Bill Maher, George Carlin; Mass Delusion and Need For More Interfaith Communications

(Warning; Adult language via humor.) In this article and video we will explore interfaith communications and differences between religions via atheism as a starting point. 

Atheism can talk about all religions, because in most cases, people who believe this way do not believe in a Deity or a Trinity, or Holy People, or even Holy Books. This discussion is worth having, just because it is so rarely aired and given attention. Even if one does have a faith and a belief system, as well as dogma, is it not a healthy thing to listen to other points of view, including atheism?   

To get into this further, you can see the movie Religulous, by Bill Haher. You can also discuss atheism and/or interfaith subjects with others who have this same interfaith interest, by clicking on this link;

Here is George Carlin’s version, delivered via humor… 

According to Wikipedia; “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god”, used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethoughtskeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word “atheist” lived in the 18th century.[9]
Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack ofempirical evidence for deities.[10] Rationales for not believing in any deity include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[11][12]there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[13] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimoniousworldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.[14]
Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including JainismBuddhismHinduismNeopaganmovements[15] such as Wicca,[16] and nontheistic religions.Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[17] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.[18]
Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is difficult.[19] According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the world’s population are atheists, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious.[20] According to another, rates of self-reported atheism are among the highest in Western nations, again to varying degrees: United States (4%), Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%).[21]

Definitions and distinctions

A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong andimplicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (inpurple on the right) assert that “at least one deity exists” is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (inblue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that “at least one deity exists” is a false statement. Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief. (Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)

Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[22] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. However, it is generally contrasted withagnosticism.[23] A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism.


Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheismarises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism’s applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[24]
With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of anyspiritualsupernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those ofBuddhismHinduismJainism and Taoism.[25]

[edit]Implicit vs. explicit

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d’Holbach said that “All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.”[26] Similarly,George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: “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 with 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.”[27] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith’s definition of atheism as merely “absence of theism”, acknowledging only explicit atheism as true “atheism”.[28]

[edit]Positive vs. negative

Philosophers such as Antony Flew[29] and Michael Martin[24] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the termsnegative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[29] and in Catholic apologetics.[30] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[24] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[31] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[32] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[33] and that the unprovability of a god’s existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[34] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that “sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalisedphilosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.”[35] Consequently, some atheist authors such asRichard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement “God exists”.[36]

[edit]Definition as impossible or impermanent

Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[37]
There is also a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists makedeathbed conversions, or that “there are no atheists in foxholes.”[38] There have however been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal “atheists in foxholes.”[39]
Some atheists have doubted the very need for the term “atheism”. In his book Letter to a Christian Nation,Sam Harris wrote:
In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.[40]


Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach, an 18th century advocate of atheism.

The source of man’s unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error.
—d’Holbach, The System of Nature[41]
The broadest demarcation of atheistic rationale is between practical and theoretical atheism.

[edit]Practical atheism

In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[42] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the “tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it.”[43]
Practical atheism can take various forms:
  • Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
  • Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
  • Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
  • Unawareness of the concept of a deity.[44]

[edit]Theoretical atheism

[edit]Ontological arguments

Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as theargument from design or Pascal’s Wager. Theoretical atheism is mainly an ontology, precisely a physical ontology.

[edit]Epistemological arguments

Epistemological atheism argues that people cannot know a God or determine the existence of a God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy ofimmanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person’s mind, and each person’sconsciousness is locked in the subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The rationalisticagnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.[42]
Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ontological, including logical positivism and ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as “God” and statements such as “God is all-powerful.” Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement “God exists” does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept “God exists” as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.[45][46]

[edit]Metaphysical arguments

One author writes:
“Metaphysical atheism… includes all doctrines that hold to metaphysical monism (the homogeneity of reality). Metaphysical atheism may be either: a) absolute — an explicit denial of God’s existence associated with materialistic monism (all materialistic trends, both in ancient and modern times); b) relative — the implicit denial of God in all philosophies that, while they accept the existence of an absolute, conceive of the absolute as not possessing any of the attributes proper to God: transcendence, a personal character or unity. Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism (pantheism, panentheism, deism).”[47]

Epicurus is credited with first expounding the problem of evil.David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion(1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:[48] “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. 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?”

[edit]Logical arguments

Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as thepersonal god of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutabilityomniscienceomnipresence,omnipotenceomnibenevolencetranscendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice, and mercy.[10]
Theodicean atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an omniscientomnipotent, andomnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is eviland suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people.[49] A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder ofBuddhism.[50]

[edit]Reductionary accounts of religion

Philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach[51] and Sigmund Freud argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs. This is also a view of many Buddhists.[52] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to Mikhail Bakunin, “the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice.” He reversed Voltaire‘s famous aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him, writing instead that “if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.”[53]

[edit]Atheist philosophies

Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute”, such ashumanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.[42] One of the most commoncriticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation,[54] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[55] Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.[56]
French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre identified himself as a representative of an “atheist existentialism[57]concerned less with denying the existence of God than with establishing that “man needs … to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God.”[58] Sartre said a corollary of his atheism was that “if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and … this being is man.”[57] The practical consequence of this atheism was described by Sartre as meaning that there are no a priori rules or absolute values that can be invoked to govern human conduct, and that humans are “condemned” to invent these for themselves, making “man” absolutely “responsible for everything he does”.[59]

[edit]Atheism, religion, and morality

[edit]Association with world views and social behaviors

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:[60][61]
  • Compared to religious people, “atheists and secular people” are less nationalistic, prejudiced,antisemiticracist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.
  • In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

[edit]Atheism and irreligion

Because of its absenceof a creator god,Buddhism is commonly described as nontheistic.

People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.[62] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[63][64] and Christian atheists.[65][66][67]
The strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity; as such, 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 should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless.[68]
Philosophers such as Georges BatailleSlavoj Žižek,[69] Alain de Botton,[70] andAlexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist,[71] have all argued that atheists should reclaim religion as an act of defiance against theism, precisely not to leave religion as an unwarranted monopoly to theists.

[edit]Divine command vs. ethics

Although it is a philosophical truism, encapsulated in Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, that the role of the gods in determining right from wrong is either unnecessary or arbitrary, the argument that morality must be derived from God and cannot exist without a wise creator has been a persistent feature of political if not so much philosophical debate.[72][73][74] Moral precepts such as “murder is wrong” are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves afalse analogy, and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do.[75] Other atheists, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, have disagreed with this view and have stated that morality “has truth only if God is truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.”[76][77][78]
There exist normative ethical systems that do not require principles and rules to be given by a deity. Some include virtue ethicssocial contractKantian ethicsutilitarianism, and ObjectivismSam Harris has proposed that moral prescription (ethical rule making) is not just an issue to be explored by philosophy, but that we can meaningfully practice a science of morality. Any such scientific system must, nevertheless, respond to the criticism embodied in the naturalistic fallacy.[79]
Philosophers Susan Neiman[80] and Julian Baggini[81] (among others) assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Baggini argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics, claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary 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 atheists, therefore, have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.[82] The contemporary British political philosopher Martin Cohen has offered the more historically telling example of Biblical injunctions in favour of torture and slavery as evidence of how religious injunctions follow political and social customs, rather than vice versa, but also noted that the same tendency seems to be true of supposedly dispassionate and objective philosophers.[83] Cohen extends this argument in more detail in Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, where he argues that the Qur’an played a role in perpetuating social codes from the early 7th century despite changes in secular society.[84]

[edit]Dangers of religions

Some prominent atheists—such as Bertrand RussellChristopher HitchensDaniel DennettSam Harris, and Richard Dawkins—have criticized religions, citing harmful aspects of religious practices and doctrines.[85] Atheists have often engaged in debate with religious advocates, and the debates sometimes address the issue of whether religions provide a net benefit to individuals and society.
One argument that religions can be harmful, made by atheists such as Sam Harris, is that Western religions’ reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism.[86] Atheists have also cited data showing that there is a correlation between religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religion (when religion is held because it serves ulterior interests)[87] and authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice.[88] These arguments—combined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the Crusadesinquisitionswitch trials, and terrorist attacks—have been used in response to claims of beneficial effects of belief in religion.[89] Believers counter-argue that some regimes that espouse atheism, such as in Soviet Russia, have also been guilty of mass murder.[90][91]


The Greek word αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians (2:12) on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as “[those who are] without God”.[92]

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ-θεός “god”) meant “godless”. It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning “ungodly” or “impious”. In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of “severing relations with the gods” or “denying the gods”. The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes renderatheos as “atheistic”. As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης(atheotēs), “atheism”. Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latinatheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[93]
The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God”,[94]predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[95] and again in 1571.[96] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[97] The term atheism was derived from theFrench athéisme, and appears in English about 1587.[98] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the termatheonism.[99][100] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[101] theist in 1662,[102] deism in 1675,[103]and theism in 1678.[104] At that time “deist” and “deism” already carried their modern meaning. The termtheism came to be contrasted with deism.
Karen Armstrong writes 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 callinghimself an atheist.”[9] In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God;[105] atheist meant not accepting the current conception of the divine.[106]
Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[107] 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”.[24]


Although the term atheism originated in 16th-century France,[98] ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented from the Vedic period and the classical antiquity.

[edit]Early Indic religion

Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[108] Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, the oldest philosophical school of thought, does not accept God, and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God.[109] The early Mimamsa not only did not accept God but asserted that human action itself was enough to create the necessary circumstances for the enjoyment of its fruits.[110] 
The thoroughly materialistic and anti-theistic philosophical Cārvāka (also called Nastika or Lokaiata) school that originated in India around the 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India, similar to the Greek Cyrenaic school. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as heterodox due to its rejection of the authority ofVedas and hence is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[111] Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Cārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:
“Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these.”[112]
Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as atheistic include Classical Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. The rejection of a personal creator God is also seen in Jainism and Buddhism in India.[113]

[edit]Classical antiquity

In Plato‘s Apology,Socrates (pictured) was accused by Meletus of not believing in the gods.

Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[114] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the “first atheist”,[115] and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum.[116] Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order.[117]Atomists such as Democritus attempted to explain the world in a purelymaterialistic way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Other pre-Socratic philosophers who probably had atheistic views included Prodicus andProtagoras. In the 3rd-century BCE the Greek philosophers Theodorus Cyrenaicus[116][118] and Strato of Lampsacus[119] also did not believe gods exist.
Socrates (c. 471–399 BCE), was accused of impiety (see Euthyphro dilemma) on the basis that he inspired questioning of the state gods.[120] Although he disputed the accusation that he was a “complete atheist”,[121] saying that he could not be an atheist as he believed in spirits,[122] he was ultimately sentenced to death. Socrates also prays to various gods in Plato’s dialogue Phaedrus[123] and says “By Zeus” in the dialogue The Republic.[124]
Euhemerus (c. 330–260 BCE) published his view that the gods were only the deified rulers, conquerors and founders of the past, and that their cults and religions were in essence the continuation of vanished kingdoms and earlier political structures.[125] Although not strictly an atheist, Euhemerus was later criticized for having “spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods”.[126]
Atomic materialist Epicurus (c. 341–270 BCE) disputed many religious doctrines, including the existence of an afterlife or a personal deity; he considered the soul purely material and mortal. While Epicureanism did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist, they were unconcerned with humanity.[127]
The Roman poet Lucretius (c. 99–55 BCE) agreed that, if there were gods, they were unconcerned with humanity and unable to affect the natural world. For this reason, he believed humanity should have no fear of the supernatural. He expounds his Epicurean views of the cosmos, atoms, the soul, mortality, and religion in De rerum natura (“On the nature of things”),[128] which popularized Epicurus’ philosophy in Rome.[129]
The Roman philosopher Sextus Empiricus held that one should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs—a form of skepticism known as Pyrrhonism—that nothing was inherently evil, and that ataraxia (“peace of mind”) is attainable by withholding one’s judgment. His relatively large volume of surviving works had a lasting influence on later philosophers.[130]
The meaning of “atheist” changed over the course of classical antiquity. The early Christians were labeled atheists by non-Christians because of their disbelief in pagan gods.[131] During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the Roman gods in general and Emperor-worship in particular. When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Theodosius I in 381, heresy became a punishable offense.[132]

[edit]Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance

The espousal of atheistic views was rare in Europe during the Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages (seeMedieval Inquisition); metaphysics, religion and theology were the dominant interests.[133] There were, however, movements within this period that forwarded heterodox conceptions of the Christian God, including differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God. Individuals and groups such asJohannes Scotus EriugenaDavid of DinantAmalric of Bena, and the Brethren of the Free Spirit maintained Christian viewpoints with pantheistic tendencies. 
Nicholas of Cusa held to a form of fideism he called docta ignorantia (“learned ignorance”), asserting that God is beyond human categorization, and our knowledge of God is limited to conjecture. William of Ockham inspired anti-metaphysical tendencies with his nominalisticlimitation of human knowledge to singular objects, and asserted that the divine essence could not be intuitively or rationally apprehended by human intellect. Followers of Ockham, such as John of Mirecourtand Nicholas of Autrecourt furthered this view. The resulting division between faith and reason influenced later theologians such as John WycliffeJan Hus, and Martin Luther.[133]
The Renaissance did much to expand the scope of freethought and skeptical inquiry. Individuals such asLeonardo da Vinci sought experimentation as a means of explanation, and opposed arguments from religious authority. Other critics of religion and the Church during this time included Niccolò Machiavelli,Bonaventure des Périers, and François Rabelais.[130]

[edit]Early modern period

The Renaissance and Reformation eras witnessed a resurgence in religious fervor, as evidenced by the proliferation of new religious orders, confraternities, and popular devotions in the Catholic world, and the appearance of increasingly austere Protestant sects such as the Calvinists. This era of interconfessional rivalry permitted an even wider scope of theological and philosophical speculation, much of which would later be used to advance a religiously skeptical world-view.
Criticism of Christianity became increasingly frequent in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in France and England, where there appears to have been a religious malaise, according to contemporary sources. Some Protestant thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes, espoused a materialist philosophy and skepticism toward supernatural occurrences, while the Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza rejected divine providence in favour of a panentheistic naturalism. 
By the late 17th century, deism came to be openly espoused by intellectuals such as John Toland who coined the term “pantheist”. Despite their ridicule of Christianity, many deists held atheism in scorn.[citation needed] The first known explicit atheist was the German critic of religion Matthias Knutzen in his three writings of 1674.[134] He was followed a half century later by another explicit atheist writer, the French priest Jean Meslier.[135]
Knutzen and Meslier were in turn followed by other openly atheistic thinkers, such as Baron d’Holbach andJacques-André Naigeon.[136] The philosopher David Hume developed a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, undermining the metaphysical basis of natural theology.

Ludwig Feuerbach‘sThe Essence of Christianity (1841) would greatly influence philosophers such asEngelsMarxDavid StraussNietzsche, andMax Stirner. He considered God to be a human invention and religious activities to be wish-fulfillment. For this he is considered the founding father of modernanthropology of religion.

The French Revolution took atheism and anti-clerical deism outside the salons and into the public sphere. A major goal of the French revolution was a restructuring and subordination of the clergy with respect to the state through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Attempts to enforce it led to anti-clerical violence and the expulsion of many clergy from France. The chaotic political events in revolutionary Paris eventually enabled the more radical Jacobins to seize power in 1793, ushering in the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins were deists and introduced the Cult of the Supreme Being as a new French state religion. Some atheists surrounding Jacques Hébert instead sought to establish a Cult of Reason, a form of atheistic pseudo-religion with a goddess personifying reason. Both movements in part contributed to attempts to forcibly de-Christianize France. The Cult of Reason ended after three years when its leadership, including Jacques Hébert was guillotined by the Jacobins. The anti-clerical persecutions ended with the Thermidorian Reaction.
The Napoleonic era institutionalized the secularization of French society, and exported the revolution to northern Italy, in the hopes of creating pliable republics. In the 19th century, atheists contributed to political and social revolution, facilitating the upheavals of 1848, the Risorgimento in Italy, and the growth of an international socialist movement.
In the latter half of the 19th century, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophers. Many prominent German philosophers of this era denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig FeuerbachArthur SchopenhauerMax StirnerKarl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.[137]

[edit]Since 1900

Atheism in the 20th century, particularly in the form of practical atheism, advanced in many societies. Atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism,objectivismsecular humanismnihilismanarchismlogical positivismMarxismfeminism,[138] and the general scientific and rationalist movement.
Logical positivism and scientism paved the way for neopositivismanalytical philosophystructuralism, andnaturalism. Neopositivism and analytical philosophy discarded classical rationalism and metaphysics in favor of strict empiricism and epistemological nominalism. Proponents such as Bertrand Russell emphatically rejected belief in God. In his early work, Ludwig Wittgenstein attempted to separate metaphysical and supernatural language from rational discourse. A. J. Ayer asserted the unverifiability and meaninglessness of religious statements, citing his adherence to the empirical sciences. Relatedly the applied structuralism ofLévi-Strauss sourced religious language to the human subconscious in denying its transcendental meaning.J. N. Findlay and J. J. C. Smart argued that the existence of God is not logically necessary. Naturalists and materialistic monists such as John Dewey considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality.[35][139]
The 20th century also saw the political advancement of atheism, spurred on by interpretation of the works ofMarx and Engels. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, religious instruction was banned by the State. While the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed freedom to hold religious services, the Soviet state under Stalin’s policy of state atheism did not consider education a private matter; it outlawed religious instruction and waged campaigns to persuade people, at times violently, to abandon religion.[140][141][142][143][144] Several other communist states also opposed religion and mandated state atheism,[145] including the former governments of Albania,[146][147][148] and currently, China,[149][150] North Korea,[150][151] and Cuba.[150][152]
Other leaders like E. V. Ramasami Naicker (Periyar), a prominent atheist leader of India, fought againstHinduism and Brahmins for discriminating and dividing people in the name of caste and religion.[153] This was highlighted in 1956 when he arranged for the erection of a statue depicting a Hindu god in a humble representation and made antitheistic statements.[154]
In 1966, Time magazine asked “Is God Dead?”[155] in response to the Death of God theological movement, citing the estimation that nearly half of all people in the world lived under an anti-religious power, and millions more in Africa, Asia, and South America seemed to lack knowledge of the one God.[156]
In 1967, the Albanian government under Enver Hoxha announced the closure of all religious institutions in the country, declaring Albania the world’s first officially atheist state,[157] although religious practice in Albania was restored in 1991. These regimes enhanced the negative associations of atheism, especially where anti-communist sentiment was strong in the United States, despite the fact that prominent atheists were anti-communist.[158]
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the number of actively anti-religious regimes has reduced considerably. In 2006, Timothy Shah of the Pew Forum noted “a worldwide trend across all major religious groups, in which God-based and faith-based movements in general are experiencing increasing confidence and influence vis-à-vis secular movements and ideologies.”[159] However, Gregory S. Paul and Phil Zuckerman consider this a myth and suggest that the actual situation is much more complex and nuanced.[160]
The religiously motivated terrorist events of 9/11 and the partially successful attempts of the Discovery institute to change the American science curriculum to include creationist ideas, together with support for those ideas from George W. Bush in 2005, all triggered the noted atheist authors Sam HarrisDaniel C. DennettRichard DawkinsVictor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens to publish books that were best sellers in America and worldwide.[161]
A 2010 survey found that those identifying themselves as atheists or agnostics are on average more knowledgeable about religion than followers of major faiths. Nonbelievers scored better on questions about tenets central to Protestant and Catholic faiths. Only Mormon and Jewish faithful scored as well as atheists and agnostics.[162]

[edit]New Atheism

New Atheism is the name given to a movement among some early-21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that “religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”[163] New atheists argue that recent scientific advancements demand a less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religious fanaticismthan had traditionally been extended by many secularists.[citation needed] The movement is commonly associated with Richard DawkinsDaniel C. DennettSam HarrisChristopher Hitchens, and Victor J. Stenger.[164][165] Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism.[166]


Percentage of people in various European countries who said: “I don’t believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force.” (2005)[167]

It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define “atheism” differently or draw different distinctions between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.[168] A Hindu atheist would declare oneself as a Hindu, although also being an atheist at the same time.[169] A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9% of the world’s population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[20] A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.[170]
A November–December 2006 poll published in the Financial Times gives rates for the United States and five European countries. The lowest rates of atheism were in the United States at only 4%, while the rates of atheism in the European countries surveyed were considerably higher: Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%).[21][171] The European figures are similar to those of an official European Union survey, which reported that 18% of the EU population do not believe in a god.[172] Other studies have placed the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers in a personal god as low as single digits in Poland, Romania, Cyprus, and some other European countries,[173] and up to 85% in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 72% in Norway, and 60% in Finland.[19] According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 19% of Australians have “no religion”, a category that includes atheists.[171] Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in a god.[19]

Proportion of atheists and agnostics around the world.

An international study has reported positive correlations between levels of education and not believing in a deity,[60] and the EU survey finds a positive correlation between leaving school early and believing in a God.[172] A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god orafterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population,[174] although this study has been criticized by Rodney Stark and Roger Finke for its definition of belief in God. The definition was “I believe in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer”. [175] 
An article published by The University of Chicago Chronicle that discussed the above study, stated that 76% of physicians believe in God, more than the 7% of scientists above, but still less than the 85% of the general population.[176]Another study assessing religiosity among scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that “just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.”[177] Frank Sulloway of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of “credentialed” U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[178] 
An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 out of 43 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[179] These findings broadly agree with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis by Professor Michael Argyle of the University of Oxford. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.[180] Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education correlate with greater tolerance for atheists’ public opposition to religion, greater skepticism of religious leaders, and a reconsideration of “the role of religion in secular society”.[181]“”

Bill Maher, George Carlin; Mass Delusion and Need For More Interfaith Communications; via A Green Road Blog

Share the blog post title and link above, (or the links below) by copying and pasting it into email, Facebook and Twitter. Or click on the share buttons below. Thanks for doing your part. Keep shining your light and sharing this information with friends, co-workers, politicians, doctors, professors, and other leaders! As the Dalai Lama says; “Never give up, never.” 

The following links can be saved on your computer and used to ‘debate’ even the experts. Just copy and paste the following links into the comments sections below articles online.

A Green Road Blog
A Green Road Website –
A Green Road Twitter Micro Blog –
A Green Road Discussion Group –
IGoogle Gadget: Tryout the A Green Road Blog -gadget on your iGoogle homepage »
AGR RSS NewsFeed (for your website)
FeedBurner makes it easy to receive content updates in My Yahoo!, Newsgator, Bloglines, and other news readers. Click on link above to learn more.
Using the links below will make you the ‘expert’. Feel free to copy and use.
Movie; I AM, Exploring The Meaning Of Life, Liberty And Happiness; via A Green Road Blog
Take 1 Giant Leap Into Happiness; Via A Green Road Blog; via A Green Road Blog
Wayne Dyer; The Power Of Intention Program; via A Green Road Blog
Raj Yoga; A Connection with Soul, God And Consciousness; via A Green Road Blog
Fibonacci Secrets Revealed; via A Green Road
Mysteries And Theories: Is The Earth Growing? via a Green Road Blog
Inspirational: All Good Things Are Coming To You Today; via A Green Road 
Greg Braden; The Science Behind Miracles And Heart Based Living; via A Green Road Blog
John Hagelin, Ph.D; Consciousness Superstring Unified Field Theory; via A Green Road Blog
The Universal Golden Rule; Moving Towards A Global Ethic; via A Green Road Blog
From Survival To Transcendence, Every Person Has Needs; via A Green Road Blog
The Force And Power Of Love; via A Green Road Blog
Here Comes Trouble; Michael Moore
Bill Maher, George Carlin; Mass Delusion and Need For More Interfaith Communications; via A Green Road Blog