Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia

2007-03-21T09:52:55Z

Mj: /* Wikipedia and Bias */

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] and Larry Sangers on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a pornographic venture funded by Jimbo Wales. Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit charity with himself as president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of containing biased entries. The article detailing allegations of these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia aims to represent a neutral point of view - a neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle - but there are several articles that do not represent this neutral point of view. This happens partly due to Wikipedia's open nature, although there are on-going attempts to ensure that bias is clearly identified or altered where necessary. Wikipedia is also accused by some of having "ingrained" liberal bias<small>citation needed</small>. Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia in its bias, as Conservapedia defines itself as "a conservative encyclopedia", aiming to represent the views of the right therefore purposefully having a bias.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Atheism

2007-03-21T09:32:44Z

Mj: Spell their names right

'''Atheism''' is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]], [[Jeremey Alliadiaere]], [[Gary Neville]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof.{{fact}} It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

Many atheists claim that atheism has existed for as long as man and that religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==
In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]].

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States and 17% in Great Britain. However, the Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic.

Some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online].

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==
Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition to discrimination in voting practices and marriage, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

<b>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):</b>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many atheists, however, do not regard such arguments as convincing solutions to what they see as the underlying problem.

==External Links==

*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-21T09:30:10Z

Mj: Split the population talk from prejudice section

'''Atheism''' is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]], [[Jeremey Alliadiaere]], [[Gary Neville]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof.{{fact}} It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

Many atheists claim that atheism has existed for as long as man and that religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==
In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]].

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States and 17% in Great Britain. However, the Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic.

Some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online].

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==
Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition to discrimination in voting practices and marriage, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

<b>Penny, Edgell & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):</b>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many atheists, however, do not regard such arguments as convincing solutions to what they see as the underlying problem.

==External Links==

*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T19:19:15Z

Mj: you find the citations against it then

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]], [[Jeremey Alliadiaere]], [[Gary Neville]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof.{{fact}} It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

An atheist would claim that Atheism has existed for as long as man. That man evolved, then Religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==
Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discrimination in voting practices and marriage, George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

However this is not the case around the world, in the Great Britain 2001 census 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. It is hard to find any citations for discrimination against atheists in the Great Britain, in private life or the public eye.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T19:14:15Z

Mj: better link/stats

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]], [[Jeremey Alliadiaere]], [[Gary Neville]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof.{{fact}} It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

An atheist would claim that Atheism has existed for as long as man. That man evolved, then Religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==
Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discrimination in voting practices and marriage, George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

However this is not the case around the world, in the Great Britain 2001 census 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. It is rare to find discrimination against atheists in the Great Britain, in private life or the public eye.{{fact}}

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T19:00:24Z

Mj: just realised i referenced GB and said UK - Who knows the difference? :P

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]], [[Jeremey Alliadiaere]], [[Gary Neville]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof <sup>citation needed</sup>. It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

An atheist would claim that Atheism has existed for as long as man. That man evolved, then Religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==
Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discrimination in voting practices and marriage, George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

However this is not the case around the world, in the Great Britain 2001 census 14.6% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=395 2001 Census]. It is rare to find discrimination against atheists in the Great Britain, in private life or the public eye.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T18:57:43Z

Mj: /* Prejudice Against Atheists */

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]], [[Jeremey Alliadiaere]], [[Gary Neville]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof <sup>citation needed</sup>. It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

An atheist would claim that Atheism has existed for as long as man. That man evolved, then Religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==
Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discrimination in voting practices and marriage, George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

However this is not the case around the world, in the United Kingdom 2001 census 14.6% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=395 2001 Census]. It is rare to find discrimination against atheists in the United Kingdom, in private life or the public eye.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T14:41:20Z

Mj: Spelling, Style -- I will preview properly from now on :)

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]],[[Sam Harris]] and [[Ricky Gervais]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof. It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

An atheist would claim that Atheism has existed for as long as man. That man evolved, then Religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped believing.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==

Recent research indicates that atheists are the least-liked minority group in the United States. Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a Homosexual or Muslim Presidential candidate than an Atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discimination in voting practices and marriage George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe Atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Given the extremely negative stereotype of atheists, it is unsurprising that most choose not to advertise their faith. Additionally, given the wide dislike of Atheists and the relatively [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 small numbers] of Atheists in the population (frequently estimated at 4%-5%) claims of a discriminatory conspiracy of atheists are almost certainly false. It is, mathematically speaking, far more likely that Atheists are facing persecution from theists than the reverse.

However this is not the case around the world, in the United Kingdom 2001 census 14.6% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs. The percentage of non practising people is likely much higher than this. It is rare to find discrimination against Atheists in the United Kingdom, in private life or the public eye.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T14:36:44Z

Mj: /* Origins */

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof. It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

An atheist would claim that Atheism has existed for as long as man. That man evolved, then Religion was invented by man.

A Christian would claim it can be traced back to specific date, as Adam and Eve believed in God so at some point somebody must have stopped beliving.

== Christian View of Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==

Recent research indicates that atheists are the least-liked minority group in the United States. Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a Homosexual or Muslim Presidential candidate than an Atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discimination in voting practices and marriage George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe Atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Given the extremely negative stereotype of atheists, it is unsurprising that most choose not to advertise their faith. Additionally, given the wide dislike of Atheists and the relatively [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 small numbers] of Atheists in the population (frequently estimated at 4%-5%) claims of a discriminatory conspiracy of atheists are almost certainly false. It is, mathematically speaking, far more likely that Atheists are facing persecution from theists than the reverse.

However this is not the case around the world, in the United Kingdom 2001 census 14.6% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs. The percentage of non practising people is likely much higher than this. It is rare to find discrimination against Atheists in the United Kingdom, in private life or the public eye.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-20T14:05:37Z

Mj: Poor artical

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it.

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-03-20T13:29:45Z

Mj: /* The Pot and the Kettle? */

?????

Could you please give me an example of their liberal bias? I use Wikipedia all the time and it's always a reliable and in-depth encyclopedia.

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==Catch 22==
Look at the function of the Conservapedia... It was created to represent the views of Conservative America, that was being edited out of the Wikipedia.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does not''' affect its reliability then the Conservapedia is redundant.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does''' affect its reliability, then creating a purposfully biased "answer to the problem" will suffer from the same problem, making it redundant (and the wikipedia).

The difference between the two is, the Wikipedia strives not to be biased, whereas this site was created to represent a certain view point, so will always be biased and always unreliable. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

How can "A conservative encyclopedia" (see front page) '''ever''' be unbiased --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==

Abso-freaking-lutely. Go here: [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]

Any bias impairs reliability as much as it impairs respectability. Conservapedia is just as unreliable as wikipedia because of the conservative bias.

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a zero-frequency voltage combined with a signal to move the operating point to more linear response area."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

== No. Not always: ==

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? An article that gives every view point of Jesus that exists. If I wanted to know what Christians thought about Jesus I would go to a Christian web site. Why go to an encyclopedia to look for biased articles that exclude every one else's opinion just because it isn't your opinion? Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

[[Crimesofthelemon|Crimesofthelemon]]

To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.

well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-03-20T13:24:28Z

Mj:

?????

Could you please give me an example of their liberal bias? I use Wikipedia all the time and it's always a reliable and in-depth encyclopedia.

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==Catch 22==
Look at the function of the Conservapedia... It was created to represent the views of Conservative America, that was being edited out of the Wikipedia.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does not''' affect its reliability then the Conservapedia is redundant.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does''' affect its reliability, then creating a purposfully biased "answer to the problem" will suffer from the same problem, making it redundant (and the wikipedia).

The difference between the two is, the Wikipedia strives not to be biased, whereas this site was created to represent a certain view point, so will always be biased and always unreliable. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

== Yes: ==

Abso-freaking-lutely. Go here: [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]

Any bias impairs reliability as much as it impairs respectability. Conservapedia is just as unreliable as wikipedia because of the conservative bias.

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a zero-frequency voltage combined with a signal to move the operating point to more linear response area."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

== No. Not always: ==

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? An article that gives every view point of Jesus that exists. If I wanted to know what Christians thought about Jesus I would go to a Christian web site. Why go to an encyclopedia to look for biased articles that exclude every one else's opinion just because it isn't your opinion? Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

[[Crimesofthelemon|Crimesofthelemon]]

To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.

well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.

Conservative

2007-03-20T13:10:29Z

Mj:

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He or she may agree with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

== What is a Conservative? ==

Jonah Goldberg wrote a excellent piece on this in [[National Review]] Which is quoted, in part, below...

"In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.
# Elitism.

Points 2, 4, 5, and 6 run obviously counter to the idea that things can ever be perfectly harmonious. Preferring liberty over equality means preferring inequalities in some circumstances. Acceptance of established institutions and hierarchies is obviously anathema to those seeking an organic balance where everyone fulfills their destiny equally and happily. Ditto acceptance of elitism, which is simply the belief that at the end of the day there are some people who are going to be better at a given thing than other people, and education, welfare, and other “interventions” by the state won’t change that. In other words, point 1. As for point 5, this runs against the grain of Hegel-based worldviews that assume that merely ripping pages off a calendar gets us closer to the eschatological kewpie doll at the End of Days.

All that leaves is point 3, patriotism. Now, patriotism and nationalism are very different things and there are many people on the right and left who think nationalism is definitionally conservative or right-wing. This is nonsense on very tall stilts. Patriotism, however is merely the devotion to a set of ideals, rooted in history, and attached to a specific place. And once again we are spun back to [[Hayek]]. To a certain extent patriotism is conservatism, in the same way that being a [[Christian]] involves some level of conservatism. It is a devotion to a set of principles set forth in the past and carried forward to today and, hopefully, tomorrow. (I wish it weren’t necessary to point out that this is a non-partisan point: Patriotic [[liberals]] are holding dear some aspects of our past as well.) What we call patriotism is often merely the content we use to fill-up the amoral conservatism discussed above. Axiomatically, if you are unwilling to conserve any of the institutions, customs, traditions, or principles inherent to this country you simply aren’t patriotic and, as a side note, the more you think the [[United Nations]] is the savior of the world, the less patriotic you are."

[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU=]

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the Conservative party [http://www.conservatives.com]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. In politcal policy the UK Conservatives are more closely aligned to the US Democrats, despite them being the most right of the main 3 parties. In UK politics further to the right of the Conservatives are the British National Party, some suggest their view point can most closely be mapped to the US Republican party.

== References ==

Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/>
[[Category:Politics]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T13:00:20Z

Mj: /* Wikipedia and Bias */

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of many biased entries. The article detailing these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia aims to reperesent a neutral point of view - a neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle - however, there are a few articles that do not represent the neutral point of view. This happens partly due to Wikipedia's open nature, sometimes being accused by Conservapedians of having 'ingrained' liberal bias. Due to the open nature anyone who finds a biased article is encouraged to change the article to a neurtal point of view. This accidental bias differs from the Conservapedia, that defines itself as "a conservative encyclopedia" so will aim to be biased to the right.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Google

2007-03-20T12:44:20Z

Mj: /* "Miserable Failure" Incident */

'''Google''' is a popular [[Internet]] [[search engine]]. The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the home made [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] are suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==PageRank Algorithm==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is it's '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to it's constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.

==="Miserable Failure" Incident===
For nearly two years, searching "Miserable Failure" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref> Many ideas have been debated, though this was most likely due to the regular use of the PageRank system. Due to this incident (the biography remained the top result for over two years), Google has been accused (baselessly) of having a [[liberal]] bias.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T12:26:32Z

Mj:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of many biased entries. The article detailing these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia aims to reperesent a neutral point of view - a neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle - however, this does not always happen, partly due to Wikipedia's open nature, sometimes being accused of having 'ingrained' liberal bias. This accidental bias differs from the Conservapedia, which defines itself as "a conservative encyclopedia".

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T12:00:12Z

Mj: spelling

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of many biased entries. The article detailing these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].
In fact Wikipedia really has some articles with bias. In Wikipedia this biases are called "POV articles" (Point of view). Wikipedia aims for articles with a neutral point of few. Anyone who discovers an article that does not have a neutral point of view is encouraged to remove the bias and adding facts.

While the Wikipedia aims for a non biased approach, this site (Conservapedia) specifically aims for "a conservative encyclopedia". The Wikipedia lays out many style guides, to try and get a consistent and unbiased writing style. Though this is not always perfect (because of free editing) it does lay much better foundations that the Conservapedia which merely asks for consistent use of dates and American English.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-20T11:59:03Z

Mj:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of many biased entries. The article detailing these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].
In fact Wikipedia really has some articles with bias. In Wikipedia this biases are called "POV articles" (Point of view). Wikipedia aims for articles with a neutral point of few. Anyone who discovers an article that does not have a neutral point of view is encouraged to remove the bias and adding facts.

While the Wikipedia aims for a non biased approach, this site (Conservapedia) specifcally aims for "a conservative encyclopedia". The Wikipedia lays out many style guides, to try and get a consistent and unbiased writing style. Though this is not always perfect (because of free editing) it does lay much better foundations that the Conservapedia which merely asks for consistent use of dates and American English.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T09:50:10Z

Mj: /* Origins */

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof. It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

An atheist would claim that Atheism has existed for as long as man. That man evolved, then Religion was invented by man.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==

Recent research indicates that atheists are the least-liked minority group in the United States. Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a Homosexual or Muslim Presidential candidate than an Atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discimination in voting practices and marriage George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe Atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Given the extremely negative stereotype of atheists, it is unsurprising that most choose not to advertise their faith. Additionally, given the wide dislike of Atheists and the relatively [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 small numbers] of Atheists in the population (frequently estimated at 4%-5%) claims of a discriminatory conspiracy of atheists are almost certainly false. It is, mathematically speaking, far more likely that Atheists are facing persecution from theists than the reverse.

However this is not the case around the world, in the United Kingdom 2001 census 14.6% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs. The percentage of non practising people is likely much higher than this. It is rare to find discrimination against Atheists in the United Kingdom, in private life or the public eye.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T09:37:45Z

Mj:

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods.

Well-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists often base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]], empirically derived ethics, or some combination thereof. It is important to note, however, that just as many religions disagree on specific moral points, and there is sharp disagreement within many religions (e.g. denominational disputes within Christianity), atheists differ substantially from each other in the details of their moral beliefs. Thus, it is difficult at best to summarize the beliefs of the "average atheist."

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists point out that all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, questionable treatment of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1 women] and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. Additionally, atheists often point to a large number of prominent [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html contradictions] present in the bible and other religious texts. The presence of such contradictions challenges claims that these works are the infallible word of God.

Atheists sometimes subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more desirable to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. This view is illustrated by celebrated atheist [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists sometimes condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths," or forms of non-materialistic atheism. In any case, it is likely impossible to determine the true origins of atheism as it was presumably the default belief of most humans prior to the development of religion.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Prejudice Against Atheists ==

Recent research indicates that atheists are the least-liked minority group in the United States. Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartman in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a Homosexual or Muslim Presidential candidate than an Atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 gallup polls] confirm this finding. In addition to discimination in voting practices and marriage George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe Atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Given the extremely negative stereotype of atheists, it is unsurprising that most choose not to advertise their faith. Additionally, given the wide dislike of Atheists and the relatively [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 small numbers] of Atheists in the population (frequently estimated at 4%-5%) claims of a discriminatory conspiracy of atheists are almost certainly false. It is, mathematically speaking, far more likely that Atheists are facing persecution from theists than the reverse.

However this is not the case around the world, in the United Kingdom 2001 census 14.6% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs. The percentage of non practising people is likely much higher than this. It is rare to find discrimination against Atheists in the United Kingdom, in private life or the public eye.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God 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?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm] Many Atheists, however, do not regard such evasions as convincing solutions to the underlying problem.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T09:18:06Z

Mj: /* References */

'''Atheism''' entails, minimally, the disbelief<ref>Various dictionaries give a range of definitions for ''disbelief'', from "lack of belief" to "doubt" and "withholding of belief" to "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial". {{ref harvard|OED-a|Oxford English Dictionary 1989|a}}</ref> in the [[existence of God|existence]] of any [[deity|deities]].<ref>Some dictionary definitions:
*"1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." {{ref harvard|Random House-a|Random House 2006|a}}
*"1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Including the existence of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality." {{ref harvard|AHD|American Heritage Dictionary 2000|none}}
*"1 ''archaic'' : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity" {{ref harvard|Merriam-Webster|Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 2003|none}}</ref> It is contrasted with [[theism]], the belief in a [[God]] or gods. ''Atheism'' is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of [[theism]].<ref>"Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial." {{ref harvard|Britannica-1|Britannica Concise Encyclopædia 2002|none}}</ref><ref>"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." {{ref harvard|Routledge|Routledge 1998|none}}</ref><ref>"Atheism is fundamentally a '''rejection''' of belief in any God. It is more than a simple lack of belief, as children and some members of tribal societies may not believe out of ignorance." {{ref harvard|Lyngzeidetson|Lyngzeidetson 2003|none}}</ref> However, others define ''atheism'' as the simple absence of belief in deities<ref name="BBC">"Atheists are people who do not believe in a god or gods (or other immaterial beings), or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. Some atheists put it more firmly and believe that god or gods do not exist." {{ref harvard|BBC-a|BBC 2006|a}}</ref><ref>"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply 'not believing in any gods.' No claims or denials are made—an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist." {{ref harvard|Cline1-a|Cline 2006a|a}}</ref><ref>"The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief." {{ref harvard|Stein1980|Stein 1980, p. 3|none}}</ref> (cf. [[nontheism]]), thereby designating all [[agnosticism|agnostics]], and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.<ref>{{ref_harvard|d'Holbach-a|d'Holbach 1772|a}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Smith-a|Smith 1979, pp. 13–18|a}}</ref> In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms [[weak and strong atheism|''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).<ref name="martin">"If you look up 'atheism' in a dictionary, you will find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly, many people understand 'atheism' in this way. Yet this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not,' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint, an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist. Still, there is a popular dictionary meaning of 'atheism' according to which an atheist is not simply one who holds no belief in the existence of God or gods but is one who believes that there is no God or gods. This dictionary use of the term should not be overlooked. To avoid confusion, let us call it ''positive atheism'' and let us call the type of atheism derived from the original Greek roots ''negative atheism''." {{ref_harvard|Martin2-a|Martin 2007, p. 1|a}}</ref><ref>{{ref harvard|Cline2-a|Cline 2006b|a}}</ref><ref name="winston">"Atheism is commonly divided into 'weak' and 'strong.' Weak atheists have no faith, simply because the feeling is not there. Strong atheists conclude, from existing evidence and arguments, that gods do not exist." {{ref_harvard|Winston|Winston 2004, p. 299|a}}</ref>

Many [[self-concept|self-described]] atheists share common [[scientific skepticism|skeptical]] concerns regarding [[supernatural]] claims, citing a lack of [[empiricism|empirical]] evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although atheists tend toward [[secularism|secular]] philosophies such as [[humanism]], [[rationalist movement|rationalism]], and [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], there is no one [[ideology]] or set of behaviors that all atheists adhere to.<ref>{{ref harvard|Martin2-b|Martin 2007, pp. 122–131|b}}</ref><ref>"The atheist's rejection of belief in God is usually accompanied by a broader rejection of any [[supernatural]] or [[transcendence (religion)|transcendental]] reality. For example, an atheist does not usually believe in the existence of immortal [[soul]]s, [[afterlife|life after death]], [[ghost]]s, or supernatural powers. Although strictly speaking an atheist could believe in any of these things and still remain an atheist... the arguments and ideas that sustain atheism tend naturally to rule out other beliefs in the supernatural or transcendental." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-a|Baggini 2003, pp. 3–4|a}}</ref><ref>"Neither atheism nor agnosticism is a full belief system, because they have no fundamental philosophy or lifestyle requirements. These forms of thought are simply the absence of belief in, or denial of, the existence of deities." {{ref_harvard|Winston-b|Winston 2004, p. 299|b}}</ref>

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be [[irreligion|irreligious]] or non-spiritual.<ref name="britannica">"Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in 'spiritual beings,' and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief." {{ref harvard|Britannica|Encyclopædia Britannica 1992|none}}</ref> However, some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of [[God in Buddhism|Buddhism]], have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of ''atheism'' due to their lack of any participating deities.<ref name="winston2">"Nonbelief has existed for centuries. For example, Buddhism and Jainism have been called atheistic religions because they do not advocate belief in gods." {{ref_harvard|Winston-c|Winston 2004, p. 299|c}}</ref><ref>"Lots of people in the West misunderstand Buddhism, especially it's [sic] general lack of any divine figures. They don't realize that, for many, Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion. People in the West are accustomed to religions all being theistic, so the idea of an atheistic religion is almost incomprehensible." {{ref_harvard|Cline3-a|Cline 2005|a}}</ref> Atheism is also sometimes equated with [[antitheism]] (opposition to theism) or [[antireligion]] (opposition to religion), despite many atheists not holding such views.<ref>"As someone who is reasonably familiar with atheist literature, I am not aware of anyone who identifies themselves as an 'antitheist.'... I suspect (though I cannot prove) that the real reason [[Ravi Zacharias|Zacharias]] prefers the word 'antitheist' is because of its negative connotations." {{ref_harvard|Lowder2|Lowder 2000|none}}</ref>

==Etymology==
In early [[Ancient Greek]], the adjective ''atheos'' (from [[privative a|privative α-]] + θεος "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the [[5th Century BC|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.<ref>"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 ''atheos'' and ''atheotes''; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, ''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_harvard|Drachmann|Drachmann 1922, pg. 5|none}}</ref>

In [[English language|English]], the term ''atheism'' was adopted from the [[French language|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 language|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 language|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.<ref>The ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' 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. {{ref harvard|OED-b|Oxford English Dictionary 1989|b}}</ref>

Originally simply used as a [[term of disparagement|slur]] for "godlessness",<ref>{{ref_harvard|Armstrong-a|Armstrong 1999|a}}</ref> ''atheism'' was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]].<ref name="adevism">In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, ''atheism'' is often 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 [[polytheism|polytheistic]] deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term ''[[adevism]]'' was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in plural deities. {{ref_harvard|Britannica-2|Encyclopædia Britannica 1910|none}}</ref> 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 is sometimes contested by theists.<ref>"There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means."{{ref harvard|Cline1-b|Cline 2006a|b}}</ref>

==Types and typologies of atheism==
Many writers have disagreed on how best to define ''atheism'', and much of the literature on the subject is contradictory. 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===
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 [[monotheism|singular]] [[personal God]], for example, people who believe in a variety of other deities may be classified as atheists, including [[deism|deists]] and even [[polytheism|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 religion|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.<ref name="adevism"/><ref>"The concept of atheism was developed historically in the context of Western monotheistic religions, and it still has its clearest application in this area." {{ref_harvard|Martin2-c|Martin 2007, p. 1|c}}</ref>

A problematic consequence of the broader redefinition of ''theism'' is that atheism can be seen as disbelief in almost anything; many [[pantheism|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.<ref>Atheist philosopher Wallace I. Matson distinguishes ''deity'' from ''God'', where ''deity'' refers to "personal, superhuman active and powerful intelligence, while ''God'' refers to "infinite Being—infinite in the respects of knowledge and wisdom, power and goodness." However, distinctions between these terms are uncommon and often inconsistent with each other. {{ref_harvard|Matson|Matson 1965, pp. xv–xvii|none}}</ref> 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",<ref name="BBC"/> rejection of the [[supernatural]] world altogether, or simply as [[irreligion]].<ref name="britannica"/> However, god-centered definitions of atheism remain more common.

===Pejorative definition: atheism as immorality===
{{further|[[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.

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 1953 typology of atheism proved influential in Catholic circles;<ref>{{ref_harvard|Maritain-a|Maritain 1953|a}}</ref> it was followed in the ''New Catholic Encyclopedia''.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Reid|Reid 1967|none}}</ref> He identified, in addition to practical atheism, ''pseudo-atheism'' and ''absolute atheism'', and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Antony Flew.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Smith-b|Smith 1979|b}}</ref>

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>{{ref_harvard|Borne-a|Borne 1961, p. 10|a}}</ref> [[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."<ref>{{ref_harvard|Armstrong-b|Armstrong 1999|b}}</ref>

On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason his or her 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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Borne-b|Borne 1961, p. 18|b}}</ref>

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 ''[[secularism|secularist]]'', ''[[empiricism|empiricist]]'', ''[[agnosticism|agnostic]]'', or ''[[Brights movement|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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Berman1982|Berman 1982|none}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Berman1983|Berman 1983|none}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Berman1990|Berman 1990|none}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Gaskin|Gaskin 1989, p. 4|none}}</ref> However, many atheists persist in using the term and seek to change its connotations.<ref>[[Charles Bradlaugh]] once said, in debate with [[George Holyoake]] on March 10, 1870, "I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie. I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect... I do not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word Atheist, I would fight until men respect it." {{ref_harvard|Bradlaugh Bonner|Bradlaugh Bonner 1908, p. 334|none}}</ref>

In modern times, atheism continues to be conflated with such beliefs as [[communism]], [[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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Chambers|Chambers Dictionary 2003|none}}</ref> 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 [[misotheism|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 [[irrationality|irrational]] (cf. [[faith and rationality]]).<ref>"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an [[antitheism|antitheist]]; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." {{ref_harvard|Hitchens|Hitchens 2001|none}}</ref> A related stance is ''militant atheism'', which is generally characterized by [[antireligion|antireligious]] views.<ref>"Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-b|Baggini 2003, pp. 101–104|b}}</ref>

===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 (philosopher)|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 (philosopher)|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.<ref>"Some writers on this topic take the term 'atheism' to refer merely to a lack of theistic belief. That would be a kind of catch-all use of the term. Atheism would then include not only the view that "God exists" expresses a false proposition, but also noncognitivism, general agnosticism, and cognitivist agnosticism. Not only would such a definition blur and neglect all those distinctions, but it would also be a departure from the most common use of the term 'atheism' in English. For these reasons, it is an inferior definition. For a word to represent the lack of theistic belief, I recommend 'nontheism' for that purpose. It is a word that does not already have some other use in ordinary language." {{ref_harvard|Drange|Drange 2005|none}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{ref harvard|Cline1-c|Cline 2006a|c}}</ref>

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.<ref>"The works cited below are all specialized reference materials, designed not to provide general information for a general audience but, rather, information on specific topics like religion, sociology, or other social sciences. Their value here is in the fact that they provide some insight into what scholars from different specialized fields think of when it comes to the concept of atheism. As you will see, very often they use the broader understanding of atheism rather than the narrower one we sometimes encounter." {{ref harvard|Cline1-d|Cline 2006a|d}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{ref_harvard|Nagel|Nagel 1965, pp. 460–461|none}}</ref>

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 (philosophy)|naturalism]] in order to emphasize the explanatory power of a non-supernatural worldview.<ref>"The strength of modern atheism is that it is founded more upon positive atheism than negative; rather than just a rejection of contemporary religious beliefs, modern atheism offers a seemingly complete philosophy of the world around us. The contemporary atheist not only sees much that is dubious in Christianity, but sees much that is redundant and just less satisfying than what is provided by modern education, science, anthropology and material culture." {{ref_harvard|Moyle|Moyle 1996|none}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Baggini-c|Baggini 2003, pp. 7–10|c}}</ref> Harbour,<ref>{{ref_harvard|Harbour|Harbour 2001|none}}</ref> Thrower,<ref>"Much atheism... can be understood only in the light of the current theism which it was concerned to reject. Such atheism is relative. There is, however, a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world, whose origins... can be seen as early as the beginnings of speculative thought itself, and which I shall call naturalistic, that is atheistic per se, in the sense that it is incompatible with any and every form of supernaturalism... naturalistic or absolute atheism is both fundamentally more important, and more interesting, representing as it does one polarity in the development of the human spirit." {{ref_harvard|Thrower|Thrower 1971, pp. 3–4|none)}}</ref> and Nielsen, similarly, have used philosophical naturalism to make a positive argument for atheism. [[Michael Martin (philosopher)|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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Martin-a|Martin 1990, p. 470|a}}</ref>

===Negative definition: atheism as the absence of belief in deities===
{{further|[[Nontheism]], [[Implicit and explicit atheism]], [[Weak and strong atheism]]}}
Among modern atheists, the view that atheism simply means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Krueger|Krueger 1998|none}}</ref> This very broad definition is often justified by reference to the etymology (cf. [[privative a]]),<ref name="martin"/><ref>"If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God." {{ref_harvard|Martin-b|Martin 1990, p. 463|b}}</ref> as well as to the consistent usage of the word by atheists.<ref>{{ref harvard|Cline1-c|Cline 2006a|c}}</ref> However, others have dismissed the former justification as an [[etymological fallacy]] and the latter on the grounds that majority usage outweighs minority usage.<ref>"This is evident in its very name—atheism is a-theism: the negation of theistic belief.... I think this view is profoundly mistaken. Its initial plausibility is based on a very crude piece of flawed reasoning we can call the [[etymological fallacy]]. This is the mistake of thinking that one can best understand what a word means by understanding its origin." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-d|Baggini 2003, p. 7|d}}</ref>

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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|d'Holbach-b|d'Holbach 1772|b}}</ref> More recently, science fiction author George H. Smith (1979) put forth a similar view:

<blockquote>"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>{{ref_harvard|Smith-c|Smith 1979, p. 14|c}}</ref></blockquote>

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, although strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge that no deities exist.<ref>Although most strong atheists rarely do not claim certainty of the nonexistence of deities or the supernatural, ''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.</ref> 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).<ref name="winston"/><ref>{{ref_harvard|Cline2-b|Cline 2006a|b}}</ref> 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<ref>{{ref_harvard|Flew1972|Flew 1972|none}}</ref> 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>

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 theism|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".<ref>"When people say that atheism is a faith position, what they tend to think is that, since there is no proof for atheism, something extra—faith—is required to justify belief in it. But this is simply to misunderstand the role of proof in the justification for belief.... A lack of proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief. This is because when we have a lack of absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is far superior to the alternatives." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-e|Baggini 2003, pp. 30–34|e}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |title=Atheism and Agnosticism |first=J.C.C. |last=Smart |year=2004 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

==History==
{{main|History of atheism}}
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, beginning in the 6th century BC with the rise of [[Jainism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[atheism in Hinduism|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 [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]].<ref>"Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-f|Baggini 2003, pp. 73–74|f}}</ref> 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 God|personal deity]].

Atheists have been subject to significant [[persecution of atheists|persecution]] and [[discrimination against atheists|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 [[Trial of Socrates|sentenced to death]] for [[impiety]] on the grounds that he inspired questioning of the [[state religion|state gods]].<ref>[[Plato]]. ''[[Apology]]''.[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology]</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/A/atheism.html |title=Atheism (Philosophy, Terms and Concepts) |accessdate=2006-10-26 |publisher=AllRefer.com}}</ref> During the late [[Roman Empire]], many Christians were executed for "atheism" because of their rejection of the Roman gods, and "[[Christian heresy|heresy]]" and "godlessness" were serious capital offenses following the rise of Christianity.

Atheistic sentiment was virtually unknown in medieval Europe, but flourished in the [[empiricism|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 [[deism|deists]], scientists, and materialists.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Armstrong-c|Armstrong 1999|c}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|d'Holbach1770|d'Holbach 1770|none}}</ref> Following the [[French Revolution]], atheism rose to prominence under the influence of [[rationalism|rationalistic]] and [[freethought|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]]").<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/religious_criticism.htm |title=A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization |accessdate=2006-10-26 |last=Price |first=Geoff |year=2005}}</ref><ref>"Western atheism, as a movement opposing religion, developed in the 19th century, and became widely accepted by intellectuals." {{ref_harvard|Winston-d|Winston 2004, p. 299|d}}</ref>

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 (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]], [[secular humanism]], [[nihilism]], [[relativism]], [[logical positivism]], [[Marxism]], [[feminism]],<ref>{{ref_harvard|Martin2-d|Martin 2007, pp. 233–246|d}}</ref> and the general [[science|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 state]]s", such as the [[Soviet Union]], promoted [[state atheism]] 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></blockquote> [[Enver Hoxha]] went further than most and officially banned religion, declaring [[Albania]] the world's first Atheist state. 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.<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>

Other [[list of atheists|notable atheists]] in recent times have included comedian [[Woody Allen]],<ref name="Haught">Haught, James A. (1996). ''2,000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People with the Courage to Doubt''. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-067-3.</ref> biologist [[Richard Dawkins]],<ref>Dawkins, Richard (2002). "[http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm Positiveatheism.org A Challenge To Atheists: Come Out of the Closet]", '''in''' ''Free Inquiry''.</ref> actress [[Katharine Hepburn]],<ref>''[[Ladies' Home Journal]]'', October 1991.[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/2003_06_29.htm]</ref> author [[Douglas Adams]],<ref>Silverman, David. "[http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Interview with Douglas Adams]", '''in''' ''The American Atheist'' Volume 37 No. 1.</ref> philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]],<ref>[[Bertrand Russell|Russell, Bertrand]] (1967). ''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects''. ISBN 0-671-20323-1.</ref> dictator [[Joseph Stalin]],<ref>Yaroslavsky, E. (1940). ''Landmarks in the Life of Stalin''. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.</ref> and activist [[Margaret Sanger]].<ref name="Haught"/>

==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, [[Discrimination of atheists|discrimination]], and [[persecution of atheists|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%.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html
|title=Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-1995
|publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica
|accessdate=2006-03-05
}}</ref>

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the ''[[Mensa International|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 (journal)|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.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
|title=Leading scientists still reject God
|publisher=Nature
|accessdate=2006-12-17
}}</ref>

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%). In France, 32% declared themselves to be atheists, with an additional 32% declaring themselves [[agnostic]].<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
|accessdate=2007-01-17
}}</ref>

==Atheist organizations==
Noteworthy organizations that are atheistic or have atheistic sympathies include:

{|width=100%
|-valign=top
|width=50%|
* [[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]]

|width=50%|
* [[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]]
* [[Society of Ontario Freethinkers]]
* [[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|Atheism and religion|Secular ethics}}

Although people who self-identify as being atheists are almost invariably assumed to be [[irreligion|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]], [[God in Buddhism|in Buddhism]], and in other Eastern religions has an especially long history,<ref name="winston2"/><ref>"Traditional Buddhism has taught that either there are no gods or, if there are, they aren't worth bothering with—but people being people, gods have been added to Buddhist practice over the centuries. They aren't creator gods like we find in western religion, but they are gods nonetheless. Not all Buddhists are atheists, but there are quite a few." {{ref_harvard|Cline3-b|Cline 2005|b}}</ref> but in recent years certain [[liberal religion|liberal]] religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as [[atheist Jew|Jewish atheists]] (cf. [[humanistic Judaism]])<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/humanistic.shtml |title=Humanistic Judaism |accessdate=2006-10-25 |publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Levin|Levin 1995|none}}</ref> and Christian atheists (cf. [[Unitarian Universalism]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml |title=Christian Atheism |accessdate=2006-10-25 |publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Altizer|Altizer 1996, pp. 102–103|none}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Lyas|Lyas 1970|none}}</ref>

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.<ref>"To view atheism as a way of life, whether beneficial or harmful, is false and misleading. Just as the failure to believe in magic elves does not entail a code of living or a set of principles, so the failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system. ''From the mere fact that a person is an atheist, one cannot infer that this person subscribes to any particular positive beliefs''. One's positive convictions are quite distinct from the subject of atheism. While one may begin with a basic philosophical position and infer atheism as a consequence of it, this process cannot be reversed." {{ref_harvard|Smith-d|Smith 1979, pp. 21–22|d}}</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>"One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of nature: there is no secular basis for morality." {{ref_harvard|Harris2006a|Harris 2006a|a}}</ref><ref>"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_harvard|Smith-e|Smith 1979, p. 275|e}}</ref> Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as [[divine law]]s, 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,<ref>"One can have immoral laws as well as moral ones. What is required for just laws is for the legislature and judiciary to act within the confines of morality. Morality is thus... the basis upon which just laws are enacted and enforced; it is not constituted by the laws themselves." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-g|Baggini 2003, p. 38|g}}</ref> based on the [[Euthyphro dilemma]], which either renders God unnecessary or morality arbitrary.<ref>"The Euthypryo dilemma is a very powerful argument against the idea that God is required for morality. Indeed, it goes further and shows that God cannot be the source of morality without morality becoming something arbitrary." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-h|Baggini 2003, p. 39|h}}</ref> Some atheists also assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior, merely blind obedience.<ref>"More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. The person who doesn't steal only because they fear they will be caught is not a moral person, merely a prudent one. The truly moral person is the one who has the opportunity to steal without being caught but still does not do so." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-i|Baggini 2003, p. 40|i}}</ref>

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.<ref>"It is easy for the religious believer to think that they can avoid choice just by listening to the advice of their holy men (it is usually men) and sacred texts. But since adopting this attitude can lead to suicide bombings, bigotry, and other moral wrongs, it should be obvious that it does not absolve one of moral responsibility. So although the idea of individuals making moral choices for themselves may sound unpalatable to those used to thinking about morality deriving from a single authority, none of us can avoid making such choices." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-j|Baggini 2003, p. 43|j}}</ref>

Atheists such as [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]] have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to [[authoritarianism]] and [[dogma]]tism.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Harris2006b|Harris 2006a|b}}</ref> This argument, combined with historical events which are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the [[inquisition]]s and [[witch trial]]s, is often used by [[antireligion|antireligious]] atheists to justify their views;<ref>"In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree." {{ref_harvard|Harris|Harris 2005|none}}</ref> however, theists have made very similar arguments against atheists based on the [[state atheism]] of [[communist state]]s.<ref>{{ref_harvard|McGrath|McGrath 2005|none}}</ref> In both cases, critics argue that the connection is a weak one based on the [[correlation does not imply causation|correlation implies causation]] and [[association fallacy|guilt by association]] fallacies.

Other individuals from within the atheist community have criticized the movement's inability to find a secular basis of morality outside of the supernatural and hypothetical. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] sums this failure in his famous [[God is dead]] quote. He complains that one arbitrary basis of morality (divine mandate) is replaced by another arbitrary basis. In essence, all moral philosophies share the same strengths and failures.

==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===
[[Science]] is based on the observation that the universe is governed by [[natural law]]s that can be discerned through repeatable experiments. Science serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions and engineering (cf. [[faith and rationality]], [[relationship between religion and science|science and religion]]). Like [[scientist]]s, [[scientific skepticism|scientific skeptic]]s use [[critical thinking]] (cf. the [[true-believer syndrome]]) to decide claims, and do not base claims on faith or other [[falsifiability|unfalsifiable]] categories. 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.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0504/public.html | title=The Public Square | author=Richard John Neuhaus|journal=[[First Things]] | issue=152 | pages=57-72 | date=April 2005 | accessdate=2006-12-03}}</ref>

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]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm |title=Why Atheism? |first=Mark |last=Thomas |publisher=Atheists of Silicon Valley}}</ref>

Anthropologists consider religions to be [[social construction|social construct]]s (see [[development of religion]]) that should be analyzed with an unbiased, historical viewpoint. Atheists often argue that nearly all cultures have their own [[origin belief|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.<ref>"Atheism also has great explanatory power when it comes to the existence of divergent religious beliefs. The best explanation for the fact that different religious people believe different things about God and the universe throughout the world is that religion is a human construct that does not correspond to any metaphysical reality. The alternative is that many religions exist but only one (or a few) are true." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-k|Baggini 2003, p. 29|k}}</ref>

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:

<blockquote>"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 [[creationism|creationists]] on firm [[empiricism|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 [[logic]]al philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are [[Hume's fork|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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://psy.ucsd.edu/~eebbesen/Psych110/SciRelig.htm |title=Personal Gods, Deism, & the Limits of Skepticism |accessdate=2006-03-05}}</ref></blockquote>

===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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Flew1984b|Flew 1984b|none}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism_2.htm |title=What is Atheism?: Narrow vs. Broad Definitions of Atheism |accessdate=2006-10-21 |last=Cline |first=Austin |year=2006 |publisher=[[about.com]]}}</ref> 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 argument|ontological]], [[cosmological argument|cosmological]], and [[teleological argument|teleological]] arguments.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ |title=Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages |accessdate=2006-03-05}}</ref>

Other atheists base their position on a more active logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. The [[existence of God#Arguments against the existence of God|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."<ref>{{Cite book | last=Craig | first=William Lane | year=2003 | authorlink=William Lane Craig | coauthors=Walter Sinnott-Armstrong | title=God? | publisher=Oxford University Press | pages=p. 112 | id=ISBN 0195165993}}</ref> 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 positivism|logical positivists]] such as [[Rudolph Carnap]] and [[A.J. Ayer]], who held that talk of deities is literally [[nonsense]].<ref>{{ref_harvard|Ayer|Ayer 1966, pp. 226–228|none}}</ref> Such arguments have since fallen into disfavor among philosophers, but continue to see use among ''[[ignosticism|ignostics]]'', who view the question of whether deities exist as meaningless or unanswerable, and ''[[apatheism|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 [[transcendental argument for the existence of God|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 [[supernatural]]ly. 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 morally and [[Development of religion#Religions as social construction|socially acceptable]].

Some atheists dislike the restrictions religious codes of conduct place on their personal [[liberty|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., [[religious war|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 (religion)|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 experience]]s, 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.

Some atheists argue that religion's emphasis on "faith" can undermine the desire to continually seek new knowledge and explanations.<ref>Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion</ref> For example, if it is accepted that God created life, then there is no need to research how life arose. Stephen Hawking noted in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the Pope urged him and other scientists not to delve into the origin of the universe because that area belonged to God.

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|Criticism of atheism}}

The most direct criticisms made against atheism are [[existence of God#Arguments for the existence of God|claims that a god exists]] and thus are 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]].<ref>{{ref_harvard|Cudworth|Cudworth 1678|none}}</ref> It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists will readily make [[deathbed conversion]]s or that "there are no [[atheists in foxholes]]". This view has fallen into disfavor among most philosophers of religion.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Lowder1|Lowder 1997|none}}</ref>

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 [[faith#religious faith|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]];<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 fact that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven with complete certainty does not make it equally [[probability|likely]] that God does or doesn't exist.<ref>"People say that, since the atheist can never know for sure that there is no life after death, for example, it is foolish for them to not believe in it. At best they should suspend belief and be agnostic.... But this policy would be reckless, since to apply it consistently you would also have to be agnostic about any issue on which there was a possibility that you could be wrong, because there is no absolute certainty and it is possible that evidence might arise to show you are wrong. But who seriously claims we should say 'I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope is a robot', or 'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turn me into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any good reasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-l|Baggini 2003, p. 22|l}}</ref>

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]]).<ref name="misconceptions"/><ref>"Perhaps the most common criticism of atheism is the claim that it leads inevitably to moral bankruptcy." {{ref_harvard|Smith-f|Smith 1979, p. 275|f}}</ref> It is also argued that atheism makes life [[meaning of life|meaningless]] and miserable; [[Blaise Pascal]] made this argument in 1670.<ref>[[Blaise Pascal|Pascal, Blaise]] (1670). ''[[Pensées]]''.</ref> Atheists generally dismiss these arguments as [[appeal to consequences|appeals to consequences]] with no bearing on whether God actually exists, and many disagree that atheism leads to amorality or misery, or argue that in fact the opposite is the case.<ref>"Many people think that atheists believe there is no God ''and'' no morality; or no God ''and'' no meaning to life; or again no God ''and'' no human goodness." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-m|Baggini 2003, p. 3|m}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html|title=The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism |accessdate=2006-03-05 }}</ref>

==Footnotes and citations==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

* ^ Altizer, Thomas J. J. (1967). The Gospel of Christian Atheism. London: Collins, 102–103. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
* ^ Ayer, Alfred Jules (August 1967). "What I Believe". Humanist 81 (8): 226–228. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
* ^ (2000) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin. 0395825172.
* 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 on 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 (July 1983). "David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism". Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 (3): 375–387.
* ^ 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.
* ^ Britannica (2002). Britannica Concise Encyclopædia. Encyclopedia Britannica Corp. ISBN 0-85229-832-3. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
* ^ Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
* ^ Britannica (1992). "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". Encyclopædia Britannica 1: 666. 0852294735. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
* Buckley, M. J. (1987). At the origins of modern atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
* ^ (2003) Chambers Dictionary, Ninth Edition.
* a b Cline, Austin (2005). Buddhism and Atheism Buddhism and Atheism. about.com. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
* a b c d Cline, Austin (2006). What Is the Definition of Atheism?. about.com. Retrieved on 2006-10-21.
* a b Cline, Austin (2006). Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference?. about.com. Retrieved on 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 on 2006-10-27.
* ^ d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). The system of nature. Retrieved on 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.
* ^ Drange, Theodore M. (2005). On Defending Atheism. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
* Everitt, Nicholas (2004). The Non-Existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-30107-6.
* Lovgren, Stefan (October 2004). "Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say". National Geographic. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
* 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 on 2006-10-27.
* ^ (1989) in Gaskin, J.C.A.: 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 (2005). An Atheist Manifesto. Truthdig. Retrieved on 2006-10-29.
* a b Harris, Sam (2006a). The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos. Free Inquiry. Retrieved on 2006-10-29.
* a Harris, Sam (2006b). 10 myths—and 10 truths—about atheism. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on 2007-02-13.
* ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2001). Letters to a Young Contrarian. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03032-7. Retrieved on 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. (May 1995). "Jewish Atheism". New Humanist 110 (2): 13–15.
* ^ Lowder, Jeffery Jay (1997). Atheism and Society. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
* ^ Lowder, Jeffery Jay (2000). An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism. Retrieved on 2007-01-09.
* ^ Lyas, Colin (January 1970). "On the Coherence of Christian Atheism". Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 45 (171): 1–19.
* ^ 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 on 2006-10-27.
* a Maritain, Jacques (1953). The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.
* a b Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-943-0.
* a b c d 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.
* ^ Matson, Wallace I. (1965). The Existence of God, xv–xvii.
* ^ McGrath, Alister (2005). The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. ISBN 0-385-50062-9. Retrieved on 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]
* ^ (2003) Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0-87779-808-7.
* 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 on 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: 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 (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-861186-2.
* ^ Random House (2006). Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, Random House Reference. ISBN 0-375-42599-3.
* ^ Reid, J.P. (1967). "Atheism". New Catholic Encyclopedia: 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 on 2006-10-28.
* Smith, George H. (1990). Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0-87975-124-X. Retrieved on 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.
* 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 on 2006-10-28.
* a b c d Winston, Robert (Ed.) (2004). Human. New York: DK Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-7566-1901-7.

== External links ==

{{wikiquote}}
{{wikibooks}}
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Atheism/ Open Directory: Atheism] - includes links to organizations and websites.
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/ Religion & Ethics - Atheism] at [[bbc.co.uk]].
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/ Secular Web library] -- library of both historical and modern writings, probably the most comprehensive online resource for freely available material on atheism.
* [http://www.positiveatheism.org/tochist.htm Positive atheism: Great Historical Writings] -- historical writing sorted by authors, contains a few items not in the Secular web library.
* [http://www.infography.com/content/409959553931.html Infography about Atheism]
* [http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/critics/critics.html Lion of Judah: Answering atheists] -- large directory of apologetic websites.
* [http://atheism.about.com/ About Atheism] - part of the About.com family of websites, maintained by Austin Cline.

{{Atheism}}
{{Philosophy navigation}}
{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Atheism| ]]

{{Link FA|de}}

[[af:Ateïsme]]
[[ar:إلحاد]]
[[az:Ateizm]]
[[bn:নাস্তিকবাদ]]
[[be:Атэізм]]
[[bs:Ateizam]]
[[br:Dizoueegezh]]
[[bg:Атеизъм]]
[[ca:Ateisme]]
[[cs:Ateismus]]
[[co:Ateisimu]]
[[da:Ateisme]]
[[de:Atheismus]]
[[et:Ateism]]
[[es:Ateísmo]]
[[eo:Ateismo]]
[[eu:Ateismo]]
[[fa:بیخدایی]]
[[fr:Athéisme]]
[[fur:Ateisim]]
[[gd:Neo-dhiadhaireachd]]
[[ko:무신론]]
[[hi:नास्तिकता]]
[[id:Ateisme]]
[[ia:Atheismo]]
[[it:Ateismo]]
[[he:אתאיזם]]
[[jv:Ateisme]]
[[la:Atheismus]]
[[lv:Ateisms]]
[[lb:Atheismus]]
[[lt:Ateizmas]]
[[li:Atheïsme]]
[[lmo:Ateismu]]
[[hu:Ateizmus]]
[[mk:Атеизам]]
[[mt:Ateiżmu]]
[[ms:Ateisme]]
[[nl:Atheïsme]]
[[ja:無神論]]
[[no:Ateisme]]
[[nn:Ateisme]]
[[pl:Ateizm]]
[[pt:Ateísmo]]
[[ro:Ateism]]
[[ru:Атеизм]]
[[sco:Atheism]]
[[sq:Ateizmi]]
[[scn:Ateismu]]
[[simple:Atheism]]
[[sk:Ateizmus]]
[[sl:Ateizem]]
[[sr:Атеизам]]
[[fi:Ateismi]]
[[sv:Ateism]]
[[vi:Thuyết vô thần]]
[[tr:Ateizm]]
[[uk:Атеїзм]]
[[ur:دہریت]]
[[yi:אטעאיזם]]
[[zh:无神论]]

Atheism

2007-03-20T09:16:47Z

Mj:

'''Atheism''' entails, minimally, the disbelief<ref>Various dictionaries give a range of definitions for ''disbelief'', from "lack of belief" to "doubt" and "withholding of belief" to "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial". {{ref harvard|OED-a|Oxford English Dictionary 1989|a}}</ref> in the [[existence of God|existence]] of any [[deity|deities]].<ref>Some dictionary definitions:
*"1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." {{ref harvard|Random House-a|Random House 2006|a}}
*"1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Including the existence of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality." {{ref harvard|AHD|American Heritage Dictionary 2000|none}}
*"1 ''archaic'' : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity" {{ref harvard|Merriam-Webster|Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 2003|none}}</ref> It is contrasted with [[theism]], the belief in a [[God]] or gods. ''Atheism'' is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of [[theism]].<ref>"Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial." {{ref harvard|Britannica-1|Britannica Concise Encyclopædia 2002|none}}</ref><ref>"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." {{ref harvard|Routledge|Routledge 1998|none}}</ref><ref>"Atheism is fundamentally a '''rejection''' of belief in any God. It is more than a simple lack of belief, as children and some members of tribal societies may not believe out of ignorance." {{ref harvard|Lyngzeidetson|Lyngzeidetson 2003|none}}</ref> However, others define ''atheism'' as the simple absence of belief in deities<ref name="BBC">"Atheists are people who do not believe in a god or gods (or other immaterial beings), or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. Some atheists put it more firmly and believe that god or gods do not exist." {{ref harvard|BBC-a|BBC 2006|a}}</ref><ref>"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply 'not believing in any gods.' No claims or denials are made—an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist." {{ref harvard|Cline1-a|Cline 2006a|a}}</ref><ref>"The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief." {{ref harvard|Stein1980|Stein 1980, p. 3|none}}</ref> (cf. [[nontheism]]), thereby designating all [[agnosticism|agnostics]], and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.<ref>{{ref_harvard|d'Holbach-a|d'Holbach 1772|a}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Smith-a|Smith 1979, pp. 13–18|a}}</ref> In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms [[weak and strong atheism|''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).<ref name="martin">"If you look up 'atheism' in a dictionary, you will find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly, many people understand 'atheism' in this way. Yet this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not,' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint, an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist. Still, there is a popular dictionary meaning of 'atheism' according to which an atheist is not simply one who holds no belief in the existence of God or gods but is one who believes that there is no God or gods. This dictionary use of the term should not be overlooked. To avoid confusion, let us call it ''positive atheism'' and let us call the type of atheism derived from the original Greek roots ''negative atheism''." {{ref_harvard|Martin2-a|Martin 2007, p. 1|a}}</ref><ref>{{ref harvard|Cline2-a|Cline 2006b|a}}</ref><ref name="winston">"Atheism is commonly divided into 'weak' and 'strong.' Weak atheists have no faith, simply because the feeling is not there. Strong atheists conclude, from existing evidence and arguments, that gods do not exist." {{ref_harvard|Winston|Winston 2004, p. 299|a}}</ref>

Many [[self-concept|self-described]] atheists share common [[scientific skepticism|skeptical]] concerns regarding [[supernatural]] claims, citing a lack of [[empiricism|empirical]] evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although atheists tend toward [[secularism|secular]] philosophies such as [[humanism]], [[rationalist movement|rationalism]], and [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], there is no one [[ideology]] or set of behaviors that all atheists adhere to.<ref>{{ref harvard|Martin2-b|Martin 2007, pp. 122–131|b}}</ref><ref>"The atheist's rejection of belief in God is usually accompanied by a broader rejection of any [[supernatural]] or [[transcendence (religion)|transcendental]] reality. For example, an atheist does not usually believe in the existence of immortal [[soul]]s, [[afterlife|life after death]], [[ghost]]s, or supernatural powers. Although strictly speaking an atheist could believe in any of these things and still remain an atheist... the arguments and ideas that sustain atheism tend naturally to rule out other beliefs in the supernatural or transcendental." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-a|Baggini 2003, pp. 3–4|a}}</ref><ref>"Neither atheism nor agnosticism is a full belief system, because they have no fundamental philosophy or lifestyle requirements. These forms of thought are simply the absence of belief in, or denial of, the existence of deities." {{ref_harvard|Winston-b|Winston 2004, p. 299|b}}</ref>

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be [[irreligion|irreligious]] or non-spiritual.<ref name="britannica">"Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in 'spiritual beings,' and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief." {{ref harvard|Britannica|Encyclopædia Britannica 1992|none}}</ref> However, some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of [[God in Buddhism|Buddhism]], have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of ''atheism'' due to their lack of any participating deities.<ref name="winston2">"Nonbelief has existed for centuries. For example, Buddhism and Jainism have been called atheistic religions because they do not advocate belief in gods." {{ref_harvard|Winston-c|Winston 2004, p. 299|c}}</ref><ref>"Lots of people in the West misunderstand Buddhism, especially it's [sic] general lack of any divine figures. They don't realize that, for many, Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion. People in the West are accustomed to religions all being theistic, so the idea of an atheistic religion is almost incomprehensible." {{ref_harvard|Cline3-a|Cline 2005|a}}</ref> Atheism is also sometimes equated with [[antitheism]] (opposition to theism) or [[antireligion]] (opposition to religion), despite many atheists not holding such views.<ref>"As someone who is reasonably familiar with atheist literature, I am not aware of anyone who identifies themselves as an 'antitheist.'... I suspect (though I cannot prove) that the real reason [[Ravi Zacharias|Zacharias]] prefers the word 'antitheist' is because of its negative connotations." {{ref_harvard|Lowder2|Lowder 2000|none}}</ref>

==Etymology==
In early [[Ancient Greek]], the adjective ''atheos'' (from [[privative a|privative α-]] + θεος "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the [[5th Century BC|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.<ref>"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 ''atheos'' and ''atheotes''; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, ''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_harvard|Drachmann|Drachmann 1922, pg. 5|none}}</ref>

In [[English language|English]], the term ''atheism'' was adopted from the [[French language|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 language|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 language|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.<ref>The ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' 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. {{ref harvard|OED-b|Oxford English Dictionary 1989|b}}</ref>

Originally simply used as a [[term of disparagement|slur]] for "godlessness",<ref>{{ref_harvard|Armstrong-a|Armstrong 1999|a}}</ref> ''atheism'' was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]].<ref name="adevism">In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, ''atheism'' is often 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 [[polytheism|polytheistic]] deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term ''[[adevism]]'' was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in plural deities. {{ref_harvard|Britannica-2|Encyclopædia Britannica 1910|none}}</ref> 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 is sometimes contested by theists.<ref>"There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means."{{ref harvard|Cline1-b|Cline 2006a|b}}</ref>

==Types and typologies of atheism==
Many writers have disagreed on how best to define ''atheism'', and much of the literature on the subject is contradictory. 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===
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 [[monotheism|singular]] [[personal God]], for example, people who believe in a variety of other deities may be classified as atheists, including [[deism|deists]] and even [[polytheism|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 religion|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.<ref name="adevism"/><ref>"The concept of atheism was developed historically in the context of Western monotheistic religions, and it still has its clearest application in this area." {{ref_harvard|Martin2-c|Martin 2007, p. 1|c}}</ref>

A problematic consequence of the broader redefinition of ''theism'' is that atheism can be seen as disbelief in almost anything; many [[pantheism|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.<ref>Atheist philosopher Wallace I. Matson distinguishes ''deity'' from ''God'', where ''deity'' refers to "personal, superhuman active and powerful intelligence, while ''God'' refers to "infinite Being—infinite in the respects of knowledge and wisdom, power and goodness." However, distinctions between these terms are uncommon and often inconsistent with each other. {{ref_harvard|Matson|Matson 1965, pp. xv–xvii|none}}</ref> 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",<ref name="BBC"/> rejection of the [[supernatural]] world altogether, or simply as [[irreligion]].<ref name="britannica"/> However, god-centered definitions of atheism remain more common.

===Pejorative definition: atheism as immorality===
{{further|[[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.

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 1953 typology of atheism proved influential in Catholic circles;<ref>{{ref_harvard|Maritain-a|Maritain 1953|a}}</ref> it was followed in the ''New Catholic Encyclopedia''.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Reid|Reid 1967|none}}</ref> He identified, in addition to practical atheism, ''pseudo-atheism'' and ''absolute atheism'', and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Antony Flew.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Smith-b|Smith 1979|b}}</ref>

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>{{ref_harvard|Borne-a|Borne 1961, p. 10|a}}</ref> [[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."<ref>{{ref_harvard|Armstrong-b|Armstrong 1999|b}}</ref>

On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason his or her 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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Borne-b|Borne 1961, p. 18|b}}</ref>

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 ''[[secularism|secularist]]'', ''[[empiricism|empiricist]]'', ''[[agnosticism|agnostic]]'', or ''[[Brights movement|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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Berman1982|Berman 1982|none}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Berman1983|Berman 1983|none}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Berman1990|Berman 1990|none}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Gaskin|Gaskin 1989, p. 4|none}}</ref> However, many atheists persist in using the term and seek to change its connotations.<ref>[[Charles Bradlaugh]] once said, in debate with [[George Holyoake]] on March 10, 1870, "I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie. I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect... I do not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word Atheist, I would fight until men respect it." {{ref_harvard|Bradlaugh Bonner|Bradlaugh Bonner 1908, p. 334|none}}</ref>

In modern times, atheism continues to be conflated with such beliefs as [[communism]], [[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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Chambers|Chambers Dictionary 2003|none}}</ref> 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 [[misotheism|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 [[irrationality|irrational]] (cf. [[faith and rationality]]).<ref>"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an [[antitheism|antitheist]]; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." {{ref_harvard|Hitchens|Hitchens 2001|none}}</ref> A related stance is ''militant atheism'', which is generally characterized by [[antireligion|antireligious]] views.<ref>"Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-b|Baggini 2003, pp. 101–104|b}}</ref>

===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 (philosopher)|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 (philosopher)|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.<ref>"Some writers on this topic take the term 'atheism' to refer merely to a lack of theistic belief. That would be a kind of catch-all use of the term. Atheism would then include not only the view that "God exists" expresses a false proposition, but also noncognitivism, general agnosticism, and cognitivist agnosticism. Not only would such a definition blur and neglect all those distinctions, but it would also be a departure from the most common use of the term 'atheism' in English. For these reasons, it is an inferior definition. For a word to represent the lack of theistic belief, I recommend 'nontheism' for that purpose. It is a word that does not already have some other use in ordinary language." {{ref_harvard|Drange|Drange 2005|none}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{ref harvard|Cline1-c|Cline 2006a|c}}</ref>

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.<ref>"The works cited below are all specialized reference materials, designed not to provide general information for a general audience but, rather, information on specific topics like religion, sociology, or other social sciences. Their value here is in the fact that they provide some insight into what scholars from different specialized fields think of when it comes to the concept of atheism. As you will see, very often they use the broader understanding of atheism rather than the narrower one we sometimes encounter." {{ref harvard|Cline1-d|Cline 2006a|d}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{ref_harvard|Nagel|Nagel 1965, pp. 460–461|none}}</ref>

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 (philosophy)|naturalism]] in order to emphasize the explanatory power of a non-supernatural worldview.<ref>"The strength of modern atheism is that it is founded more upon positive atheism than negative; rather than just a rejection of contemporary religious beliefs, modern atheism offers a seemingly complete philosophy of the world around us. The contemporary atheist not only sees much that is dubious in Christianity, but sees much that is redundant and just less satisfying than what is provided by modern education, science, anthropology and material culture." {{ref_harvard|Moyle|Moyle 1996|none}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Baggini-c|Baggini 2003, pp. 7–10|c}}</ref> Harbour,<ref>{{ref_harvard|Harbour|Harbour 2001|none}}</ref> Thrower,<ref>"Much atheism... can be understood only in the light of the current theism which it was concerned to reject. Such atheism is relative. There is, however, a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world, whose origins... can be seen as early as the beginnings of speculative thought itself, and which I shall call naturalistic, that is atheistic per se, in the sense that it is incompatible with any and every form of supernaturalism... naturalistic or absolute atheism is both fundamentally more important, and more interesting, representing as it does one polarity in the development of the human spirit." {{ref_harvard|Thrower|Thrower 1971, pp. 3–4|none)}}</ref> and Nielsen, similarly, have used philosophical naturalism to make a positive argument for atheism. [[Michael Martin (philosopher)|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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|Martin-a|Martin 1990, p. 470|a}}</ref>

===Negative definition: atheism as the absence of belief in deities===
{{further|[[Nontheism]], [[Implicit and explicit atheism]], [[Weak and strong atheism]]}}
Among modern atheists, the view that atheism simply means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Krueger|Krueger 1998|none}}</ref> This very broad definition is often justified by reference to the etymology (cf. [[privative a]]),<ref name="martin"/><ref>"If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God." {{ref_harvard|Martin-b|Martin 1990, p. 463|b}}</ref> as well as to the consistent usage of the word by atheists.<ref>{{ref harvard|Cline1-c|Cline 2006a|c}}</ref> However, others have dismissed the former justification as an [[etymological fallacy]] and the latter on the grounds that majority usage outweighs minority usage.<ref>"This is evident in its very name—atheism is a-theism: the negation of theistic belief.... I think this view is profoundly mistaken. Its initial plausibility is based on a very crude piece of flawed reasoning we can call the [[etymological fallacy]]. This is the mistake of thinking that one can best understand what a word means by understanding its origin." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-d|Baggini 2003, p. 7|d}}</ref>

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".<ref>{{ref_harvard|d'Holbach-b|d'Holbach 1772|b}}</ref> More recently, science fiction author George H. Smith (1979) put forth a similar view:

<blockquote>"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>{{ref_harvard|Smith-c|Smith 1979, p. 14|c}}</ref></blockquote>

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, although strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge that no deities exist.<ref>Although most strong atheists rarely do not claim certainty of the nonexistence of deities or the supernatural, ''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.</ref> 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).<ref name="winston"/><ref>{{ref_harvard|Cline2-b|Cline 2006a|b}}</ref> 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<ref>{{ref_harvard|Flew1972|Flew 1972|none}}</ref> 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>

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 theism|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".<ref>"When people say that atheism is a faith position, what they tend to think is that, since there is no proof for atheism, something extra—faith—is required to justify belief in it. But this is simply to misunderstand the role of proof in the justification for belief.... A lack of proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief. This is because when we have a lack of absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is far superior to the alternatives." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-e|Baggini 2003, pp. 30–34|e}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |title=Atheism and Agnosticism |first=J.C.C. |last=Smart |year=2004 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

==History==
{{main|History of atheism}}
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, beginning in the 6th century BC with the rise of [[Jainism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[atheism in Hinduism|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 [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]].<ref>"Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-f|Baggini 2003, pp. 73–74|f}}</ref> 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 God|personal deity]].

Atheists have been subject to significant [[persecution of atheists|persecution]] and [[discrimination against atheists|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 [[Trial of Socrates|sentenced to death]] for [[impiety]] on the grounds that he inspired questioning of the [[state religion|state gods]].<ref>[[Plato]]. ''[[Apology]]''.[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology]</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/A/atheism.html |title=Atheism (Philosophy, Terms and Concepts) |accessdate=2006-10-26 |publisher=AllRefer.com}}</ref> During the late [[Roman Empire]], many Christians were executed for "atheism" because of their rejection of the Roman gods, and "[[Christian heresy|heresy]]" and "godlessness" were serious capital offenses following the rise of Christianity.

Atheistic sentiment was virtually unknown in medieval Europe, but flourished in the [[empiricism|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 [[deism|deists]], scientists, and materialists.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Armstrong-c|Armstrong 1999|c}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|d'Holbach1770|d'Holbach 1770|none}}</ref> Following the [[French Revolution]], atheism rose to prominence under the influence of [[rationalism|rationalistic]] and [[freethought|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]]").<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/religious_criticism.htm |title=A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization |accessdate=2006-10-26 |last=Price |first=Geoff |year=2005}}</ref><ref>"Western atheism, as a movement opposing religion, developed in the 19th century, and became widely accepted by intellectuals." {{ref_harvard|Winston-d|Winston 2004, p. 299|d}}</ref>

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 (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]], [[secular humanism]], [[nihilism]], [[relativism]], [[logical positivism]], [[Marxism]], [[feminism]],<ref>{{ref_harvard|Martin2-d|Martin 2007, pp. 233–246|d}}</ref> and the general [[science|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 state]]s", such as the [[Soviet Union]], promoted [[state atheism]] 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></blockquote> [[Enver Hoxha]] went further than most and officially banned religion, declaring [[Albania]] the world's first Atheist state. 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.<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>

Other [[list of atheists|notable atheists]] in recent times have included comedian [[Woody Allen]],<ref name="Haught">Haught, James A. (1996). ''2,000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People with the Courage to Doubt''. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-067-3.</ref> biologist [[Richard Dawkins]],<ref>Dawkins, Richard (2002). "[http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm Positiveatheism.org A Challenge To Atheists: Come Out of the Closet]", '''in''' ''Free Inquiry''.</ref> actress [[Katharine Hepburn]],<ref>''[[Ladies' Home Journal]]'', October 1991.[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/2003_06_29.htm]</ref> author [[Douglas Adams]],<ref>Silverman, David. "[http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Interview with Douglas Adams]", '''in''' ''The American Atheist'' Volume 37 No. 1.</ref> philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]],<ref>[[Bertrand Russell|Russell, Bertrand]] (1967). ''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects''. ISBN 0-671-20323-1.</ref> dictator [[Joseph Stalin]],<ref>Yaroslavsky, E. (1940). ''Landmarks in the Life of Stalin''. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.</ref> and activist [[Margaret Sanger]].<ref name="Haught"/>

==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, [[Discrimination of atheists|discrimination]], and [[persecution of atheists|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%.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html
|title=Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-1995
|publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica
|accessdate=2006-03-05
}}</ref>

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the ''[[Mensa International|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 (journal)|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.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
|title=Leading scientists still reject God
|publisher=Nature
|accessdate=2006-12-17
}}</ref>

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%). In France, 32% declared themselves to be atheists, with an additional 32% declaring themselves [[agnostic]].<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
|accessdate=2007-01-17
}}</ref>

==Atheist organizations==
Noteworthy organizations that are atheistic or have atheistic sympathies include:

{|width=100%
|-valign=top
|width=50%|
* [[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]]

|width=50%|
* [[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]]
* [[Society of Ontario Freethinkers]]
* [[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|Atheism and religion|Secular ethics}}

Although people who self-identify as being atheists are almost invariably assumed to be [[irreligion|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]], [[God in Buddhism|in Buddhism]], and in other Eastern religions has an especially long history,<ref name="winston2"/><ref>"Traditional Buddhism has taught that either there are no gods or, if there are, they aren't worth bothering with—but people being people, gods have been added to Buddhist practice over the centuries. They aren't creator gods like we find in western religion, but they are gods nonetheless. Not all Buddhists are atheists, but there are quite a few." {{ref_harvard|Cline3-b|Cline 2005|b}}</ref> but in recent years certain [[liberal religion|liberal]] religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as [[atheist Jew|Jewish atheists]] (cf. [[humanistic Judaism]])<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/humanistic.shtml |title=Humanistic Judaism |accessdate=2006-10-25 |publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Levin|Levin 1995|none}}</ref> and Christian atheists (cf. [[Unitarian Universalism]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml |title=Christian Atheism |accessdate=2006-10-25 |publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Altizer|Altizer 1996, pp. 102–103|none}}</ref><ref>{{ref_harvard|Lyas|Lyas 1970|none}}</ref>

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.<ref>"To view atheism as a way of life, whether beneficial or harmful, is false and misleading. Just as the failure to believe in magic elves does not entail a code of living or a set of principles, so the failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system. ''From the mere fact that a person is an atheist, one cannot infer that this person subscribes to any particular positive beliefs''. One's positive convictions are quite distinct from the subject of atheism. While one may begin with a basic philosophical position and infer atheism as a consequence of it, this process cannot be reversed." {{ref_harvard|Smith-d|Smith 1979, pp. 21–22|d}}</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>"One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of nature: there is no secular basis for morality." {{ref_harvard|Harris2006a|Harris 2006a|a}}</ref><ref>"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_harvard|Smith-e|Smith 1979, p. 275|e}}</ref> Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as [[divine law]]s, 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,<ref>"One can have immoral laws as well as moral ones. What is required for just laws is for the legislature and judiciary to act within the confines of morality. Morality is thus... the basis upon which just laws are enacted and enforced; it is not constituted by the laws themselves." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-g|Baggini 2003, p. 38|g}}</ref> based on the [[Euthyphro dilemma]], which either renders God unnecessary or morality arbitrary.<ref>"The Euthypryo dilemma is a very powerful argument against the idea that God is required for morality. Indeed, it goes further and shows that God cannot be the source of morality without morality becoming something arbitrary." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-h|Baggini 2003, p. 39|h}}</ref> Some atheists also assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior, merely blind obedience.<ref>"More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. The person who doesn't steal only because they fear they will be caught is not a moral person, merely a prudent one. The truly moral person is the one who has the opportunity to steal without being caught but still does not do so." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-i|Baggini 2003, p. 40|i}}</ref>

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.<ref>"It is easy for the religious believer to think that they can avoid choice just by listening to the advice of their holy men (it is usually men) and sacred texts. But since adopting this attitude can lead to suicide bombings, bigotry, and other moral wrongs, it should be obvious that it does not absolve one of moral responsibility. So although the idea of individuals making moral choices for themselves may sound unpalatable to those used to thinking about morality deriving from a single authority, none of us can avoid making such choices." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-j|Baggini 2003, p. 43|j}}</ref>

Atheists such as [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]] have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to [[authoritarianism]] and [[dogma]]tism.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Harris2006b|Harris 2006a|b}}</ref> This argument, combined with historical events which are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the [[inquisition]]s and [[witch trial]]s, is often used by [[antireligion|antireligious]] atheists to justify their views;<ref>"In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree." {{ref_harvard|Harris|Harris 2005|none}}</ref> however, theists have made very similar arguments against atheists based on the [[state atheism]] of [[communist state]]s.<ref>{{ref_harvard|McGrath|McGrath 2005|none}}</ref> In both cases, critics argue that the connection is a weak one based on the [[correlation does not imply causation|correlation implies causation]] and [[association fallacy|guilt by association]] fallacies.

Other individuals from within the atheist community have criticized the movement's inability to find a secular basis of morality outside of the supernatural and hypothetical. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] sums this failure in his famous [[God is dead]] quote. He complains that one arbitrary basis of morality (divine mandate) is replaced by another arbitrary basis. In essence, all moral philosophies share the same strengths and failures.

==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===
[[Science]] is based on the observation that the universe is governed by [[natural law]]s that can be discerned through repeatable experiments. Science serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions and engineering (cf. [[faith and rationality]], [[relationship between religion and science|science and religion]]). Like [[scientist]]s, [[scientific skepticism|scientific skeptic]]s use [[critical thinking]] (cf. the [[true-believer syndrome]]) to decide claims, and do not base claims on faith or other [[falsifiability|unfalsifiable]] categories. 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.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0504/public.html | title=The Public Square | author=Richard John Neuhaus|journal=[[First Things]] | issue=152 | pages=57-72 | date=April 2005 | accessdate=2006-12-03}}</ref>

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]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm |title=Why Atheism? |first=Mark |last=Thomas |publisher=Atheists of Silicon Valley}}</ref>

Anthropologists consider religions to be [[social construction|social construct]]s (see [[development of religion]]) that should be analyzed with an unbiased, historical viewpoint. Atheists often argue that nearly all cultures have their own [[origin belief|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.<ref>"Atheism also has great explanatory power when it comes to the existence of divergent religious beliefs. The best explanation for the fact that different religious people believe different things about God and the universe throughout the world is that religion is a human construct that does not correspond to any metaphysical reality. The alternative is that many religions exist but only one (or a few) are true." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-k|Baggini 2003, p. 29|k}}</ref>

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:

<blockquote>"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 [[creationism|creationists]] on firm [[empiricism|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 [[logic]]al philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are [[Hume's fork|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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://psy.ucsd.edu/~eebbesen/Psych110/SciRelig.htm |title=Personal Gods, Deism, & the Limits of Skepticism |accessdate=2006-03-05}}</ref></blockquote>

===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.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Flew1984b|Flew 1984b|none}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism_2.htm |title=What is Atheism?: Narrow vs. Broad Definitions of Atheism |accessdate=2006-10-21 |last=Cline |first=Austin |year=2006 |publisher=[[about.com]]}}</ref> 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 argument|ontological]], [[cosmological argument|cosmological]], and [[teleological argument|teleological]] arguments.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ |title=Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages |accessdate=2006-03-05}}</ref>

Other atheists base their position on a more active logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. The [[existence of God#Arguments against the existence of God|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."<ref>{{Cite book | last=Craig | first=William Lane | year=2003 | authorlink=William Lane Craig | coauthors=Walter Sinnott-Armstrong | title=God? | publisher=Oxford University Press | pages=p. 112 | id=ISBN 0195165993}}</ref> 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 positivism|logical positivists]] such as [[Rudolph Carnap]] and [[A.J. Ayer]], who held that talk of deities is literally [[nonsense]].<ref>{{ref_harvard|Ayer|Ayer 1966, pp. 226–228|none}}</ref> Such arguments have since fallen into disfavor among philosophers, but continue to see use among ''[[ignosticism|ignostics]]'', who view the question of whether deities exist as meaningless or unanswerable, and ''[[apatheism|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 [[transcendental argument for the existence of God|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 [[supernatural]]ly. 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 morally and [[Development of religion#Religions as social construction|socially acceptable]].

Some atheists dislike the restrictions religious codes of conduct place on their personal [[liberty|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., [[religious war|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 (religion)|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 experience]]s, 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.

Some atheists argue that religion's emphasis on "faith" can undermine the desire to continually seek new knowledge and explanations.<ref>Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion</ref> For example, if it is accepted that God created life, then there is no need to research how life arose. Stephen Hawking noted in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the Pope urged him and other scientists not to delve into the origin of the universe because that area belonged to God.

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|Criticism of atheism}}

The most direct criticisms made against atheism are [[existence of God#Arguments for the existence of God|claims that a god exists]] and thus are 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]].<ref>{{ref_harvard|Cudworth|Cudworth 1678|none}}</ref> It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists will readily make [[deathbed conversion]]s or that "there are no [[atheists in foxholes]]". This view has fallen into disfavor among most philosophers of religion.<ref>{{ref_harvard|Lowder1|Lowder 1997|none}}</ref>

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 [[faith#religious faith|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]];<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 fact that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven with complete certainty does not make it equally [[probability|likely]] that God does or doesn't exist.<ref>"People say that, since the atheist can never know for sure that there is no life after death, for example, it is foolish for them to not believe in it. At best they should suspend belief and be agnostic.... But this policy would be reckless, since to apply it consistently you would also have to be agnostic about any issue on which there was a possibility that you could be wrong, because there is no absolute certainty and it is possible that evidence might arise to show you are wrong. But who seriously claims we should say 'I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope is a robot', or 'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turn me into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any good reasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-l|Baggini 2003, p. 22|l}}</ref>

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]]).<ref name="misconceptions"/><ref>"Perhaps the most common criticism of atheism is the claim that it leads inevitably to moral bankruptcy." {{ref_harvard|Smith-f|Smith 1979, p. 275|f}}</ref> It is also argued that atheism makes life [[meaning of life|meaningless]] and miserable; [[Blaise Pascal]] made this argument in 1670.<ref>[[Blaise Pascal|Pascal, Blaise]] (1670). ''[[Pensées]]''.</ref> Atheists generally dismiss these arguments as [[appeal to consequences|appeals to consequences]] with no bearing on whether God actually exists, and many disagree that atheism leads to amorality or misery, or argue that in fact the opposite is the case.<ref>"Many people think that atheists believe there is no God ''and'' no morality; or no God ''and'' no meaning to life; or again no God ''and'' no human goodness." {{ref_harvard|Baggini-m|Baggini 2003, p. 3|m}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html|title=The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism |accessdate=2006-03-05 }}</ref>

==Footnotes and citations==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

==References==
{|width=100%
|-valign=top
|width=50%|
<div class="references-small">
*{{note_label|Altizer|Altizer 1967|none}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|Ayer|Ayer 1966|none}}{{cite journal
| last = Ayer
| first = Alfred Jules
| authorlink = Alfred Ayer
| year = 1967
| month = August
| title = What I Believe
| journal = Humanist
| volume = 81
| issue = 8
| pages = 226–228
| url = http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523
| accessdate = 2006-10-27}}
*{{note_label|AHD|American Heritage Dictionary 2000|none}}{{cite book
| title = [[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]]
| edition = Fourth Edition
| year = 2000
| publisher = [[Houghton Mifflin]]
| id = 0395825172}}
*{{note_label|Armstrong-a|Armstrong 1999|a}}{{note_label|Armstrong-b|Armstrong 1999|b}}{{note_label|Armstrong-c|Armstrong 1999|c}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|Baggini-a|Baggini 2003, pp. 3–4|a}}{{note_label|Baggini-b|Baggini 2003, pp. 101–104|b}}{{note_label|Baggini-c|Baggini 2003, pp. 7–10|c}}{{note_label|Baggini-d|Baggini 2003, p. 7|d}}{{note_label|Baggini-e|Baggini 2003, pp. 30–34|e}}{{note_label|Baggini-f|Baggini 2003, pp. 73–74|f}}{{note_label|Baggini-g|Baggini 2003, p. 38|g}}{{note_label|Baggini-h|Baggini 2003, p. 39|h}}{{note_label|Baggini-i|Baggini 2003, p. 40|i}}{{note_label|Baggini-j|Baggini 2003, p. 43|j}}{{note_label|Baggini-k|Baggini 2003, p. 29|k}}{{note_label|Baggini-l|Baggini 2003, p. 22|l}}{{note_label|Baggini-m|Baggini 2003, p. 3|m}}{{cite book
| 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}}
*{{note_label|BBC-a|BBC 2006|a}}{{cite web
| author = BBC
| authorlink = BBC
| title = Ethics and Religion - Atheism
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/
| accessdate = 2006-10-22
| publisher = [[bbc.co.uk]]}}
*{{note_label|Berman1982|Berman 1982|none}}{{cite journal
| last = Berman
| first = David
| year = 1982
| title = The Repressive Denials of Atheism in Britain in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
| journal = Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy
| volume = 82c
| issue = 9
| pages = 211–246}}
*{{note_label|Berman1983|Berman 1983|none}}{{cite journal
| last = Berman
| first = David
| year = 1983
| month = July
| title = David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism
| journal = Journal of the History of Philosophy
| volume = 21
| issue = 3
| pages = 375–387}}
*{{note_label|Berman1990|Berman 1990|none}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|Borne-a|Borne 1961, p. 10|a}}{{note_label|Borne-b|Borne 1961, p. 18|b}}{{cite book
| last = Borne
| first = Étienne
| title = Atheism
| year = 1961
| publisher = New York: Hawthorn Books
| id = ISBN 0-415-04727-7}}
*{{note_label|Bradlaugh Bonner|Bradlaugh Bonner 1908, p. 338|none}}{{cite book
| last = Bradlaugh Bonner
| first = Hypatia
| title = Charles Bradlaugh: A record of his life and work
| year = 1908
| publisher = London: T. Fisher Unwin
| page = 334}}
*{{note_label|Britannica-1|Britannica Concise Encyclopædia 2002|none}}{{cite book
| author = Britannica
| title = Britannica Concise Encyclopædia
| url = http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356044
| accessdate = 2006-10-27
| year = 2002
| publisher = Encyclopedia Britannica Corp
| id = ISBN 0-85229-832-3}}
*{{note_label|Britannica-2|Encyclopædia Britannica 1910|none}}{{cite journal
| author = Britannica
| title = Atheonism
| journal = [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]
| edition = 11th Edition
| year = 1911}}
*{{note_label|Britannica|Encyclopædia Britannica 1992|none}}{{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 = [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]
| edition = 15th Edition
| volume = 1
| pages = 666
| year = 1992
| id = 0852294735}}
*{{cite book
| last = Buckley
| first = M. J.
| title = At the origins of modern atheism
| year = 1987
| publisher = New Haven, CT: Yale University Press}}
*{{note_label|Chambers|Chambers Dictionary 2003|none}}{{cite book
| title = [[Chambers Dictionary]]
| edition = Ninth Edition
| year = 2003}}
*{{note_label|Cline3-a|Cline 2005|a}}{{note_label|Cline3-b|Cline 2005|b}}{{cite web
| last = Cline
| first = Austin
| title = Buddhism and Atheism
| url = http://atheism.about.com/b/a/220595.htm Buddhism and Atheism
| accessdate = 2006-10-21
| year = 2005
| publisher = [[about.com]]}}
*{{note_label|Cline1-a|Cline 2006a|a}}{{note_label|Cline1-b|Cline 2006a|b}}{{note_label|Cline1-c|Cline 2006a|c}}{{note_label|Cline1-d|Cline 2006a|d}}{{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 = [[about.com]]}}
*{{note_label|Cline2-a|Cline 2006b|a}}{{note_label|Cline2-b|Cline 2006b|b}}{{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 = [[about.com]]}}
*{{note_label|Cudworth|Cudworth 1678|none}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|d'Holbach-a|d'Holbach 1772|a}}{{note_label|d'Holbach-b|d'Holbach 1772|b}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|d'Holbach1770|d'Holbach 1770|none}}{{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}}
*{{cite book
| last = de Mornay
| first = Philippe
| authorlink = Philippe de Mornay
| title = A woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists
| publisher = London
| year = 1587}}
*{{note_label|Drachmann|Drachmann 1922, pg. 5|none}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|Drange|Drange 2005|none}}{{cite web
| last = Drange
| first = Theodore M.
| title = On Defending Atheism
| url = http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/defending.html
| accessdate = 2006-03-05
| year = 2005}}
*{{cite book
| last = Everitt
| first = Nicholas
| title = The Non-Existence of God: An Introduction
| publisher = London: Routledge
| year = 2004
| id = ISBN 0-415-30107-6}}
*{{cite journal
| last = Lovgren
| first = Stefan
| year = 2004
| month = October
| title = Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
| journal = National Geographic
| url = http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html
| accessdate = 2006-10-27}}
*{{cite book
| last = Flew
| first = Antony
| authorlink = Antony Flew
| title = God and Philosophy
| publisher = London: Hutchinson & Co.
| year = 1966}}
*{{note_label|Flew1972|Flew 1972|none}}{{cite journal
| last = Flew
| first = Antony
| authorlink = Antony Flew
| year = 1972
| title = The Presumption of Atheism
| journal = Canadian Journal of Philosophy
| issue = 2
| pages = 29–46}}
*{{cite book
| last = Flew
| first = Antony
| authorlink = Antony Flew
| title = God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis
| publisher = Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
| year = 1984a
| id = ISBN 0-87975-127-4}}
*{{note_label|Flew1984b|Flew 1984b|none}}{{cite book
| last = Flew
| first = Antony
| authorlink = Antony Flew
| title = The Presumption of Atheism
| publisher = Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
| year = 1984b
| url = http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm
| accessdate = 2006-10-27}}
*{{note_label|Gaskin|Gaskin 1989, p. 3|none}}{{cite book
| 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}}
*{{note_label|Harbour|Harbour 2001|none}}{{cite book
| last = Harbour
| first = Daniel
| title = [[An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism]]
| publisher = London: Duckworth
| id = ISBN 0-7156-3229-9}}
*{{note_label|Harris|Harris 2005|none}}{{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 = [[Truthdig]]
| year = 2005}}
*{{note_label|Harris2006a|Harris 2006a|a}}{{note_label|Harris2006b|Harris 2006a|b}}{{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 = [[Free Inquiry]]
| year = 2006a}}
*{{note_label|Harris2006-2a|Harris 2006b|a}}{{cite web
| last = Harris
| first = Sam
| authorlink = Sam Harris (author)
| title = 10 myths—and 10 truths—about atheism
| url = http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,2719494.story?page=1&track=mostviewed-storylevel
| accessdate = 2007-02-13
| publisher = [[Los Angeles Times]]
| year = 2006b}}
*{{note_label|Hitchens|Hitchens 2001|none}}{{cite book
| last = Hitchens
| first = Christopher
| authorlink = Christopher Hitchens
| title = Letters to a Young Contrarian
| publisher = New York: Basic Books
| year = 2001
| url = http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-12hitchens-excerpt.html
| accessdate = 2006-10-27
| id = ISBN 0-465-03032-7}}
*{{note_label|Krueger|Krueger 1998|none}}{{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}}

|width=50%|
<div class="references-small">
*{{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}}
*{{note_label|Levin|Levin 1995|none}}{{cite journal
| last = Levin
| first = S.
| year = 1995
| month = May
| title = Jewish Atheism
| journal = New Humanist
| volume = 110
| issue = 2
| pages = 13–15}}
*{{note_label|Lowder1|Lowder 1997|none}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|Lowder2|Lowder 2000|none}}{{cite web
| last=Lowder
| first=Jeffery Jay
| year=2000
| title=An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism
| url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/zacharias.html
| accessdate=2007-01-09}}
*{{note_label|Lyas|Lyas 1970|none}}{{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}}
*{{note_label|Lyngzeidetson|Lyngzeidetson 2003|none}}{{cite book
| last = Lyngzeidetson
| first = Albert
| title = [[Comparative religion|Comparative Religions]]: A Guide to World Religions
| publisher = [[QuickStudy]]: BarCharts, Inc
| year = 2003
| id = ISBN 1-57222-744-3}}
*{{cite book
| last = Mackie
| first = J. L.
| title = The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God
| publisher = Oxford: Oxford University Press
| year = 1982
| url = http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm
| accessdate = 2006-10-27
| id = ISBN 0-19-824682-X}}
*{{note_label|Maritain-a|Maritain 1953|a}}{{cite book
| last = Maritain
| first = Jacques
| title = The Range of Reason
| publisher = London: Geoffrey Bles
| year = 1953
| url = http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range.htm
| accessdate = 2006-10-27}}
*{{note_label|Martin-a|Martin 1990, p. 470|a}}{{note_label|Martin-b|Martin 1990, p. 463|b}}{{cite book
| last = Martin
| first = Michael
| title = Atheism: A philosophical justification
| publisher = Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press
| year = 1990
| id = ISBN 0-87722-943-0}}
*{{note_label|Martin2-a|Martin 2007, p. 1|a}}{{note_label|Martin2-b|Martin 2007, pp. 122–131|b}}{{note_label|Martin2-c|Martin 2007, p. 1|c}}{{note_label|Martin2-d|Martin 2007, pp. 233&ndsah;246|d}}{{cite book
| last = Martin
| first = Michael (Ed.)
| title = The Cambridge Companion to Atheism
| publisher = Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
| year = 2007
| id = ISBN 0-521-60367-6}}
*Martin, Michael & Monnier, R. (Eds.) (2003). ''The impossibility of God''. New York: Prometheus.
*{{note_label|Matson|Matson 1965, pp. xv–xvii|none}}{{cite book
| last = Matson
| first = Wallace I.
| title = The Existence of God
| year = 1965
| pages = xv–xvii}}
*{{note_label|McGrath|McGrath 2005|none}}{{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}}
*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]
*{{note_label|Merriam-Webster|Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 2003|none}}{{cite book
| title = [[Webster's Dictionary|Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]]
| edition = 11th Edition
| year = 2003
| publisher = Merriam-Webster
| id = ISBN 0-87779-808-7}}
*{{cite book
| last = Mills
| first = David
| title = [[Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It]]
| year = 2004
| publisher = [[Xlibris]]
| id = ISBN 1-4134-3481-9}}
*{{note_label|Moyle|Moyle 1996|none}}{{cite web
| last = Moyle
| first = Kenneth
| title = Atheism Defended
| url = http://kenneth.moyle.com/aa/atheism1.htm
| accessdate = 2006-10-27
| year = 1996
| publisher = Atheists Anonymous}}
*{{cite book
| last = Müller
| first = Friedrich Max
| authorlink = Max Müller
| title = Natural Religion: The Gifford Lectures, 1888
| year = 1889
| publisher = London: Longmans, Green and Co}}
*{{note_label|Nagel|Nagel 1965, pp. 460–461|none}}{{cite journal
| last = Nagel
| first = Ernest
| title = A Defence of Atheism
| journal = A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and contemporary sources
| publisher = New York: Free Press
| pages = 460–472
| year = 1965}}
*{{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
| publisher = New York: Prometheus}}
*{{note_label|OED-a|Oxford English Dictionary 1989|a}}{{note_label|OED-b|Oxford English Dictionary 1989|b}}{{cite book
| title = [[Oxford English Dictionary|The Oxford English Dictionary]]
| edition = Second Edition
| year = 1989
| publisher = Oxford University Press, USA
| id = ISBN 0-19-861186-2}}
*{{note_label|Random House|Random House 2006|none}}{{cite book
| author = Random House
| title = [[Random House Dictionary of the English Language|Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary]]
| edition = Second Edition
| year = 2006
| publisher = Random House Reference
| id = ISBN 0-375-42599-3}}
*{{note_label|Reid|Reid 1967|none}}{{cite journal
| last = Reid
| first = J.P.
| title = Atheism
| journal = New Catholic Encyclopedia
| publisher = New York: McGraw-Hill
| pages = 1000–1003
| year = 1967}}
*{{cite book
| last = Rizzuto
| first = Ana-Maria
| title = Why did Freud reject God?: A psychoanalytic interpretation
| publisher = Yale University Press
| year = 1998
| id = ISBN 0-300-07525-1}}
*{{cite book
| last = Robinson
| first = Richard
| title = An Atheist's Values
| publisher = Oxford: Clarendon Press
| year = 1964}}
*{{note_label|Routledge|Routledge 1998|none}}{{cite journal
| author = Routledge
| title = Atheism
| journal = [[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]
| year = 1998
| id = 0415073103}}
*{{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}}
*{{note_label|Smith-a|Smith 1979, pp. 13–18|a}}{{note_label|Smith-b|Smith 1979|b}}{{note_label|Smith-c|Smith 1979, p. 14|c}}{{note_label|Smith-d|Smith 1979, pp. 21–22|d}}{{note_label|Smith-e|Smith 1979, p. 275|e}}{{note_label|Smith-f|Smith 1979, p. 275|f}}{{cite book
| last = Smith
| first = George H.
| title = Atheism: The Case Against God
| url = http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm
| accessdate = 2006-10-28
| year = 1979
| publisher = Buffalo, New York: Prometheus
| id = ISBN 0-87975-124-X}}
*{{cite book
| last = Smith
| first = George H.
| title = Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies
| url = http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm
| accessdate = 2006-10-28
| year = 1990
| publisher = Buffalo, New York: Prometheus
| id = ISBN 0-87975-124-X}}
*{{cite book
| last = Sobel
| first = Jordan H.
| title = Logic and theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God
| publisher = Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
| year = 2004
| id = ISBN 0-87975-307-2}}
*{{cite journal
| last = Soltis
| first = P.S., et al.
| title = Genetic variation in Tragopogan Species: Additional Origins of Allotetraploids T. mirius and T. miscellus (Compositae)
| journal = American Journal of Botany
| year = 1995}}
*{{cite journal
| last = Strenger
| first = Victor J.
| title = Has science found God?
| journal = New York: Prometheus
| year = 2003}}
*{{cite book
| last = Stein
| first = Gordon (Ed.)
| title = The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief
| publisher = New York: Prometheus
| year = 1984
| id = ISBN 0-87975-307-2}}
*{{note_label|Stein1980|Stein 1980, p. 3|none}}{{cite book
| last = Stein
| first = Gordon (Ed.)
| title = An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism
| publisher = New York: Prometheus
| year = 1980}}
*{{note_label|Thrower|Thrower 1971, pp. 3–4|none}}{{cite book
| last = Thrower
| first = James
| title = A Short History of Western Atheism
| publisher = London: Pemberton
| year = 1971
| id = ISBN 0-301-71101-1}}
*{{cite book
| last = Timmons
| first = Milton
| title = Lucifer's Handbook
| publisher = Los Angeles: Academic Associates
| year = 1977
| id = ISBN 0-918260-01-9
| url = http://www.miltontimmons.com/LuciferPt1.html}}
*{{cite book
| last = Vitz
| first = Paul C.
| title = Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
| publisher = Dallas, Texas: Spence
| year = 1999
| url = http://www.origins.org/articles/vitz_psychologyofatheism.html
| accessdate = 2006-10-28
| id = ISBN 1-890626-12-0}}
*{{note_label|Winston|Winston 2004, p. 299|a}}{{note_label|Winston-b|Winston 2004, p. 299|b}}{{note_label|Winston-c|Winston 2004, p. 299|c}}{{note_label|Winston-d|Winston 2004, p. 299|d}}{{cite book
| last = Winston
| first = Robert (Ed.)
| title = Human
| publisher = New York: DK Publishing, Inc
| year = 2004
| id = ISBN 0-7566-1901-7}}
</div>

|}

== External links ==

{{wikiquote}}
{{wikibooks}}
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Atheism/ Open Directory: Atheism] - includes links to organizations and websites.
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/ Religion & Ethics - Atheism] at [[bbc.co.uk]].
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/ Secular Web library] -- library of both historical and modern writings, probably the most comprehensive online resource for freely available material on atheism.
* [http://www.positiveatheism.org/tochist.htm Positive atheism: Great Historical Writings] -- historical writing sorted by authors, contains a few items not in the Secular web library.
* [http://www.infography.com/content/409959553931.html Infography about Atheism]
* [http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/critics/critics.html Lion of Judah: Answering atheists] -- large directory of apologetic websites.
* [http://atheism.about.com/ About Atheism] - part of the About.com family of websites, maintained by Austin Cline.

{{Atheism}}
{{Philosophy navigation}}
{{belief systems}}

[[Category:Atheism| ]]

{{Link FA|de}}

[[af:Ateïsme]]
[[ar:إلحاد]]
[[az:Ateizm]]
[[bn:নাস্তিকবাদ]]
[[be:Атэізм]]
[[bs:Ateizam]]
[[br:Dizoueegezh]]
[[bg:Атеизъм]]
[[ca:Ateisme]]
[[cs:Ateismus]]
[[co:Ateisimu]]
[[da:Ateisme]]
[[de:Atheismus]]
[[et:Ateism]]
[[es:Ateísmo]]
[[eo:Ateismo]]
[[eu:Ateismo]]
[[fa:بیخدایی]]
[[fr:Athéisme]]
[[fur:Ateisim]]
[[gd:Neo-dhiadhaireachd]]
[[ko:무신론]]
[[hi:नास्तिकता]]
[[id:Ateisme]]
[[ia:Atheismo]]
[[it:Ateismo]]
[[he:אתאיזם]]
[[jv:Ateisme]]
[[la:Atheismus]]
[[lv:Ateisms]]
[[lb:Atheismus]]
[[lt:Ateizmas]]
[[li:Atheïsme]]
[[lmo:Ateismu]]
[[hu:Ateizmus]]
[[mk:Атеизам]]
[[mt:Ateiżmu]]
[[ms:Ateisme]]
[[nl:Atheïsme]]
[[ja:無神論]]
[[no:Ateisme]]
[[nn:Ateisme]]
[[pl:Ateizm]]
[[pt:Ateísmo]]
[[ro:Ateism]]
[[ru:Атеизм]]
[[sco:Atheism]]
[[sq:Ateizmi]]
[[scn:Ateismu]]
[[simple:Atheism]]
[[sk:Ateizmus]]
[[sl:Ateizem]]
[[sr:Атеизам]]
[[fi:Ateismi]]
[[sv:Ateism]]
[[vi:Thuyết vô thần]]
[[tr:Ateizm]]
[[uk:Атеїзм]]
[[ur:دہریت]]
[[yi:אטעאיזם]]
[[zh:无神论]]