{"id":66155,"date":"2015-07-04T18:43:36","date_gmt":"2015-07-04T22:43:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/atheism-internet-encyclopedia-of-philosophy\/"},"modified":"2015-07-04T18:43:36","modified_gmt":"2015-07-04T22:43:36","slug":"atheism-internet-encyclopedia-of-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/atheism\/atheism-internet-encyclopedia-of-philosophy\/","title":{"rendered":"Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    The term atheist describes a person who does not believe that    God or a divine being exists. Worldwide there may be as    many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political    pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult.  <\/p>\n<p>    For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most    reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best    evidential support. And they have argued that the    evidence in favor of Gods existence is too weak, or the    arguments in favor of concluding there is no God are more    compelling. Traditionally the arguments for Gods    existence have fallen into several families: ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments,    miracles, and prudential justifications. For    detailed discussion of those arguments and the major challenges    to them that have motivated the atheist conclusion, the reader    is encouraged to consult the other relevant sections of the    encyclopedia.  <\/p>\n<p>    Arguments for the non-existence of God are deductive or inductive. Deductive    arguments for the non-existence of God are either single or    multiple property disproofs that allege that there are logical    or conceptual problems with one or several properties that are    essential to any being worthy of the title God.    Inductive arguments typically present empirical evidence that    is employed to argue that Gods existence is improbable or    unreasonable. Briefly stated, the main arguments    are: Gods non-existence is analogous to the    non-existence of Santa Claus. The existence of widespread    human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all    powerful, all knowing, all good being. Discoveries about    the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution    of life on Earth make the God hypothesis an unlikely    explanation. Widespread non-belief and the lack of    compelling evidence show that a God who seeks belief in humans    does not exist. Broad considerations from science that    support naturalism, or the view that all and only physical    entities and causes exist, have also led many to the atheism    conclusion.  <\/p>\n<p>    The presentation below provides an overview of concepts,    arguments, and issues that are central to work on atheism.  <\/p>\n<p>    Atheism is the view that there is no God. Unless    otherwise noted, this article will use the term God to    describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major    monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and    Judaism. At a minimum, this being is usually understood    as having all power, all knowledge, and being infinitely good    or morally perfect. See the article Western Concepts of God for more    details. When necessary, we will use the term gods to    describe all other lesser or different characterizations    of divine beings, that is, beings that lack some, one, or all    of the omni- traits.  <\/p>\n<p>    There have been many thinkers in history who have lacked a    belief in God. Some ancient Greek philosophers, such as    Epicurus, sought natural explanations    for natural phenomena. Epicurus was also to first to question    the compatibility of God with suffering. Forms of    philosophical naturalism that would replace all supernatural    explanations with natural ones also extend into ancient    history. During the Enlightenment, David Hume and Immanuel Kant give influential critiques of    the traditional arguments for the existence of God in the    18th century. After Darwin (1809-1882) makes the case for    evolution and some modern advancements in science, a fully    articulated philosophical worldview that denies the existence    of God gains traction. In the 19th and    20th centuries, influential critiques on God, belief    in God, and Christianity by Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, and Camus set    the stage for modern atheism.  <\/p>\n<p>    It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to    affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984)    called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief    that God or gods exist is to be a negative    atheist. Parallels for this use of the term would be    terms such as amoral, atypical, or asymmetrical. So    negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected    on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion    about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a    great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient    evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be    resolved in principle. Agnosticism is    traditionally characterized as neither believing that God    exists nor believing that God does not exist.  <\/p>\n<p>    Atheism can be narrow or wide in scope.    The narrow atheist does not believe in the existence of God (an    omni- being). A wide atheist does not believe that any    gods exist, including but not limited to the traditional    omni-God. The wide positive atheist denies that God    exists, and also denies that Zeus, Gefjun, Thor, Sobek,    Bakunawa and others exist. The narrow atheist does not    believe that God exists, but need not take a stronger view    about the existence or non-existence of other supernatural    beings. One could be a narrow atheist about God, but    still believe in the existence of some other supernatural    entities. (This is one of the reasons that it is a    mistake to identify atheism with materialism or naturalism.)  <\/p>\n<p>    Separating these different senses of the term allows us to    better understand the different sorts of justification that can    be given for varieties of atheism with different scopes.    An argument may serve to justify one form of atheism and not    another. For Instance, alleged contradictions within a    Christian conception of God by themselves do not serve as    evidence for wide atheism, but presumably, reasons that are    adequate to show that there is no omni-God would be sufficient    to show that there is no Islamic God.  <\/p>\n<p>    We can divide the justifications for atheism into several    categories. For the most part, atheists have taken an    evidentialist approach to the question of Gods    existence. That is, atheists have taken the view that    whether or not a person is justified in having an attitude of    belief towards the proposition, God exists, is a function of    that persons evidence. Evidence here is understood    broadly to include a priori arguments, arguments to    the best explanation, inductive and empirical reasons, as well    as deductive and conceptual premises. An asymmetry exists    between theism and atheism in that atheists have not offered    faith as a justification for non-belief. That is,    atheists have not presented non-evidentialist defenses for    believing that there is no God.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the rest here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.iep.utm.edu\/atheism\/\" title=\"Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy\">Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The term atheist describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult. For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best evidential support <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/atheism\/atheism-internet-encyclopedia-of-philosophy\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[162381],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atheism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66155"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}