Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism isnot an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too oftendefined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as a belief that there is no God. Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as there is no God betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read there are no gods.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, thennot collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many interfaith groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Dont use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.

If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a cultural Catholic and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Dont shy away from the term. Embrace it.

Agnostic isnt just a weaker version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

In recent surveys, the Pew Research Center has grouped atheists, agnostics, and the unaffiliated into one category. The so-called Nones are the fastest growing religious demographic in the United States. Pewseparates out atheists from agnostics and the non-religious, but that is primarily a function of self-identification. Only about 5% of people call themselves atheists, but if you ask about belief in gods, 11% say they do not believe in gods. Those people are atheists, whether they choose to use the word or not.

A recent survey fromUniversity of Kentucky psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle found that as many as 26% of Americans may be atheists. This study was designed to overcome the stigma associated with atheism and the potential for closeted atheists to abstain from outing themselves even when speaking anonymously to pollsters. The full study is awaiting publication inSocial Psychological and Personality Sciencejournal but a pre-print version is available here.

Even more people say that their definition of god is simply a unifying force between all people. Or that they arent sure what they believe.If you lack an active belief in gods, you are an atheist.

Being an atheist doesnt mean youre sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced.

Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesnt mean youre not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and dont believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting.

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

Atheists exist across the political spectrum. We are members of every race. We are members of the LGBTQ* community. There are atheists in urban, suburban, and rural communities and in every state of the nation.

We have more than 170 affiliates and local partners nationwide. If you are looking for a community, we strongly recommend reaching out to an affiliate in your area.

Continue reading here:

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs

A central, common core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the affirmation of the reality of one, and only one, God. Adherents of these faiths believe that there is a God who created the universe out of nothing and who has absolute sovereignty over all his creation; this includes, of course, human beingswho are not only utterly dependent on this creative power but also sinful and who, or so the faithful must believe, can only make adequate sense of their lives by accepting, without question, Gods ordinances for them. The varieties of atheism are numerous, but all atheists reject such a set of beliefs.

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 Judaism, 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.

It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to rejection of religious belief and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. First, not all theologians who regard themselves as defenders of the Christian faith or of Judaism or Islam regard themselves as defenders of theism. The influential 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, regards the God of theism as an idol and refuses to construe God as a being, even a supreme being, among beings or as an infinite being above finite beings. God, for him, is being-itself, the ground of being and meaning. The particulars of Tillichs view are in certain ways idiosyncratic, as well as being obscure and problematic, but they have been influential; and his rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God, is not eccentric in contemporary theology, though it may very well affront the plain believer.

Second, and more important, it is not the case that all theists seek to demonstrate or even in any way rationally to establish the existence of God. Many theists regard such a demonstration as impossible, and fideistic believers (e.g., Johann Hamann and Sren Kierkegaard) regard such a demonstration, even if it were possible, as undesirable, for in their view it would undermine faith. If it could be proved, or known for certain, that God exists, people would not be in a position to accept him as their sovereign Lord humbly on faith with all the risks that entails. There are theologians who have argued that for genuine faith to be possible God must necessarily be a hidden God, the mysterious ultimate reality, whose existence and authority must be accepted simply on faith. This fideistic view has not, of course, gone without challenge from inside the major faiths, but it is of sufficient importance to make the above characterization of atheism inadequate.

Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them practical atheists). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that Gods existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as God is my creator to whom everything is owed, are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is. Such an atheism, it should be added, rooted for some conceptions of God in considerations about intelligibility and what it makes sense to say, has been strongly resisted by some pragmatists and logical empiricists.

While the above considerations about atheism and intelligibility show the second characterization of atheism to be too narrow, it is also the case that this characterization is in a way too broad. For there are fideistic believers, who quite unequivocally believe that when looked at objectively the proposition that God exists has a very low probability weight. They believe in God not because it is probable that he existsthey think it more probable that he does notbut because belief is thought by them to be necessary to make sense of human life. The second characterization of atheism does not distinguish a fideistic believer (a Blaise Pascal or a Soren Kierkegaard) or an agnostic (a T.H. Huxley or a Sir Leslie Stephen) from an atheist such as Baron dHolbach. All believe that there is a God and God protects humankind, however emotionally important they may be, are speculative hypotheses of an extremely low order of probability. But this, since it does not distinguish believers from nonbelievers and does not distinguish agnostics from atheists, cannot be an adequate characterization of atheism.

It may be retorted that to avoid apriorism and dogmatic atheism the existence of God should be regarded as a hypothesis. There are no ontological (purely a priori) proofs or disproofs of Gods existence. It is not reasonable to rule in advance that it makes no sense to say that God exists. What the atheist can reasonably claim is that there is no evidence that there is a God, and against that background he may very well be justified in asserting that there is no God. It has been argued, however, that it is simply dogmatic for an atheist to assert that no possible evidence could ever give one grounds for believing in God. Instead, atheists should justify their unbelief by showing (if they can) how the assertion is well-taken that there is no evidence that would warrant a belief in God. If atheism is justified, the atheist will have shown that in fact there is no adequate evidence for the belief that God exists, but it should not be part of his task to try to show that there could not be any evidence for the existence of God. If the atheist could somehow survive the death of his present body (assuming that such talk makes sense) and come, much to his surprise, to stand in the presence of God, his answer should be, Oh! Lord, you didnt give me enough evidence! He would have been mistaken, and realize that he had been mistaken, in his judgment that God did not exist. Still, he would not have been unjustified, in the light of the evidence available to him during his earthly life, in believing as he did. Not having any such postmortem experiences of the presence of God (assuming that he could have them), what he should say, as things stand and in the face of the evidence he actually has and is likely to be able to get, is that it is false that God exists. (Every time one legitimately asserts that a proposition is false one need not be certain that it is false. Knowing with certainty is not a pleonasm.) The claim is that this tentative posture is the reasonable position for the atheist to take.

An atheist who argues in this manner may also make a distinctive burden-of-proof argument. Given that God (if there is one) is by definition a very recherch realitya reality that must be (for there to be such a reality) transcendent to the worldthe burden of proof is not on the atheist to give grounds for believing that there is no reality of that order. Rather, the burden of proof is on the believer to give some evidence for Gods existencei.e., that there is such a reality. Given what God must be, if there is a God, the theist needs to present the evidence, for such a very strange reality. He needs to show that there is more in the world than is disclosed by common experience. The empirical method, and the empirical method alone, such an atheist asserts, affords a reliable method for establishing what is in fact the case. To the claim of the theist that there are in addition to varieties of empirical facts spiritual facts or transcendent facts, such as it being the case that there is a supernatural, self-existent, eternal power, the atheist can assert that such facts have not been shown.

It will, however, be argued by such atheists, against what they take to be dogmatic aprioristic atheists, that the atheist should be a fallibilist and remain open-minded about what the future may bring. There may, after all, be such transcendent facts, such metaphysical realities. It is not that such a fallibilistic atheist is really an agnostic who believes that he is not justified in either asserting that God exists or denying that he exists and that what he must reasonably do is suspend belief. On the contrary, such an atheist believes that he has very good grounds indeed, as things stand, for denying the existence of God. But he will, on the second conceptualization of what it is to be an atheist, not deny that things could be otherwise and that, if they were, he would be justified in believing in God or at least would no longer be justified in asserting that it is false that there is a God. Using reliable empirical techniques, proven methods for establishing matters of fact, the fallibilistic atheist has found nothing in the universe to make a belief that God exists justifiable or even, everything considered, the most rational option of the various options. He therefore draws the atheistical conclusion (also keeping in mind his burden-of-proof argument) that God does not exist. But he does not dogmatically in a priori fashion deny the existence of God. He remains a thorough and consistent fallibilist.

Continue reading here:

atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to ...

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'atheism.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

1546, in the meaning defined at sense 2

Middle French athisme, from athe atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Cite this Entry

Atheism. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism. Accessed 10 Aug. 2020.

Comments on atheism

What made you want to look up atheism? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).

Read this article:

Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster

Marcelo gleiser has become the first Latin American to win the Templeton Prize, which is awarded for contribution to the affirmation of the spiritual dimension of life.

In an interview about the award, this Dartmouth College physics professor argued that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.

Literally, Gleiser argued this way:

I believe that atheism is incompatible with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It is a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in unbelief. I dont believe, although I have no evidence for or against, I just dont believe. Point. It is a statement. But in science we dont really make statements. We say, Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or in favor of that. And then an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence of God or any kind of god (Which god in the first place? The Maori gods, or the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim god? Which god is that?). On the other hand, an agnostic would not recognize any right to make a final statement about something he does not know.

Gleiser reminds us that we are on an island of knowledge in the middle of an ocean of the unknown. As knowledge advances, we become more aware of what we do not know.

Given all the times scientists have said something was already safe and later found out it was not, it could well turn out that the statement there is no God could end up being similar to saying, No balloon or plane will be able to fly into the future a century ago. Similarly, the skepticism of the claim X does not exist is also important in science since X could one day appear.

Gleiser is right. But it does because it is defining skepticism and, by extension, atheism in a very restricted way.. Surely there are atheists and skeptics who reason that way, but atheism is also defined as I dont think about this hypothesis because it doesnt give me anything to solve the problems I face. That is to say, that one is an atheist with respect to God as he does not believe either that he lives on a television set and is continuously being deceived, or that he lives in a dream, or that a magician has bewitched him and he does not know anything about the real world, or that even everything that appears in the cinema is true but the government hides it.

To be agnostic would be to affirm that everything is possible. And that is obvious. Everything is possible. But admitting that everything is possible is not the same as introducing all the possibilities (each and every one of them, to infinity) when reflecting on how the world works. Simply, trying to climb the mountain of knowledge step by step, proposing humble hypotheses that we can progressively test. To propose the hypothesis of God is simply to set ourselves at the top, at the highest level of knowledge possible, and to propose a total explanation of everything. So, is there a greater show of daring and ineffectiveness than proposing a hypothesis that explains everything?

Or put another way: atheists are also agnostics: of course they do not know with absolute certainty that God does not exist, as they do not know anything absolutely. What atheism proposes is that it is a too vague and daring hypothesis, as well as impractical, wondering if God exists, if there are four thousand parallel dimensions, or if we are actually in an alien circus entertaining the masses without being aware of it.

All of this is possible, but do we waste time deciding it? No. First, many other hypotheses much more plausible and, above all, affordable for our narrow space of knowledge must be falsified.

Bertrand Russell He explained it very well with his famous kettle. While it remains true that humility can be a good thing, that we do not know what we do not know, and that it is impossible to prove the negative claim that God does not exist, Bertrand Russell reminds us that we can be rational in saying that we do not believe in something of which we cannot disprove the existence:

I must call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I dont think the existence of the Christian God is more likely than the existence of the gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another example: no one can prove that there is no porcelain kettle rotating in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars, but no one believes that this is likely enough to be taken into account in practice. I believe that the Christian God is equally unlikely.

What Russell is saying is that just because a point that is made without evidence cannot be disproved does not mean that it is unreasonable to think that it is not true. Furthermore, Russell places the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim (God / the kettle exists) and not on the person who questions that claim.

The astronomer Carl sagan He made a similar argument about the existence of a dragon in his garage in his book The World and Its Demons:

Suppose I seriously make such a claim to you. You will surely want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been countless dragon stories throughout the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! Show me, you say. I take you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle, but no dragon. Where is the dragon? You ask. Oh, shes here, I reply, waving vaguely. I forgot to mention that she is an invisible dragon. You propose to spread flour on the garage floor to capture the dragons tracks. Good idea, I say, but this dragon floats in the air. Next, you will use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. Good idea, but invisible fire has no heat either. You will spray paint the dragon and make it visible. Good idea, but its a disembodied dragon and the paint doesnt stick. And so. I counter every physical test you come up with with a special explanation why it wont work.

What is the difference between a floating, disembodied, invisible fire-breathing dragon with no heat and no dragon? If there is no way to refute my argument, no conceivable experiment counting against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? The inability to invalidate a hypothesis is not at all the same as proving it as true. Claims that cannot be proven, claims immune to refutation are truly useless, whatever their value in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder.

Sagan, as Russell, holds that the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Since there is no evidence of the dragon, it is unscientific to say that one does not believe the dragon is there.

Is it going too far to say that God does not exist? That depends on where you want to place the burden of proof and how much evidence (or lack thereof) is needed to make such a claim. Given that we are talking about God (the most mind-blowing supernatural thing we have on record), maybe we should ask for millions and millions of proofs and quintals of evidence at the very least. More than anything else weve been able to discover in all of human history. Or put another way: even laureate physicists should study a little more epistemology.

Corollary proposed in the following video: do not believe in anything that is not proven, and propose hypotheses that can be falsified (God is not one of them because we do not even know what it is, it is only a human word to refer to the unknowable):

Here is the original post:

Atheism is incompatible with the scientific method, according to this Templeton Prize-winning physicist - Explica

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a towering scholar of the bedrock Jewish texts who spent four and a half decades writing a 45-volume translation of the Babylonian Talmud and made it accessible to hundreds of thousands of readers, died on Friday in Jerusalem. He was 83.

Shaarei Zedek Medical Center confirmed his death. A publicist for the Steinsaltz Center for Jewish Knowledge said he had had acute pneumonia.

For centuries, the study of Talmud in 2,711 double-sided pages, the record of rabbinical debates on the laws and ethics of Judaism heard in the academies of Babylonia (modern-day Iraq) between A.D. 200 and 500 was confined mostly to yeshivas. There, students, young and old, hunched over dog-eared volumes of Talmud, sometimes without teachers, would teach one another the meanings of what they were reading, largely in Aramaic, and argue the implications.

Rabbi Steinsaltzs achievement was to take the Talmud out of this relatively exclusive sphere and, with a Hebrew translation, allow ordinary Jews, taking the Long Island Rail Road to work or gathering in a cafe in Tel Aviv, to study those texts on their own. The Hebrew edition has been translated by publishers into English, French, Russian and Spanish.

Rabbi Steinsaltz, a rumpled, bespectacled figure with an unruly white beard, completed the entire Talmud in 2010, often working 16 hours a day.

He brought the Talmud into the 20th century, said Samuel Heilman, distinguished professor of sociology at Queens College specializing in Orthodox Judaism.

Rabbi Steinsaltz embarked on his lifes great work in 1965, when he was 27. His translation encompassed the ancient commentaries along the margins in the Talmud, written by revered figures like the medieval scholar Rashi.

He also provided his own commentaries on the often labyrinthine text, added biographies of the various rabbinical commentators and offered explanations of Talmudic concepts. His work, he said, was intended to accommodate even beginners with the lowest level of knowledge.

My idea was that Im trying to substitute a book for a living teacher, he said in a 2005 interview with The New York Times.

President Reuven Rivlin of Israel called Rabbi Steinsaltz a modern-day Rashi and a man of great spiritual courage, deep knowledge and profound thought who brought the Talmud to Am Yisrael the Jewish people in clear and accessible Hebrew and English.

Random House, its American publisher, translated and published 22 English volumes then stopped. Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. has since 2009 been publishing the Steinsaltz English translations and completed the entire 45-volume set.

The Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud was not the first English translation. Soncino Press, a venerable British firm, completed a 30-volume translation in 1952, but it did not have the line-by-line commentary that can sustain self-study.

In 2005, Art Scroll/Mesorah Publications of Brooklyn brought out a 73-volume edition that has become the most popular version for many Orthodox Jews, and for tens of thousands of others who participate in Daf Yomi, the seven-and-a-half-year challenge to complete a study of the entire Talmud by analyzing a page a day.

Rabbi Steinsaltz was a disciple of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who died in 1994, and his Chabad-Lubavitch school of Judaism, which embraces nonobservant Jews and proselytizes among them. That sometimes put Rabbi Steinsaltz at odds with more hard-line Orthodox rabbis, including prominent ones, who treated him as a heretic and told their followers to spurn his works.

Rabbi Steinsaltz, a prolific and wide-ranging writer and a sharp observer of humanity, wrote more than 60 books on philosophy, mysticism, theology and even zoology. His study of kabbalah, The Thirteen Petalled Rose, is considered a classic and has been translated into eight languages.

He also translated the Jerusalem Talmud, the less comprehensive and less studied record of legal debates by rabbis in Jerusalem between A.D. 350 and 400 A.D.

Invited to impart some spiritual guidance to the staff of a magazine, The Jerusalem Report, in the early 1990s, Rabbi Steinsaltz gave lessons on lashon hara, the Jewish injunction against speaking evil. He taught that while most parts of the human body had their limits arms could carry only so much weight, legs could run only so fast the tongue could do infinite harm and therefore was set in a cagelike jaw as a reminder to guard it.

Surprisingly, he was raised in a secular household and was drawn to observant Judaism only as a teenager, when he studied with a Lubavitch rabbi.

By nature I am a skeptical person, he said in an interview with The Times a decade ago, and people with a lot of skepticism start to question atheism.

Rabbi Steinsaltz who adopted the additional surname Even-Israel (Rock of Israel) at Rabbi Schneersons urging that he take a Hebrew name was born on July 11, 1937, in Jerusalem in what was then the British mandate of Palestine. His parents, Avraham and Leah (Krokovitz) Steinsaltz, were active in a socialist group, and his father went to Spain in 1936 to help defend the leftist Republican government against Nationalist rebels led by Gen. Francisco Franco.

He attended Hebrew University, where he studied chemistry, mathematics and physics, while also undergoing rabbinical studies at a yeshiva in the Israeli city of Lod. At age 24 he became a school principal; he went on to found several experimental schools.

He lived most of his life with his family in Jerusalem. He is survived by his wife, Sarah; his sons Menachem and Amechaye; a daughter, Esther Sheleg; and 18 grandchildren.

In 1965, Rabbi Steinsaltz founded the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications and began his monumental work of interpreting the Talmud for the masses. Since he was running schools at the time, he called the Talmud translation his hobby, but it became his crowning achievement. He told the Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in 2009 that he hadnt fully considered the immensity of the work that would be required.

Sometimes when a person knows too much, it causes him to do nothing, he said. It seems its better sometimes for a man, as for humanity, not to know too much about the difficulties and believe more in the possibilities.

More:

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Who Made the Talmud More Accessible, Dies at 83 - The New York Times