writers who are clear in defining atheism
   so broadly that uninformed children are counted as atheists are
   d'Holbach (1772), who said that "All children are born Atheists; they
   have no idea of God", and George H. Smith (1979), who similarly argued:

     "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. 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".

History

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

   Although the term atheism originated in 16th-century France, ideas that
   would be recognized today as atheistic existed before the advent of
   Classical antiquity. Eastern philosophy has a long history of
   nontheistic belief, starting with Laozi and Siddhartha Gautama in the
   6th Century BCE. 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 parliance 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

   The percentage of people in European countries who said in 2005 that
   they believe in a god.
   Enlarge
   The percentage of people in European countries who said in 2005 that
   they believe in 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 more 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%.

Atheist organizations and gatherings

Organizations

   Noteworthy organizations that are atheistic or have atheistic
   sympathies include:
     * American Atheists
     * Brights movement
     * Atheist Foundation of Australia
     * Camp Quest
     * Centre for Inquiry
     * Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER)
     * Council for Secular Humanism
     * Danish Atheist Society
     * Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations
     * Freedom From Religion Foundation
     * Internet Infidels
     * V.T.V Atheists

     * Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
     * National Secular Society
     * Rationalist International
     * Secular Coalition for America
     * Secular Student Alliance
     * Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
     * Society of the Godless
     * Arab Infidels Forum
     * Arab Atheists Network

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

Gatherings

   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

   Because of its lack of a personal God, Buddhism is commonly described
   as atheistic.
   Enlarge
   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. Atheists also assert that behaving
   ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behaviour,
   merely blind obedience.

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

   Science is based on the observation that the universe is governed by
   natural laws that can be tested and replicated through experiment. It
   serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions and engineering
   (cf. faith and rationality, science and religion). Like scientists,
   scientific skeptics use critical thinking (cf. the true-believer
   syndrome) to decide claims. They do not base claims on faith or other
   unfalsifiable categories.

   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 in
   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 many theistic religions. Scientific progress has, some
   claim, continually eroded the basis for religion. Historically, many
   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.

   Some believe that religions have been socially constructed (see
   development of religion) and 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 that are now accepted as myth (e.g., Zeus), or that one culture's
   god is more correct than another's (indeed, it is apparent that most
   cultures 'pick and mix' the parts of their chosen religion they like,
   conveniently ignoring parts they disagree with). 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) is a rebuttal to the transcendental
   argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science and
   morality can only be justified by appealing to the theistic worldview,
   that argues that the reverse is true.

Personal, social, and ethical reasons

   Some atheists have found social, psychological, practical, and other
   personal reasons for their beliefs. 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
   responsiblity 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. Although they may not foreclose the
   possibility of a supernatural world, unless and until they believe
   through experience that such a world exists, they refuse to accept a
   metaphysical belief system based upon blind faith.

   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

   Atheism has received much criticism from theists. The most direct
   arguments against atheism are 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 disputed. This view is based on theistic
   innatism, the belief that all people believe in God from birth and that
   atheists are simply in denial. According to proponents of this view,
   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; 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.

   Lastly, 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, or even argue that the opposite is the case.
   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
