Rejection of Jesus and other Wikipedia pages

Hatred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Hate)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Hate" redirects here. For other uses, see Hate (disambiguation).
"Hates" redirects here. For the German singer, see Adrian Hates.
For the video game, see Hatred (video game).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2014)
Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike. It can be directed against individuals, groups, entities, objects, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards hostility.


Contents  [hide]
1 Ethnolinguistics
2 Psychoanalytic views
3 Neurological research
4 Legal issues
5 Religious perspectives 5.1 Christianity
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading

Ethnolinguistics[edit]



[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.




This article needs additional citations for verification.  (August 2014)




This article possibly contains original research.  (July 2014)


James W. Underhill, in his Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: truth, love, hate & war, (2012) discusses the origin and the metaphoric representations of hate in various languages. He stresses that love and hate are social, and culturally constructed. For this reason, hate is historically situated. Although it is fair to say that one single emotion exists in English, French (haine), and German (Hass), hate varies in the forms in which it is manifested. A certain relationless hatred is expressed in the French expression J'ai la haine, which has no equivalent in English. While for English-speakers, loving and hating invariably involve an object, or a person, and therefore, a relationship with something or someone, J'ai la haine (literally, I have hate) precludes the idea of an emotion directed at a person. This is a form of frustration, apathy and animosity which churns within the subject but establishes no relationship with the world, other than an aimless desire for destruction. Underhill (following Philippe Roger) also considers French forms of anti-Americanism as a specific form of cultural resentment. At the same time, he analyses the hatred promoted by Ronald Reagan in his rhetoric directed against the "evil empire". In addition, Underhill suggests it is worrying that foreign languages (French, German, Spanish, Czech) are uncritically assimilating forms of hatred exported by neoconservative discourse which permeate these languages via the translation of political journalism and the rhetoric of the "war on terrorism" and the promotion of "security".
Psychoanalytic views[edit]
In psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness.[1] More recently, the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a "deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object."[2] Because hatred is believed to be long-lasting, many psychologists[who?] consider it to be more of an attitude or disposition than a temporary emotional state.[citation needed]
Neurological research[edit]
The neural correlates of hate have been investigated with an fMRI procedure. In this experiment, people had their brains scanned while viewing pictures of people they hated. The results showed increased activity in the middle frontal gyrus, right putamen, bilaterally in the premotor cortex, in the frontal pole, and bilaterally in the medial insular cortex of the human brain.[3]
Legal issues[edit]
In the English language, a hate crime (also known as a "bias-motivated crime") generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hate. Those who commit hate crimes target victims because of their perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender identity, or political affiliation.[4] Incidents may involve physical assault, destruction of property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[5]
Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group,[6] such as race, sex, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some[who?] as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society. In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. It is often alleged that the criminalization of hate speech is sometimes used to discourage legitimate discussion of negative aspects of voluntary behavior (such as political persuasion, religious adherence and philosophical allegiance). There is also some question as to whether or not hate speech falls under the protection of freedom of speech in some countries.
Both of these classifications have sparked debate, with counter-arguments such as, but not limited to, a difficulty in distinguishing motive and intent for crimes, as well as philosophical debate on the validity of valuing targeted hatred as a greater crime than general misanthropy and contempt for humanity being a potentially equal crime in and of itself.
Religious perspectives[edit]
Christianity[edit]
Both the Old and the New Testaments deal with hatred. Ecclesiastes 3:8 teaches that there is a "time to love, and a time to hate;".[7] However, the Old Testament (also known as the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh) also contains condemnations of hatred. For example, "thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart".[8] The New Testament emphasizes that evil intentions can be as serious as evil actions.[9] Thus John counted hatred as serious as murder: "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself".[10]
It is popularly assumed that one can’t “hate” and “love” the same person at the same time. But Psalm 139[11] says there is a kind of “perfect hatred” which is consistent with love, and is different from the “cruel hatred” shown by God’s enemies.[12] The Hebrew word describing David’s “perfect hatred” (KJV) means that it “brings a process to completion”.[13] In other words, goal oriented opposition. The ultimate opposition to those who oppose God would be to get them to love God. Or, failing that, to at least stop them from destroying others. The New Testament describes a similar, if not the same, process: “to deliver...unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved....”[14]
Today’s popular characterization of good hatred is to “hate the sin, but love the sinner”. Examples of this concept can be found in the Old Testament through David's actions. It is not recorded that David ever physically punished or fought anybody for merely hating or denying God, but only for acts of aggression. He responded to evil proportionately. He defended himself and his nation from violence, but when people merely turned from God in their hearts, without physical violence, he composed Psalms. Presumably this was the kind of “hatred” in David’s mind when he and his son wrote the only five verses in the Old Testament that suggest God “hates” not just the sin but the sinner.[15]
The New Testament unambiguously aligns with the modern concept: it never says God or Jesus hates any person, or that anyone else should.[16] Accordingly, Jesus hated (that is to say, in words dictated by "one like the Son of Man" in the vision of John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation) the “doctrines”[17] and “deeds”[18] of the Nicolaitans, but not the Nicolaitans themselves. While Jesus hates sin, He inspires us to love our enemies[19] by pointing out that God equally blesses “the evil and the good”.[20]
Leviticus 19:17 provides one illustration of how popular concepts of love and hate today have departed from biblical concepts. The verse says “thou shalt not hate”, but the rest of the verse explains what that means: “thou shalt...rebuke thy brother, and not [tolerate] sin upon him.” Today’s culture often agrees, calling that “tough love”. While contemporary culture and the Bible agree on this notion, they are in conflict over the definition of which behaviors deserve admonishment. At the most extreme points of difference, contemporary culture may consider the rebuking endorsed by the Bible to be hatred, especially if the behavior is permissible in secular society.[4][5][6]
See also[edit]
 Look up hatred or hate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Hatred
Discrimination
Gossip
Misanthropy
Revenge
Self-loathing
Two Minutes Hate
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Freud, S. (1915). The instincts and their vicissitudes.
2.Jump up ^ Reber, A.S., & Reber, E. (2002). The Penguin dictionary of psychology. New York: Penguin Books.
3.Jump up ^ Zeki, S.; Romaya, J.P. (October 2008). Lauwereyns, Jan, ed. "Neural Correlates of Hate". PLoS ONE 3 (10): e3556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003556. PMC 2569212. PMID 18958169.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Stotzer, R.: Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups, Williams Institute, 2007–06. Retrieved on 2007-08-09.
5.^ Jump up to: a b Hate crime, Home Office
6.^ Jump up to: a b "Dictionary.com: Hate speech". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2012-12-07.
7.Jump up ^ "Ecclesiastes 3:8". Bible Hub.
8.Jump up ^ "Leviticus 19:17". Bible Hub.
9.Jump up ^ "1 Corinthians 4:5". Bible Hub.
10.Jump up ^ "1 John 3". Bible Hub.
11.Jump up ^ "Psalm 139:22". Bible Hub.
12.Jump up ^ "Psalm 25:19". Bible Hub.
13.Jump up ^ Harris, R Laird (10/01/2003). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Moody Publishers; New Edition. ISBN 0802486495. Check date values in: |date= (help)
14.Jump up ^ "1 Corinthians 5:5". Bible hub.
15.Jump up ^ "Psalm 5". Bible Hub.
16.Jump up ^ "Luke 14:26". Bible Hub.
17.Jump up ^ "Revelations 2:15". Bible Hub.
18.Jump up ^ "Revelations 2:6". Bible Hub.
19.Jump up ^ "Matthew 5:44". Bible Hub.
20.Jump up ^ "Matthew 5:45". Bible Hub.
Further reading[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Hate crimes.
The Psychology of Hate by Robert Sternberg (Ed.)
Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence by Willard Gaylin
Why We Hate by Jack Levin
The Psychology of Good and Evil: Why Children, Adults, and Groups Help and Harm Others by Ervin Staub
Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence by Aaron T. Beck
Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing by James Waller
Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: truth, love, hate & war, by James W. Underhill, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Emotions (list)






















































































Plutchik-wheel.svg













Authority control
GND: 4023606-7
 

  


Categories: Hatred
Love
Discrimination
Issues in ethics
Emotions
Vices

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Avañe'ẽ
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎
Български
བོད་ཡིག
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Ido
Bahasa Indonesia
ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ/inuktitut
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kreyòl ayisyen
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Shqip
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
ไทย
Українська
ייִדיש
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 June 2015, at 01:25.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred













Hatred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Hate)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Hate" redirects here. For other uses, see Hate (disambiguation).
"Hates" redirects here. For the German singer, see Adrian Hates.
For the video game, see Hatred (video game).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2014)
Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike. It can be directed against individuals, groups, entities, objects, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards hostility.


Contents  [hide]
1 Ethnolinguistics
2 Psychoanalytic views
3 Neurological research
4 Legal issues
5 Religious perspectives 5.1 Christianity
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading

Ethnolinguistics[edit]



[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.




This article needs additional citations for verification.  (August 2014)




This article possibly contains original research.  (July 2014)


James W. Underhill, in his Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: truth, love, hate & war, (2012) discusses the origin and the metaphoric representations of hate in various languages. He stresses that love and hate are social, and culturally constructed. For this reason, hate is historically situated. Although it is fair to say that one single emotion exists in English, French (haine), and German (Hass), hate varies in the forms in which it is manifested. A certain relationless hatred is expressed in the French expression J'ai la haine, which has no equivalent in English. While for English-speakers, loving and hating invariably involve an object, or a person, and therefore, a relationship with something or someone, J'ai la haine (literally, I have hate) precludes the idea of an emotion directed at a person. This is a form of frustration, apathy and animosity which churns within the subject but establishes no relationship with the world, other than an aimless desire for destruction. Underhill (following Philippe Roger) also considers French forms of anti-Americanism as a specific form of cultural resentment. At the same time, he analyses the hatred promoted by Ronald Reagan in his rhetoric directed against the "evil empire". In addition, Underhill suggests it is worrying that foreign languages (French, German, Spanish, Czech) are uncritically assimilating forms of hatred exported by neoconservative discourse which permeate these languages via the translation of political journalism and the rhetoric of the "war on terrorism" and the promotion of "security".
Psychoanalytic views[edit]
In psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness.[1] More recently, the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a "deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object."[2] Because hatred is believed to be long-lasting, many psychologists[who?] consider it to be more of an attitude or disposition than a temporary emotional state.[citation needed]
Neurological research[edit]
The neural correlates of hate have been investigated with an fMRI procedure. In this experiment, people had their brains scanned while viewing pictures of people they hated. The results showed increased activity in the middle frontal gyrus, right putamen, bilaterally in the premotor cortex, in the frontal pole, and bilaterally in the medial insular cortex of the human brain.[3]
Legal issues[edit]
In the English language, a hate crime (also known as a "bias-motivated crime") generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hate. Those who commit hate crimes target victims because of their perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender identity, or political affiliation.[4] Incidents may involve physical assault, destruction of property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[5]
Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group,[6] such as race, sex, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some[who?] as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society. In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. It is often alleged that the criminalization of hate speech is sometimes used to discourage legitimate discussion of negative aspects of voluntary behavior (such as political persuasion, religious adherence and philosophical allegiance). There is also some question as to whether or not hate speech falls under the protection of freedom of speech in some countries.
Both of these classifications have sparked debate, with counter-arguments such as, but not limited to, a difficulty in distinguishing motive and intent for crimes, as well as philosophical debate on the validity of valuing targeted hatred as a greater crime than general misanthropy and contempt for humanity being a potentially equal crime in and of itself.
Religious perspectives[edit]
Christianity[edit]
Both the Old and the New Testaments deal with hatred. Ecclesiastes 3:8 teaches that there is a "time to love, and a time to hate;".[7] However, the Old Testament (also known as the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh) also contains condemnations of hatred. For example, "thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart".[8] The New Testament emphasizes that evil intentions can be as serious as evil actions.[9] Thus John counted hatred as serious as murder: "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself".[10]
It is popularly assumed that one can’t “hate” and “love” the same person at the same time. But Psalm 139[11] says there is a kind of “perfect hatred” which is consistent with love, and is different from the “cruel hatred” shown by God’s enemies.[12] The Hebrew word describing David’s “perfect hatred” (KJV) means that it “brings a process to completion”.[13] In other words, goal oriented opposition. The ultimate opposition to those who oppose God would be to get them to love God. Or, failing that, to at least stop them from destroying others. The New Testament describes a similar, if not the same, process: “to deliver...unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved....”[14]
Today’s popular characterization of good hatred is to “hate the sin, but love the sinner”. Examples of this concept can be found in the Old Testament through David's actions. It is not recorded that David ever physically punished or fought anybody for merely hating or denying God, but only for acts of aggression. He responded to evil proportionately. He defended himself and his nation from violence, but when people merely turned from God in their hearts, without physical violence, he composed Psalms. Presumably this was the kind of “hatred” in David’s mind when he and his son wrote the only five verses in the Old Testament that suggest God “hates” not just the sin but the sinner.[15]
The New Testament unambiguously aligns with the modern concept: it never says God or Jesus hates any person, or that anyone else should.[16] Accordingly, Jesus hated (that is to say, in words dictated by "one like the Son of Man" in the vision of John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation) the “doctrines”[17] and “deeds”[18] of the Nicolaitans, but not the Nicolaitans themselves. While Jesus hates sin, He inspires us to love our enemies[19] by pointing out that God equally blesses “the evil and the good”.[20]
Leviticus 19:17 provides one illustration of how popular concepts of love and hate today have departed from biblical concepts. The verse says “thou shalt not hate”, but the rest of the verse explains what that means: “thou shalt...rebuke thy brother, and not [tolerate] sin upon him.” Today’s culture often agrees, calling that “tough love”. While contemporary culture and the Bible agree on this notion, they are in conflict over the definition of which behaviors deserve admonishment. At the most extreme points of difference, contemporary culture may consider the rebuking endorsed by the Bible to be hatred, especially if the behavior is permissible in secular society.[4][5][6]
See also[edit]
 Look up hatred or hate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Hatred
Discrimination
Gossip
Misanthropy
Revenge
Self-loathing
Two Minutes Hate
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Freud, S. (1915). The instincts and their vicissitudes.
2.Jump up ^ Reber, A.S., & Reber, E. (2002). The Penguin dictionary of psychology. New York: Penguin Books.
3.Jump up ^ Zeki, S.; Romaya, J.P. (October 2008). Lauwereyns, Jan, ed. "Neural Correlates of Hate". PLoS ONE 3 (10): e3556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003556. PMC 2569212. PMID 18958169.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Stotzer, R.: Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups, Williams Institute, 2007–06. Retrieved on 2007-08-09.
5.^ Jump up to: a b Hate crime, Home Office
6.^ Jump up to: a b "Dictionary.com: Hate speech". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2012-12-07.
7.Jump up ^ "Ecclesiastes 3:8". Bible Hub.
8.Jump up ^ "Leviticus 19:17". Bible Hub.
9.Jump up ^ "1 Corinthians 4:5". Bible Hub.
10.Jump up ^ "1 John 3". Bible Hub.
11.Jump up ^ "Psalm 139:22". Bible Hub.
12.Jump up ^ "Psalm 25:19". Bible Hub.
13.Jump up ^ Harris, R Laird (10/01/2003). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Moody Publishers; New Edition. ISBN 0802486495. Check date values in: |date= (help)
14.Jump up ^ "1 Corinthians 5:5". Bible hub.
15.Jump up ^ "Psalm 5". Bible Hub.
16.Jump up ^ "Luke 14:26". Bible Hub.
17.Jump up ^ "Revelations 2:15". Bible Hub.
18.Jump up ^ "Revelations 2:6". Bible Hub.
19.Jump up ^ "Matthew 5:44". Bible Hub.
20.Jump up ^ "Matthew 5:45". Bible Hub.
Further reading[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Hate crimes.
The Psychology of Hate by Robert Sternberg (Ed.)
Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence by Willard Gaylin
Why We Hate by Jack Levin
The Psychology of Good and Evil: Why Children, Adults, and Groups Help and Harm Others by Ervin Staub
Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence by Aaron T. Beck
Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing by James Waller
Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: truth, love, hate & war, by James W. Underhill, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Emotions (list)






















































































Plutchik-wheel.svg













Authority control
GND: 4023606-7
 

  


Categories: Hatred
Love
Discrimination
Issues in ethics
Emotions
Vices

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Avañe'ẽ
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎
Български
བོད་ཡིག
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Ido
Bahasa Indonesia
ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ/inuktitut
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kreyòl ayisyen
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Shqip
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
ไทย
Українська
ייִדיש
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 June 2015, at 01:25.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred














Bigotry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Not to be confused with Bigamy.
"Bigot" redirects here. For people named Bigot and other meanings, see Bigot (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.
In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]
In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

Etymology[edit]
The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". This meaning still survives in Italian (bigotto) and French (bigot). The exact origin of the word is unknown, but it may have come from the German bei Gott, or the English by God.[5]
William Camden wrote that the Normans were first called bigots, when their Duke Rollo, who when receiving Gisla, daughter of King Charles, in marriage, and with her the investiture of the dukedom, refused to kiss the king's foot in token of subjection – unless the king would hold it out for that specific purpose. When being urged to do it by those present, Rollo answered hastily "No, by God", whereupon the King, turning about, called him bigot, which then passed from him to his people.[6] This is quite probably fictional,[citation needed] as Gisla is unknown in Frankish sources. It is true, however, that the French used the term bigot to abuse the Normans.[7]
The twelfth-century Norman author Wace claimed that bigot was an insult which the French used against the Normans, but it is unclear whether or not this is how it entered the English language.[8]
The French used to call the English les goddams after their favorite curse; Clément Janequin's "La Guerre,"[9] which is about the Battle of Marignano, similarly uses the Swiss German curse "bigot" (i.e. "by god!") in a context about the Protestant Swiss.
According to Henry Bradley, the meaning of bigot in the Old French was "detested foreigner," "heretic," and it is supposed that the word was a corruption of Visigot. To the Catholic Franks, the Arian Visigoths of Southern France and Spain were the objects of bitter hatred, both on religious and worldly grounds.[10]
See also[edit]
Prejudice
Purist
Yobaz
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "Oxford Dictionaries".
2.Jump up ^ "Cambridge Dictionaries".
3.Jump up ^ "Mirriam Webster Dictionary".
4.Jump up ^ "Collins Dictionary".
5.Jump up ^ "bigot". Online Etymology Dictionary.
6.Jump up ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). "Bigot". Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (first ed.). James and John Knapton, et al.
7.Jump up ^ Word Histories And Mysteries: From Abracadabra to Zeus. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004. p. 24. ISBN 0-618-45450-0.
8.Jump up ^ Ayto, John (1990). Dictionary of Word Origins: The Histories of More Than 8,000 English-Language Words. Arcade Publishing.
9.Jump up ^ "La Guerre (La Bataille de Marignan) de Clément Janequin" (in French). Tard Bourrichon.
10.Jump up ^ Bradley, Henry, The Story of the Goths, XXXI, 329. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1891.
External links[edit]
 Media related to Bigotry at Wikimedia Commons
 The dictionary definition of bigotry at Wiktionary
 Quotations related to Bigotry at Wikiquote


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal


  


Categories: Prejudices








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Čeština
Deutsch
Emiliàn e rumagnòl
Esperanto
Français
हिन्दी
Ido
עברית
Polski
Română
Русский
Simple English
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 05:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry














Bigotry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Not to be confused with Bigamy.
"Bigot" redirects here. For people named Bigot and other meanings, see Bigot (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.
In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]
In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

Etymology[edit]
The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". This meaning still survives in Italian (bigotto) and French (bigot). The exact origin of the word is unknown, but it may have come from the German bei Gott, or the English by God.[5]
William Camden wrote that the Normans were first called bigots, when their Duke Rollo, who when receiving Gisla, daughter of King Charles, in marriage, and with her the investiture of the dukedom, refused to kiss the king's foot in token of subjection – unless the king would hold it out for that specific purpose. When being urged to do it by those present, Rollo answered hastily "No, by God", whereupon the King, turning about, called him bigot, which then passed from him to his people.[6] This is quite probably fictional,[citation needed] as Gisla is unknown in Frankish sources. It is true, however, that the French used the term bigot to abuse the Normans.[7]
The twelfth-century Norman author Wace claimed that bigot was an insult which the French used against the Normans, but it is unclear whether or not this is how it entered the English language.[8]
The French used to call the English les goddams after their favorite curse; Clément Janequin's "La Guerre,"[9] which is about the Battle of Marignano, similarly uses the Swiss German curse "bigot" (i.e. "by god!") in a context about the Protestant Swiss.
According to Henry Bradley, the meaning of bigot in the Old French was "detested foreigner," "heretic," and it is supposed that the word was a corruption of Visigot. To the Catholic Franks, the Arian Visigoths of Southern France and Spain were the objects of bitter hatred, both on religious and worldly grounds.[10]
See also[edit]
Prejudice
Purist
Yobaz
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "Oxford Dictionaries".
2.Jump up ^ "Cambridge Dictionaries".
3.Jump up ^ "Mirriam Webster Dictionary".
4.Jump up ^ "Collins Dictionary".
5.Jump up ^ "bigot". Online Etymology Dictionary.
6.Jump up ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). "Bigot". Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (first ed.). James and John Knapton, et al.
7.Jump up ^ Word Histories And Mysteries: From Abracadabra to Zeus. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004. p. 24. ISBN 0-618-45450-0.
8.Jump up ^ Ayto, John (1990). Dictionary of Word Origins: The Histories of More Than 8,000 English-Language Words. Arcade Publishing.
9.Jump up ^ "La Guerre (La Bataille de Marignan) de Clément Janequin" (in French). Tard Bourrichon.
10.Jump up ^ Bradley, Henry, The Story of the Goths, XXXI, 329. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1891.
External links[edit]
 Media related to Bigotry at Wikimedia Commons
 The dictionary definition of bigotry at Wiktionary
 Quotations related to Bigotry at Wikiquote


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal


  


Categories: Prejudices








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Čeština
Deutsch
Emiliàn e rumagnòl
Esperanto
Français
हिन्दी
Ido
עברית
Polski
Română
Русский
Simple English
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 05:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry












Discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Discrimination (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.[1] This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[2] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[3]
Not all discrimination is based on prejudice, however. Some religious duties, for example, need to be performed exclusively by a minister professing the religion that commands those duties.[4] Also, in the U.S., government policy known as affirmative action was instituted to encourage employers and universities to seek out and accept groups such as African-Americans and women, who have been subject to the opposite kind of discrimination for a long time.[5] Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices, and laws exist in many countries and institutions in every part of the world, even in ones where discrimination is generally looked down upon. In some places, controversial attempts such as quotas have been used to benefit those believed to be current or past victims of discrimination—but have sometimes been called reverse discrimination


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Definitions
3 United Nations documents
4 Types 4.1 Age
4.2 Caste
4.3 Disability
4.4 Employment
4.5 Language
4.6 Nationality
4.7 Race or Ethnicity
4.8 Region
4.9 Religious Beliefs
4.10 Sex, gender, and gender identity
4.11 Sexual orientation
4.12 Othering
4.13 Reverse Discrimination
5 Legislation
6 Theories 6.1 Labeling theory
6.2 Game theory
7 State vs. free market 7.1 State discrimination
7.2 Markets punish the discriminator
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

Etymology[edit]
The term discriminate appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from the Latin discriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verb discriminare, from discrimen 'distinction', from the verb discernere.[6] Since the American Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.[7] "Discrimination" derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire means "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction".
Definitions[edit]
Moral philosophers have defined discrimination as disadvantageous treatment or consideration. This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. They just need to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. If someone decides to donate to help orphan children, but decides to donate less, say, to black children out of a racist attitude, then they would be acting in a discriminatory way even though the people they discriminate against are actually benefitted by having some money donated to them.[8]
Based on realistic-conflict theory[9] and social-identity theory,[10] Rubin and Hewstone[11] have highlighted a distinction among three types of discrimination:
1.Realistic competition is driven by self-interest and is aimed at obtaining material resources (e.g., food, territory, customers) for the in-group (e.g., favouring an in-group in order to obtain more resources for its members, including the self).
2.Social competition is driven by the need for self-esteem and is aimed at achieving a positive social status for the in-group relative to comparable out-groups (e.g., favouring an in-group in order to make it better than an out-group).
3.Consensual discrimination is driven by the need for accuracy[clarification needed] and reflects stable and legitimate intergroup status hierarchies (e.g., favouring a high-status in-group because it is high status).
The United Nations stance on discrimination includes the statement: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."[12] International bodies United Nations Human Rights Council work towards helping ending discrimination around the world.
United Nations documents[edit]
Important UN documents addressing discrimination include:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It states that:" Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."[13]
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. The Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination. The convention was adopted and opened for signature by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965, and entered into force on 4 January 1969.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on 3 September 1981.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international human rights instrument treaty of the United Nations. Parties to the Convention are required to promote, protect, and ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities and ensure that they enjoy full equality under the law. The text was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006, and opened for signature on 30 March 2007. Following ratification by the 20th party, it came into force on 3 May 2008.
Types[edit]
Age[edit]
Main article: Ageism
Ageism or age discrimination is discrimination and stereotyping based on the grounds of someone's age.[14] It is a set of beliefs, norms, and values which used to justify discrimination or subordination based on a person's age.[15] Ageism is most often directed towards old people, or adolescents and children.[16][17]
Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, professor at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant.[18]
In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or racial discrimination. Dominic Abrams, social psychology professor at the university, concluded that Ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.[19]
Caste[edit]
See also: Caste
According to UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide.[20][21][22] Discrimination based on caste, as perceived by UNICEF, is prevalent mainly in parts of Asia, (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, Nepal, Japan), Africa and others.[20] As of 2011, there were 200 million Dalits or Scheduled Castes (formerly known as "untouchables") in India.[23]
Disability[edit]
Main article: Disability discrimination
Discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not is called ableism or disablism. Disability discrimination, which treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of ‘normal living’, results in public and private places and services, education, and social work that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby excluding those with various disabilities. Studies have shown, employment is needed to not only provide a living but to sustain mental health and well being. Work fulfils a number of basic needs for an individual such as collective purpose, social contact, status, and activity.[24] A person with a disability is often found to be socially isolated and work is one way to reduce isolation.
In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act mandates the provision of equality of access to both buildings and services and is paralleled by similar acts in other countries, such as the Equality Act 2010 in the UK.[citation needed]
Employment[edit]



Ethiopian Jews protest in Israel over non-employment of Ethiopian academics.
Main article: Employment discrimination
Denying someone employment, or disallowing one from applying for a job, is often recognized as employment discrimination when the grounds for such an exclusion is not related to the requirements of the position, and protected characteristics may include age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, height, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, skin color, and weight.
The United States federal laws that protect against:
Race, color and national origin discrimination include the [1] Civil Rights Act of 1964, [2] Executive Order Number 11478 among other numerous laws that protect people from race, color and national origin discrimination.
Sex and gender discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and [3] Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Age discrimination include the [4] Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
Physical and mental disability discrimination include the [5] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Religious discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Military status discrimination include the [6] Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Most other western nations have similar laws protecting these groups.
Still unrelated to the requirements of the position, only 9% of Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) are women while they are over 60% among accountants and auditors. And yet those who reach a high responsibility position are paid on average 16% lower than their male colleagues. (According to a recent report, 2013) [25]
Language[edit]


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2012)
Main article: Linguistic discrimination



 Nationalists on Corsica sometimes spray-paint or shoot traffic signs in French.
Diversity of language is protected and respected by most nations who value cultural diversity.[dubious – discuss] However, people are sometimes subjected to different treatment because their preferred language is associated with a particular group, class or category. Commonly, the preferred language is just another attribute of separate ethnic groups.[dubious – discuss] Discrimination exists if there is prejudicial treatment against a person or a group of people who speak a particular language or dialect.
Language discrimination is suggested to be labeled linguicism or logocism.[by whom?] Anti-discriminatory and inclusive efforts to accommodate persons who speak different languages or cannot have fluency in the country's predominant or "official" language, is bilingualism such as official documents in two languages, and multiculturalism in more than two languages.[citation needed]
Nationality[edit]
Discrimination on the basis of nationality is usually included in employment laws[26] (see below section for employment discrimination specifically). It is sometimes referred to as bound together with racial discrimination[27] although it can be separate. It may vary from laws that stop refusals of hiring based on nationality, asking questions regarding origin, to prohibitions of firing, forced retirement, compensation and pay, etc., based on nationality.[27]
Discrimination on the basis of nationality may show as a "level of acceptance" in a sport or work team regarding new team members and employees who differ from the nationality of the majority of team members.[28]
In the UAE and other GCC states, for instance, nationality is not frequently given to residents and expatriates. In the workplace, preferential treatment is given to full citizens, even though many of them lack experience or motivation to do the job. State benefits are also generally available for citizens only.[29]
Race or Ethnicity[edit]
Main articles: Racism, Discrimination based on skin color and Ethnic Penalty



Anti-Arab sign in Pattaya Beach, Thailand


 German warning in Germany-occupied Poland 1939 - "No entrance for Poles!"


Antisemitic graffiti in Lithuania. The signs read "Jews out" and "Hate"


 An African-American child at a segregated drinking fountain on a courthouse lawn, North Carolina, US 1938.


Anti-Japanese poster outside of a restaurant in Guangzhou, China
Racial discrimination differentiates individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial differences and has been official government policy in several countries, such as South Africa in the apartheid era. Discriminatory policies towards ethnic minorities include the race-based discrimination of ethnic Indians and Chinese in Malaysia[30] or discrimination of ethnic Uighurs in China.[31] After the Vietnam War, many Vietnamese refugees moved to the United States, where they face discrimination.[32]
As of 2013, aboriginal people (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) comprise 4 percent of Canada's population, but account for 23.2 percent of the federal prison population.[33] According to the Australian government's June 2006 publication of prison statistics, Aborigines make up 24% of the overall prison population in Australia.[34]
In 2004, Māori made up just 15% of the total population of New Zealand but 49.5% of prisoners. Māori were entering prison at eight times the rate of non-Māori.[35] A quarter of the people in England's prisons are from an ethnic minority. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in England and Wales as of 2010, a black person was five times more likely to be imprisoned than a white person. The discrepancy was attributed to "decades of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system".[36]
In the United States, racial profiling of minorities by law-enforcement officials has been called racial discrimination.[37]
 Within the criminal justice system in the United States, minorities are convicted and imprisoned disproportionately when compared to the majority.[38][39] As early as 1866, the Civil Rights Act and Civil Rights Act of 1871 provided a remedy for intentional racism in employment by private employers and state and local public employers. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the damages available in Title VII cases and granted Title VII plaintiffs the right to a jury trial.
Region[edit]
See also: Regional discrimination in China
Regional or geographic discrimination is discrimination based on the region in which a person lives or was born. It differs from national discrimination in that it may not be based on national borders or the country the victim lives in, but is instead based on prejudices against a specific region of one or more countries. Examples include discrimination against mainland Chinese within China, or discrimination against Americans from the south in the United States. It is often accompanied by discrimination based on accent, dialect, or cultural differences.[citation needed]
Religious Beliefs[edit]
Main article: Religious discrimination

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe or because of their feelings towards a given religion. For instance, the indigenous Christian population of Balkans (known as "rayah" or "protected flock") lived under the Ottoman Kanun–i–Rayah. The word is sometimes translated as 'cattle' rather than 'flock' or 'subjects' to emphasize the inferior status of the rayah.[40]
Restrictions upon Jewish occupations were imposed by Christian authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to Jews, pushing them into marginal roles considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, occupations only tolerated as a "necessary evil".[41] The number of Jews permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated in ghettos and were not allowed to own land.
In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied " the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[42]
Sex, gender, and gender identity[edit]
Main article: Sexism
See also: Misogyny, Misandry, Transphobia and Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons
Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex discrimination, on the other hand, may have legal consequences.
Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature is considered a form of prejudice and in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries.
Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or by an employer not hiring or promoting, unequally paying, or wrongfully terminating, an employee based on their gender.



 The gender gap in median earnings of full-time employees according to the OECD 2008.[43]
Sexual discrimination in the workplace can also arise when the dominant group holds a bias against the minority group. One such example is Wikipedia. In the Wikipedian community, around 13 percent of registered users are women.[44] This creates gender imbalances, and leaves room for systemic bias. Women are not only more harshly scrutinized, but the representation of women authors are also overlooked. Relative to men, across all source lists, women have a 2.6 greater odds of omission in Wikipedia.[45]
In an educational setting there could be claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship because of their gender. In the housing setting there could be claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on their gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.[46] As with other forms of unlawful discrimination there are two types of sex discrimination – direct discrimination and indirect discrimination. Direct sex discrimination is fairly easy to spot – ‘Barmaid wanted’, but indirect sex discrimination, where an unnecessary requirement puts one sex at a disproportionate disadvantage compared to the opposite sex, is sometimes less easy to spot, although some are obvious – ‘Bar person wanted – must look good in a mini skirt’.[47]
Another setting where there is usually gender discrimination is when one is refused to extend their credit, refused approval of credit/loan process, and if there is a burden of unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.
Socially, sexual differences have been used to justify different roles for men and women, in some cases giving rise to claims of primary and secondary roles.[48]
While there are alleged non-physical differences between men and women, major reviews of the academic literature on gender difference find only a tiny minority of characteristics where there are consistent psychological differences between men and women, and these relate directly to experiences grounded in biological difference.[49] However, there are also some psychological differences in regard to how problems are dealt with and emotional perceptions and reactions that may relate to hormones and the successful characteristics of each gender during longstanding roles in past primitive lifestyles.



 Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, U.S., 2009.[50]
Unfair discrimination usually follows the gender stereotyping held by a society.[51]
The United Nations had concluded that women often experience a "glass ceiling" and that there are no societies in which women enjoy the same opportunities as men.[52] The term "glass ceiling" is used to describe a perceived barrier to advancement in employment based on discrimination, especially sex discrimination.[53]
In the United States in 1995, the Glass Ceiling Commission, a government-funded group, stated: "Over half of all Master’s degrees are now awarded to women, yet 95% of senior-level managers, of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies are men. Of them, 97% are white." In its report, it recommended affirmative action, which is the consideration of an employee's gender and race in hiring and promotion decisions, as a means to end this form of discrimination.[54] As of 2010, women accounted for 51% of workers in high-paying management, professional, and related occupations. They outnumbered men in such occupations as public relations managers, financial managers, and human resource managers.[55]
Transgender individuals, whether male-to-female, female-to-male, or Genderqueer, often experience transphobic problems that often lead to dismissals, underachievement, difficulty in finding a job, social isolation, and, occasionally, violent attacks against them. Nevertheless, the problem of gender discrimination does not stop at transgender individuals or with women. Men are often the victim in certain areas of employment as men begin to seek work in office and childcare settings traditionally perceived as "women's jobs". One such situation seems to be evident in a recent case concerning alleged YMCA discrimination and a Federal Court Case in Texas.[56] The case actually involves alleged discrimination against both men and black people in childcare, even when they pass the same strict background tests and other standards of employment. It is currently being contended in federal court, as of fall 2009.
Discrimination in slasher films is relevant. Gloria Cowan had a research group study on 57 different slasher films. Their results showed that the non-surviving females were more frequently sexual than the surviving females and the non-surviving males. Surviving as a female slasher victim was strongly associated with the absence of sexual behavior. In slasher films, the message appears to be that sexual women get killed and only the pure women survive. Slasher films reinforce the idea that female sexuality can be costly.[57]
Sexual orientation[edit]



 Protests in New York City against Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
See also: Heterosexism, Heteronormativity, Biphobia and Homophobia
One’s sexual orientation is a “predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality”.[58] Like most minority groups, homosexuals and bisexuals are not immune to prejudice and discrimination from the majority group. They may experience hatred from others because of their sexual preferences; a term for such hatred based upon one’s sexual orientation is often called homophobia. Many continue to hold negative feelings towards those with non-heterosexual orientations and will discriminate against people who have them or are thought to have them.
People of other uncommon sexual orientations also experience discrimination. One study found its sample of heterosexuals to be more prejudiced against asexuals than to homosexuals or bisexuals.[59]
In 2009, ILGA published a report based on research carried out by Daniel Ottosson at Södertörn University College, Stockholm, Sweden. This research found that of the 80 countries around the world that continue to consider homosexuality illegal, five carry the death penalty for homosexual activity, and two do in some regions of the country.[60] In the report, this is described as "State sponsored homophobia".[61] This happens in Islamic states, or in two cases regions under Islamic authority.[62][63]
On February 5, 2005 the IRIN issued a reported titled "Iraq: Male homosexuality still a taboo." The article stated, among other things that honor killings by Iraqis against a gay family member are common and given some legal protection.[64] In August 2009 Human Rights Watch published an extensive report detailing torture of men accused of being gay in Iraq, including the blocking of men's anuses with glue and then giving the men laxatives.[65] Although gay marriage has been legal in South Africa since 2006, same-sex unions are often condemned as "un-African."[66] Research conducted in 2009 shows 86% of black lesbians from the Western Cape live in fear of sexual assault.[67]
Further information: LGBT rights by country or territory
A number of countries, especially those in the Western world, have passed measures to alleviate discrimination against sexual minorities, including laws against anti-gay hate crimes and workplace discrimination. Some have also legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions in order to grant same-sex couples the same protections and benefits as opposite-sex couples. In 2011, the United Nations passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights.
Othering[edit]
Othering is the process by which a person or a group is placed outside of the norm, into the margins. It is a system of discrimination whereby the characteristics of a group are used to distinguish them as separate from the norm.[68] Othering plays a fundamental role in the history and continuance of racism and other forms of discrimination. For example, by objectifying culture as something different, exotic or underdeveloped is to generalise that it is not the same as ‘normal’ society. Europe’s colonial attitude towards the Orient exemplifies through the attitude that the East was the opposite of the West; feminine where the West was masculine, weak where the West was strong and traditional where the West was progressive.[69] By making these generalisations and othering the East, Europe was simultaneously defining herself as the norm, further entrenching the perceived gap.[70] Much of the process of othering relies on imagined difference, or the expectation of difference. Spatial difference can be enough to conclude that 'we' are 'here’ and the 'others' are over 'there', making 'here' normal and 'there' foreign.[69] Imagined differences serve to categorise people into groups and assign them characteristics that suit the imaginer’s expectations and desires.[71]
Reverse Discrimination[edit]
Main articles: Reverse discrimination and Bumiputera (Malaysia)



 Students protesting against racial quotas in Brazil: "Quer uma vaga? Passe no vestibular!" ("Do you want a university place? Be successful in the entrance exam!")
Some attempts at antidiscrimination have been criticized as reverse discrimination. In particular, minority quotas (for example, affirmative action) may discriminate against members of a dominant or majority group or other minority groups. In its opposition to race preferences, the American Civil Rights Institute's Ward Connerly stated, "There is nothing positive, affirmative, or equal about 'affirmative action' programs that give preference to some groups based on race."[72]
Legislation[edit]

Globe icon.
 The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2010)
Main article: List of anti-discrimination acts
Australia
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Canada
Ontario Human Rights Code 1962
Canadian Human Rights Act 1977
Hong Kong
Sex Discrimination Ordinance (1996)
Israel
Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, 2000
Employment (Equal Opportunities) Law, 1988
Prohibition of libel law 1965.[73]
Netherlands
Article 137c, part 1 of Wetboek van Strafrecht prohibits insults towards a group because of its race, religion, sexual orientation (straight or gay), handicap (somatically, mental or psychiatric) in public or by speech, by writing or by a picture. Maximum imprisonment one year of imprisonment or a fine of the third category.[74][75]
Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to two years and the maximum fine category to 4,[76] when the crime is committed as a habit or is committed by two or more persons.
Article 137d prohibits provoking to discrimination or hate against the group described above. Same penalties apply as in artickle 137c.[77]
Article 137e part 1 prohibits publishing a discriminatory statement, other than in formal message, or hands over an object (that contains discriminatory information) otherwise than on his request. Maximum imprisonment is 6 months or a fine of the third category.[74][78]
Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to one year and the maximum fine category to 4,[76] when the crime is committed as a habit or committed by two or more persons.
Article 137f prohibits supporting discriminatory activities by giving money or goods. Maximum imprisonment is 3 months or a fine of the second category.[79][80]
United Kingdom
Equal Pay Act 1970 – provides for equal pay for comparable work
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 – makes discrimination against women or men, including discrimination on the grounds of marital status, illegal in the workplace.
Human Rights Act 1998 – provides more scope for redressing all forms of discriminatory imbalances
United States
Equal Pay Act of 1963[81] – (part of the Fair Labor Standards Act) – prohibits wage discrimination by employers and labor organizations based on sex
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[82] – broadly prohibits discrimination in the workplace including hiring, firing, workforce reduction, benefits, and sexually harassing conduct
Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is charged with administering and enforcing the Act.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – covers discrimination based upon pregnancy in the workplace[83]
Violence Against Women Act
Theories[edit]
Social theories such as egalitarianism assert that social equality should prevail. In some societies, including most developed countries, each individual's civil rights include the right to be free from government sponsored social discrimination.[84] Due to a belief in the capacity to perceive pain or suffering shared by all animals, "abolitionist" or "vegan" egalitarianism maintains that the interests of every individual (regardless its species), warrant equal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is "speciesist".[85]
Labeling theory[edit]
Discrimination, in labeling theory, takes form as mental categorization of minorities and the use of stereotype. This theory describes difference as deviance from the norm, which results in internal devaluation and social stigma[86] that may be seen as discrimination. It is started by describing a "natural" social order. It is distinguished between the fundamental principle of fascism and social democracy.[clarification needed] The Nazis in 1930s-era Germany and the pre-1990 Apartheid government of South Africa used racially discriminatory agendas for their political ends. This practice continues with some present day governments.[citation needed]
Game theory[edit]
Economist Yanis Varoufakis (2013) argues that that "discrimination based on utterly arbitrary characteristics evolves quickly and systematically in the experimental laboratory", and that neither classical game theory nor neoclassical economics can explain this. [87] Varoufakis and Shaun Hargreaves-Heap (2002) ran an experiment where volunteers played a computer-mediated, multiround hawk-dove game (HD game). At the start of each session, each participant was assigned a color at random, either red or blue. At each round, each player learned the color assigned to his or her opponent, but nothing else about the opponent. Hargreaves-Heap and Varoufakis found that the players' behavior within a session frequently developed a discriminatory convention, giving a Nash equilibrium where players of one color (the "advantaged" color) consistently played the aggressive "hawk" strategy against players of the other, "disadvantaged" color, who played the acquiescent "dove" strategy against the advantaged color. Players of both colors used a mixed strategy when playing against players assigned the same color as their own.
The experimenters then added a cooperation option to the game, and found that disadvantaged players usually cooperated with each other, while advantaged players usually did not. They state that while the equilibria reached in the original HD game are predicted by evolutionary game theory, game theory does not explain the emergence of cooperation in the disadvantaged group. Citing earlier psychological work of Matthew Rabin, they hypothesize that a norm of differing entitlements emerges across the two groups, and that this norm could define a "fairness" equilibrium within the disadvantaged group.[88]
State vs. free market[edit]


 This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (December 2011)


 It has been suggested that Ethnic Penalty be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2013.
State discrimination[edit]



 In the 1990s, Bhutan expelled or forced to leave its Hindu population in the name of preserving its Buddhist culture and identity.
In politics, the dominating part of the population rules. Some believe the anti-semitic practices of the Nazi-Germany would not have happened in free markets, because they would have caused losses.[89]
However, government officials and politicians need not care about losses as much as companies, which decreases their incentive not to discriminate. In the U.S. for example, around 1900 African-Americans started to compete for jobs that had previously been all-white. Officials, voted in by white majorities, changed the hiring rules for the federal civil service. Photographs of applicants were made obligatory in civil service job applications, and hiring officials were given discretion to choose between the three top scoring applicants. The number of blacks in federal employment was kept artificially low for decades.[90]
In early 20th century South Africa mine owners preferred hiring black workers because they were cheaper. Then the whites successfully persuaded the government to enact laws that highly restricted the black's rights to work (see Apartheid).[90]
Similarly, to make more profits, producers secretly hired screenwriters who were on Senator Joseph McCarthy's blacklist, which mitigated the effects of the list.[90]
When the "Jim Crow" racial segregation laws were enacted in the U.S., many companies disobeyed them for years, because the market automatically punishes companies that discriminate: they lose customers and get additional expenses. It took 15 years for the government to break down the resistance of the companies.[91]
Markets punish the discriminator[edit]
In his book The Economics of Discrimination (University of Chicago Press, 1957) the Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker asserts that markets automatically punish the companies that discriminate.[89] According to Becker, the profitability of the company that discriminates is decreased, and the loss is "directly proportional to how much the employer's decision was based on prejudice, rather than on merit." Indeed, choosing a worker with lower performance (in comparison to salary) causes losses proportional to the difference in performance. Similarly, the customers who discriminate against certain kinds of workers in favor of less effective ones have to pay more for their services, on average.[89]
If a company discriminates, it typically loses profitability and market share to the companies that do not discriminate, unless the state limits free competition protecting the discriminators.[90]
In The Welfare Implications of Becker’s Discrimination Coefficient Richard S. Toikka disagrees, citing the ambivalent relations between discrimination and economic efficiency, as shown by the literature. According to Toikka the “discriminatory tastes,” in Becker’s explanation, was shown to be problematic because it implies discrimination is efficient.[92] Further, the very aim of the markets is to cater efficiently for the different "tastes" of all individuals, including customers, employees, employers, and firm owners (and discrimination happens within and between all these groups). If discrimination were just another "taste" then the markets were not to punish for it. Second, microeconomic theory turns to unusual method - explicit treatment of production functions - when it analyzes discrimination. And third, the very existence of discrimination in employment (defined as wages which differ from marginal product of the discriminated employees) at the long run, contradicts perfect competition and efficiency (which imply equality of wages and the said marginal product). Hence, the very existence of discrimination at the long run, contradicts the claim that the markets function well and punish the discriminators.[93]
See also[edit]


Ableism
Adultism
Affirmative action
Ageism
Allport's Scale
Anti-discrimination law
Apartheid
Antiziganism
Colorism
Cultural assimilation
Dignity
Employment discrimination
Egalitarianism
Equal opportunity

Equal rights
Ethnic penalty
Genetic discrimination
Genocide
Heightism
Homophobia
Institutionalized discrimination
List of countries by discrimination and violence against minorities
Microaggression theory
Persecution
Racial segregation
Realistic conflict theory

Racism
Reverse discrimination
Second-class citizen
Sexism
Social conflict
Speciesism
Slavery
State racism
Statistical discrimination (economics)
Stereotype
Structural violence
Stigma management
Transphobia
Xenophobia


Portal icon Discrimination portal
Portal icon Sociology portal

References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "discrimination, definition". March 2015.
2.Jump up ^ "discrimination, definition". Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Cambridge University. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
3.Jump up ^ Introduction to sociology. 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 2009. page 334. Print.
4.Jump up ^ "THE ORDER OF MASS" (PDF). International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. 2010. Retrieved November 19, 2011.
5.Jump up ^ "Bibliography on Race, Gender and Affirmative Action". Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action. University of Michigan. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
6.Jump up ^ "Definition of discrimination; Origin". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Introduction to sociology. 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 2009. page 324. Print.
8.Jump up ^ Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, "Private Discrimination: A Prioritarian, Desert-Accommodating Account", San Diego Law Review, 43, 817-856 (2006); Oscar Horta, "Discrimination in Terms of Moral Exclusion", Theoria: Swedish Journal of Philosophy, 76, 346-364 (2010).
9.Jump up ^ Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and co-operation. London: Routledge.
10.Jump up ^ Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
11.Jump up ^ Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. et al. (2004). "Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al". Political Psychology 25 (6): 823–844. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x.
12.Jump up ^ United Nations CyberSchoolBus: What is discrimination? PDF
13.Jump up ^ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
14.Jump up ^ "Definition of Ageism". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 4 December 2012.
15.Jump up ^ Kirkpatrick, George R.; Katsiaficas, George N.; Kirkpatrick, Robert George; Mary Lou Emery (1987). Introduction to critical sociology. Ardent Media. p. 261. ISBN 978-0-8290-1595-9. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
16.Jump up ^ Wilkinson J and Ferraro K, Thirty Years of Ageism Research. In Nelson T (ed). Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002
17.Jump up ^ "Young and Oppressed"[dead link]. youthrights.org. Retrieved on 11 April 2012.
18.Jump up ^ Lahey, J. (2005) Do Older Workers Face Discrimination?[dead link] Boston College.
19.Jump up ^ (2006) How Ageist is Britain?[dead link] London: Age Concern.
20.^ Jump up to: a b Discrimination, UNICEF
21.Jump up ^ Global Caste Discrimination
22.Jump up ^ Caste - The Facts[dead link]
23.Jump up ^ "India: Official Dalit population exceeds 200 million". International Dalit Solidarity Network. 29 May 2013. Retrieved 30 July 2014.
24.Jump up ^ Vornholt, Katharina; Sjir Uitdewilligen; Frans J.N. Nijhuis (December 2013). "Factors Affecting the Acceptance of People with Disabilities at Work: A Literature Review". Journal Of Occupational Rehabilitation 23 (4): 464. doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9426-0. Retrieved 2014-03-17.
25.Jump up ^ Frankfurt Business Media
26.Jump up ^ Race, Color, National Origin and Ancestry[dead link], State of Wisconsin
27.^ Jump up to: a b Ken LaMance, Prohibitions Against Race and Nationality
28.Jump up ^ Christiane Schwieren, Mechanisms Underlying Nationality-Based Discrimination in Teams. A Quasi-Experiment Testing Predictions From Social Psychology and Microeconomics, Maastricht University
29.Jump up ^ Emiratisation won't work if people don't want to learn | The National
30.Jump up ^ "Malaysia's lingering ethnic divide". March 4, 2008. BBC News.
31.Jump up ^ "Uighurs in China Say Bias Is Growing". The New York Times. October 7, 2013
32.Jump up ^ Levine, Bertram. (2005). "Not All Black and White". J. Cropp (Ed.), Resolving Racial Conflict, 193-218. London: University of Missouri Press.
33.Jump up ^ "Aboriginal Offenders: A Critical Situation". Office of the Correctional Investigator, Government of Canada. February 2013.
34.Jump up ^ "Prisoners in Australia, 2006". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006-12-14. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
35.Jump up ^ New Zealand's Prison Population
36.Jump up ^ Ramesh, Randeep. "More black people jailed in England and Wales proportionally than in US". The Guardian. October 11, 2010
37.Jump up ^ Callahan, Gene; Anderson, William (August–September 2001). "The Roots of Racial Profiling". Reason Online (Reason Foundation).
38.Jump up ^ How is the Criminal Justice System Racist?
39.Jump up ^ Blacks Hardest Hit by Incarceration Policy. Human Rights Watch. June 5, 2008.
40.Jump up ^ Maan Z. Madina, Arabic-English Dictionary of the Modern Literary Language, 1973.
41.Jump up ^ "Did Discrimination Enhance Intelligence of Jews?". National Geographic News. July 18, 2005
42.Jump up ^ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington. D.C., April 9–10, 1979
43.Jump up ^ OECD. OECD Employment Outlook 2008 – Statistical Annex. OECD, Paris, 2008, p. 358.
44.Jump up ^ Glott, R., Schmidt, P., & Ghosh, R. A. (2010, March). Wikipedia survey—Overview of results. Retrieved from UNI-MERIT at http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010- FINAL.pdf
45.Jump up ^ Reagle, J., & Rhue, L. (2011). Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/777/631
46.Jump up ^ Wilson, F. (2003) Organizational Behaviour and Gender (2nd Edition), Aldershot: Ashgate.
47.Jump up ^ Sex Discrimination | Employment Law | Citation.co.uk
48.Jump up ^ Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2008) "Gendering, Courtship and Pay Equity: Developing Attraction Theory to Understand Work-Life Balance and Entrepreneurial Behaviour", paper to the 31st ISBE Conference, 5th–7th November, Belfast
49.Jump up ^ Hyde, J. S. (2005). "The Gender Similarities Hypothesis". American Psychologist 60 (6): 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.6.581.
50.Jump up ^ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009. Report 1025, June 2010.
51.Jump up ^ Raymond F. Gregory, Women and Workplace Discrimination: Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality, Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003
52.Jump up ^ Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Glass Ceilings and Open Doors, Fordham Law Review, 64.2, 1995, pp.291-449; Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt, The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can’t Seem to Break the Invisible Barrier that Blocks them from the Top Jobs, The Wall Street Journal, 4, March 24, 1986, pp.10-40
53.Jump up ^ Kenneth Bolton, Joe R. Feagin Black in Blue: African-American Police Officers and Racism, Routledge, 2004
54.Jump up ^ "A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital". November 1995. Retrieved 2008-05-23.
55.Jump up ^ "Quick Stats on Women Workers, 2010". U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, 2010 Annual Averages and the Monthly Labor Review.
56.Jump up ^ Noack v YMCA of Greater Houston Area,132,S. Ct.425 (US, 2011)
57.Jump up ^ Cowan, Glora; O'Brien, Margaret (1990). "Gender and Survival vs. Death in Slasher Films: A Content Analysis". Sex Roles 23 (3–4): 187–196. doi:10.1007/BF00289865.
58.Jump up ^ World English Dictionary, "Sexual Orientation"
59.Jump up ^ MacInnis, Cara C.; Hodson, Gordon (2012). "Intergroup bias toward "Group X": Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals". Group Processes Intergroup Relations 15 (6): 725–743. doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.
60.Jump up ^ "New Benefits for Same-Sex Couples May Be Hard to Implement Abroad". ABC News. June 22, 2009.
61.Jump up ^ ILGA: 2009 Report on State Sponsored Homophobia (2009)[dead link]
62.Jump up ^ ILGA:7 countries still put people to death for same-sex acts[dead link]
63.Jump up ^ Homosexuality and Islam - ReligionFacts
64.Jump up ^ IRIN Middle East | Middle East | Iraq | IRAQ: Male homosexuality still a taboo | Human Rights |Feature
65.Jump up ^ "They Want Us Exterminated". Human Rights Watch. August 16, 2009.
66.Jump up ^ Harrison, Rebecca. "South African gangs use rape to "cure" lesbians". Reuters. March 13, 2009.
67.Jump up ^ Kelly, Annie. "Raped and killed for being a lesbian: South Africa ignores 'corrective' attacks". The Guardian. March 12, 2009.
68.Jump up ^ Mountz, Alison. (2009) Key Concepts in Political Geography. SAGE. pp.328
69.^ Jump up to: a b Said, Edward. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. pp.357
70.Jump up ^ Gregory, Derek. (2004) The Colonial Present. Blackwell Publishers. pp. 4
71.Jump up ^ Said, Edward. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. pp.360
72.Jump up ^ American Civil Rights Institute | Press Release[dead link]
73.Jump up ^ "Section 1 of the Israeli 'Libel Law 1965'". "Defines libel as a publication that may humiliate a person (individual or corporation) in the eyes of people, or to deem him/her/it object of hatred, contempt or ridicule their part; degrade a person for the acts, conduct or attributed qualities; damage ones job, whether public office or another job, damage ones business, trade, profession; degrade a person because of race, national origin, religion, place of residence, gender or sexual orientation."
74.^ Jump up to: a b € 7,800
75.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
76.^ Jump up to: a b € 19,500
77.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
78.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
79.Jump up ^ € 3,900
80.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
81.Jump up ^ Finduslaw.com
82.Jump up ^ Finduslaw.com
83.Jump up ^ "Pregnancy Discrimination Act". Retrieved 2008-05-14.
84.Jump up ^ "Civil rights". Retrieved 2006.
85.Jump up ^ Singer, Peter (1999) [1993]. "Equality for Animals?". Practical Ethics (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–58. ISBN 0-521-43971-X. "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. ... This is why the limit of sentience ... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. ... Similarly those I would call 'speciesists' give greater weight to their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species."
86.Jump up ^ Slattery, M. (2002). Key Ideas in Sociology. Nelson Thornes. pp. 134–137. ISBN 978-0-7487-6565-2.
87.Jump up ^ Yanis Varoufakis (2013). "Chapter 11: Evolving domination in the laboratory" (PDF). Economic Indeterminacy: A personal encounter with the economists' peculiar nemesis. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy. Routledge. p. 13. ISBN 0415668492.
88.Jump up ^ Shaun Hargreaves-Heap; Yanis Varoufakis (July 2002), "Some experimental evidence on the evolution of discrimination, co-operation and perceptions of fairness" (PDF), The Economic Journal (Royal Economic Society) 112: 679–703, doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00735
89.^ Jump up to: a b c The Economics of Discrimination, Robert P. Murphy, Library of Economics, AUGUST 2, 2010
90.^ Jump up to: a b c d Discrimination, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics
91.Jump up ^ Jennifer Roback, "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars." Journal of Economic History 56, no. 4 (December 1986): 893–917.
92.Jump up ^ Richard S. Toikka, The Welfare Implications of Becker’s Discrimination Coefficient, 13 J. ECON. THEORY 472, 472 (1976); Glen G. Cain, The Economic Analysis of Labor Market Discrimination: A Survey, in 1 HANDBOOK OF LABOR ECONOMICS 693, 774 (Orley Ashenfelter & Richard Layard eds., 1986).
93.Jump up ^ For review of the literature in regard to the last two points see Menahem Pasternak, Employment Discrimination: Some Economic Definitions, Critique and Legal Implications, 33 N. C. Cent. L. Rev. (2011) 163
Further reading[edit]
Gorman, Linda (2008). "Discrimination". In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Library of Economics and Liberty. ISBN 978-0865976658. OCLC 237794267.
External links[edit]
Topics.law.cornell.edu
Legal definitions Australia
Canada[dead link]
Russia
US
Employment Discrimination Laws in the United States
Discrimination Laws in Europe[dead link]
Behavioral Biology and Racism
Anti-Racism and Hate


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Abuse
























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal


  


Categories: Discrimination
Social justice
Abuse
Anti-social behaviour


























Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Беларуская
Български
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
Македонски
Malagasy
Bahasa Melayu
Монгол
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Polski
Português
Română
Romani
Русский
Shqip
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
West-Vlams
ייִדיש
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 June 2015, at 21:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination













Discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Discrimination (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.[1] This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[2] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[3]
Not all discrimination is based on prejudice, however. Some religious duties, for example, need to be performed exclusively by a minister professing the religion that commands those duties.[4] Also, in the U.S., government policy known as affirmative action was instituted to encourage employers and universities to seek out and accept groups such as African-Americans and women, who have been subject to the opposite kind of discrimination for a long time.[5] Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices, and laws exist in many countries and institutions in every part of the world, even in ones where discrimination is generally looked down upon. In some places, controversial attempts such as quotas have been used to benefit those believed to be current or past victims of discrimination—but have sometimes been called reverse discrimination


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Definitions
3 United Nations documents
4 Types 4.1 Age
4.2 Caste
4.3 Disability
4.4 Employment
4.5 Language
4.6 Nationality
4.7 Race or Ethnicity
4.8 Region
4.9 Religious Beliefs
4.10 Sex, gender, and gender identity
4.11 Sexual orientation
4.12 Othering
4.13 Reverse Discrimination
5 Legislation
6 Theories 6.1 Labeling theory
6.2 Game theory
7 State vs. free market 7.1 State discrimination
7.2 Markets punish the discriminator
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

Etymology[edit]
The term discriminate appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from the Latin discriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verb discriminare, from discrimen 'distinction', from the verb discernere.[6] Since the American Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.[7] "Discrimination" derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire means "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction".
Definitions[edit]
Moral philosophers have defined discrimination as disadvantageous treatment or consideration. This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. They just need to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. If someone decides to donate to help orphan children, but decides to donate less, say, to black children out of a racist attitude, then they would be acting in a discriminatory way even though the people they discriminate against are actually benefitted by having some money donated to them.[8]
Based on realistic-conflict theory[9] and social-identity theory,[10] Rubin and Hewstone[11] have highlighted a distinction among three types of discrimination:
1.Realistic competition is driven by self-interest and is aimed at obtaining material resources (e.g., food, territory, customers) for the in-group (e.g., favouring an in-group in order to obtain more resources for its members, including the self).
2.Social competition is driven by the need for self-esteem and is aimed at achieving a positive social status for the in-group relative to comparable out-groups (e.g., favouring an in-group in order to make it better than an out-group).
3.Consensual discrimination is driven by the need for accuracy[clarification needed] and reflects stable and legitimate intergroup status hierarchies (e.g., favouring a high-status in-group because it is high status).
The United Nations stance on discrimination includes the statement: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."[12] International bodies United Nations Human Rights Council work towards helping ending discrimination around the world.
United Nations documents[edit]
Important UN documents addressing discrimination include:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It states that:" Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."[13]
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. The Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination. The convention was adopted and opened for signature by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1965, and entered into force on 4 January 1969.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on 3 September 1981.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international human rights instrument treaty of the United Nations. Parties to the Convention are required to promote, protect, and ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities and ensure that they enjoy full equality under the law. The text was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006, and opened for signature on 30 March 2007. Following ratification by the 20th party, it came into force on 3 May 2008.
Types[edit]
Age[edit]
Main article: Ageism
Ageism or age discrimination is discrimination and stereotyping based on the grounds of someone's age.[14] It is a set of beliefs, norms, and values which used to justify discrimination or subordination based on a person's age.[15] Ageism is most often directed towards old people, or adolescents and children.[16][17]
Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, professor at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant.[18]
In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or racial discrimination. Dominic Abrams, social psychology professor at the university, concluded that Ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.[19]
Caste[edit]
See also: Caste
According to UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide.[20][21][22] Discrimination based on caste, as perceived by UNICEF, is prevalent mainly in parts of Asia, (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, Nepal, Japan), Africa and others.[20] As of 2011, there were 200 million Dalits or Scheduled Castes (formerly known as "untouchables") in India.[23]
Disability[edit]
Main article: Disability discrimination
Discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not is called ableism or disablism. Disability discrimination, which treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of ‘normal living’, results in public and private places and services, education, and social work that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby excluding those with various disabilities. Studies have shown, employment is needed to not only provide a living but to sustain mental health and well being. Work fulfils a number of basic needs for an individual such as collective purpose, social contact, status, and activity.[24] A person with a disability is often found to be socially isolated and work is one way to reduce isolation.
In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act mandates the provision of equality of access to both buildings and services and is paralleled by similar acts in other countries, such as the Equality Act 2010 in the UK.[citation needed]
Employment[edit]



Ethiopian Jews protest in Israel over non-employment of Ethiopian academics.
Main article: Employment discrimination
Denying someone employment, or disallowing one from applying for a job, is often recognized as employment discrimination when the grounds for such an exclusion is not related to the requirements of the position, and protected characteristics may include age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, height, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, skin color, and weight.
The United States federal laws that protect against:
Race, color and national origin discrimination include the [1] Civil Rights Act of 1964, [2] Executive Order Number 11478 among other numerous laws that protect people from race, color and national origin discrimination.
Sex and gender discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and [3] Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Age discrimination include the [4] Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
Physical and mental disability discrimination include the [5] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Religious discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Military status discrimination include the [6] Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Most other western nations have similar laws protecting these groups.
Still unrelated to the requirements of the position, only 9% of Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) are women while they are over 60% among accountants and auditors. And yet those who reach a high responsibility position are paid on average 16% lower than their male colleagues. (According to a recent report, 2013) [25]
Language[edit]


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2012)
Main article: Linguistic discrimination



 Nationalists on Corsica sometimes spray-paint or shoot traffic signs in French.
Diversity of language is protected and respected by most nations who value cultural diversity.[dubious – discuss] However, people are sometimes subjected to different treatment because their preferred language is associated with a particular group, class or category. Commonly, the preferred language is just another attribute of separate ethnic groups.[dubious – discuss] Discrimination exists if there is prejudicial treatment against a person or a group of people who speak a particular language or dialect.
Language discrimination is suggested to be labeled linguicism or logocism.[by whom?] Anti-discriminatory and inclusive efforts to accommodate persons who speak different languages or cannot have fluency in the country's predominant or "official" language, is bilingualism such as official documents in two languages, and multiculturalism in more than two languages.[citation needed]
Nationality[edit]
Discrimination on the basis of nationality is usually included in employment laws[26] (see below section for employment discrimination specifically). It is sometimes referred to as bound together with racial discrimination[27] although it can be separate. It may vary from laws that stop refusals of hiring based on nationality, asking questions regarding origin, to prohibitions of firing, forced retirement, compensation and pay, etc., based on nationality.[27]
Discrimination on the basis of nationality may show as a "level of acceptance" in a sport or work team regarding new team members and employees who differ from the nationality of the majority of team members.[28]
In the UAE and other GCC states, for instance, nationality is not frequently given to residents and expatriates. In the workplace, preferential treatment is given to full citizens, even though many of them lack experience or motivation to do the job. State benefits are also generally available for citizens only.[29]
Race or Ethnicity[edit]
Main articles: Racism, Discrimination based on skin color and Ethnic Penalty



Anti-Arab sign in Pattaya Beach, Thailand


 German warning in Germany-occupied Poland 1939 - "No entrance for Poles!"


Antisemitic graffiti in Lithuania. The signs read "Jews out" and "Hate"


 An African-American child at a segregated drinking fountain on a courthouse lawn, North Carolina, US 1938.


Anti-Japanese poster outside of a restaurant in Guangzhou, China
Racial discrimination differentiates individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial differences and has been official government policy in several countries, such as South Africa in the apartheid era. Discriminatory policies towards ethnic minorities include the race-based discrimination of ethnic Indians and Chinese in Malaysia[30] or discrimination of ethnic Uighurs in China.[31] After the Vietnam War, many Vietnamese refugees moved to the United States, where they face discrimination.[32]
As of 2013, aboriginal people (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) comprise 4 percent of Canada's population, but account for 23.2 percent of the federal prison population.[33] According to the Australian government's June 2006 publication of prison statistics, Aborigines make up 24% of the overall prison population in Australia.[34]
In 2004, Māori made up just 15% of the total population of New Zealand but 49.5% of prisoners. Māori were entering prison at eight times the rate of non-Māori.[35] A quarter of the people in England's prisons are from an ethnic minority. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in England and Wales as of 2010, a black person was five times more likely to be imprisoned than a white person. The discrepancy was attributed to "decades of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system".[36]
In the United States, racial profiling of minorities by law-enforcement officials has been called racial discrimination.[37]
 Within the criminal justice system in the United States, minorities are convicted and imprisoned disproportionately when compared to the majority.[38][39] As early as 1866, the Civil Rights Act and Civil Rights Act of 1871 provided a remedy for intentional racism in employment by private employers and state and local public employers. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the damages available in Title VII cases and granted Title VII plaintiffs the right to a jury trial.
Region[edit]
See also: Regional discrimination in China
Regional or geographic discrimination is discrimination based on the region in which a person lives or was born. It differs from national discrimination in that it may not be based on national borders or the country the victim lives in, but is instead based on prejudices against a specific region of one or more countries. Examples include discrimination against mainland Chinese within China, or discrimination against Americans from the south in the United States. It is often accompanied by discrimination based on accent, dialect, or cultural differences.[citation needed]
Religious Beliefs[edit]
Main article: Religious discrimination

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe or because of their feelings towards a given religion. For instance, the indigenous Christian population of Balkans (known as "rayah" or "protected flock") lived under the Ottoman Kanun–i–Rayah. The word is sometimes translated as 'cattle' rather than 'flock' or 'subjects' to emphasize the inferior status of the rayah.[40]
Restrictions upon Jewish occupations were imposed by Christian authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to Jews, pushing them into marginal roles considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, occupations only tolerated as a "necessary evil".[41] The number of Jews permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated in ghettos and were not allowed to own land.
In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied " the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[42]
Sex, gender, and gender identity[edit]
Main article: Sexism
See also: Misogyny, Misandry, Transphobia and Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons
Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex discrimination, on the other hand, may have legal consequences.
Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature is considered a form of prejudice and in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries.
Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or by an employer not hiring or promoting, unequally paying, or wrongfully terminating, an employee based on their gender.



 The gender gap in median earnings of full-time employees according to the OECD 2008.[43]
Sexual discrimination in the workplace can also arise when the dominant group holds a bias against the minority group. One such example is Wikipedia. In the Wikipedian community, around 13 percent of registered users are women.[44] This creates gender imbalances, and leaves room for systemic bias. Women are not only more harshly scrutinized, but the representation of women authors are also overlooked. Relative to men, across all source lists, women have a 2.6 greater odds of omission in Wikipedia.[45]
In an educational setting there could be claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship because of their gender. In the housing setting there could be claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on their gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.[46] As with other forms of unlawful discrimination there are two types of sex discrimination – direct discrimination and indirect discrimination. Direct sex discrimination is fairly easy to spot – ‘Barmaid wanted’, but indirect sex discrimination, where an unnecessary requirement puts one sex at a disproportionate disadvantage compared to the opposite sex, is sometimes less easy to spot, although some are obvious – ‘Bar person wanted – must look good in a mini skirt’.[47]
Another setting where there is usually gender discrimination is when one is refused to extend their credit, refused approval of credit/loan process, and if there is a burden of unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.
Socially, sexual differences have been used to justify different roles for men and women, in some cases giving rise to claims of primary and secondary roles.[48]
While there are alleged non-physical differences between men and women, major reviews of the academic literature on gender difference find only a tiny minority of characteristics where there are consistent psychological differences between men and women, and these relate directly to experiences grounded in biological difference.[49] However, there are also some psychological differences in regard to how problems are dealt with and emotional perceptions and reactions that may relate to hormones and the successful characteristics of each gender during longstanding roles in past primitive lifestyles.



 Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, U.S., 2009.[50]
Unfair discrimination usually follows the gender stereotyping held by a society.[51]
The United Nations had concluded that women often experience a "glass ceiling" and that there are no societies in which women enjoy the same opportunities as men.[52] The term "glass ceiling" is used to describe a perceived barrier to advancement in employment based on discrimination, especially sex discrimination.[53]
In the United States in 1995, the Glass Ceiling Commission, a government-funded group, stated: "Over half of all Master’s degrees are now awarded to women, yet 95% of senior-level managers, of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies are men. Of them, 97% are white." In its report, it recommended affirmative action, which is the consideration of an employee's gender and race in hiring and promotion decisions, as a means to end this form of discrimination.[54] As of 2010, women accounted for 51% of workers in high-paying management, professional, and related occupations. They outnumbered men in such occupations as public relations managers, financial managers, and human resource managers.[55]
Transgender individuals, whether male-to-female, female-to-male, or Genderqueer, often experience transphobic problems that often lead to dismissals, underachievement, difficulty in finding a job, social isolation, and, occasionally, violent attacks against them. Nevertheless, the problem of gender discrimination does not stop at transgender individuals or with women. Men are often the victim in certain areas of employment as men begin to seek work in office and childcare settings traditionally perceived as "women's jobs". One such situation seems to be evident in a recent case concerning alleged YMCA discrimination and a Federal Court Case in Texas.[56] The case actually involves alleged discrimination against both men and black people in childcare, even when they pass the same strict background tests and other standards of employment. It is currently being contended in federal court, as of fall 2009.
Discrimination in slasher films is relevant. Gloria Cowan had a research group study on 57 different slasher films. Their results showed that the non-surviving females were more frequently sexual than the surviving females and the non-surviving males. Surviving as a female slasher victim was strongly associated with the absence of sexual behavior. In slasher films, the message appears to be that sexual women get killed and only the pure women survive. Slasher films reinforce the idea that female sexuality can be costly.[57]
Sexual orientation[edit]



 Protests in New York City against Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
See also: Heterosexism, Heteronormativity, Biphobia and Homophobia
One’s sexual orientation is a “predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality”.[58] Like most minority groups, homosexuals and bisexuals are not immune to prejudice and discrimination from the majority group. They may experience hatred from others because of their sexual preferences; a term for such hatred based upon one’s sexual orientation is often called homophobia. Many continue to hold negative feelings towards those with non-heterosexual orientations and will discriminate against people who have them or are thought to have them.
People of other uncommon sexual orientations also experience discrimination. One study found its sample of heterosexuals to be more prejudiced against asexuals than to homosexuals or bisexuals.[59]
In 2009, ILGA published a report based on research carried out by Daniel Ottosson at Södertörn University College, Stockholm, Sweden. This research found that of the 80 countries around the world that continue to consider homosexuality illegal, five carry the death penalty for homosexual activity, and two do in some regions of the country.[60] In the report, this is described as "State sponsored homophobia".[61] This happens in Islamic states, or in two cases regions under Islamic authority.[62][63]
On February 5, 2005 the IRIN issued a reported titled "Iraq: Male homosexuality still a taboo." The article stated, among other things that honor killings by Iraqis against a gay family member are common and given some legal protection.[64] In August 2009 Human Rights Watch published an extensive report detailing torture of men accused of being gay in Iraq, including the blocking of men's anuses with glue and then giving the men laxatives.[65] Although gay marriage has been legal in South Africa since 2006, same-sex unions are often condemned as "un-African."[66] Research conducted in 2009 shows 86% of black lesbians from the Western Cape live in fear of sexual assault.[67]
Further information: LGBT rights by country or territory
A number of countries, especially those in the Western world, have passed measures to alleviate discrimination against sexual minorities, including laws against anti-gay hate crimes and workplace discrimination. Some have also legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions in order to grant same-sex couples the same protections and benefits as opposite-sex couples. In 2011, the United Nations passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights.
Othering[edit]
Othering is the process by which a person or a group is placed outside of the norm, into the margins. It is a system of discrimination whereby the characteristics of a group are used to distinguish them as separate from the norm.[68] Othering plays a fundamental role in the history and continuance of racism and other forms of discrimination. For example, by objectifying culture as something different, exotic or underdeveloped is to generalise that it is not the same as ‘normal’ society. Europe’s colonial attitude towards the Orient exemplifies through the attitude that the East was the opposite of the West; feminine where the West was masculine, weak where the West was strong and traditional where the West was progressive.[69] By making these generalisations and othering the East, Europe was simultaneously defining herself as the norm, further entrenching the perceived gap.[70] Much of the process of othering relies on imagined difference, or the expectation of difference. Spatial difference can be enough to conclude that 'we' are 'here’ and the 'others' are over 'there', making 'here' normal and 'there' foreign.[69] Imagined differences serve to categorise people into groups and assign them characteristics that suit the imaginer’s expectations and desires.[71]
Reverse Discrimination[edit]
Main articles: Reverse discrimination and Bumiputera (Malaysia)



 Students protesting against racial quotas in Brazil: "Quer uma vaga? Passe no vestibular!" ("Do you want a university place? Be successful in the entrance exam!")
Some attempts at antidiscrimination have been criticized as reverse discrimination. In particular, minority quotas (for example, affirmative action) may discriminate against members of a dominant or majority group or other minority groups. In its opposition to race preferences, the American Civil Rights Institute's Ward Connerly stated, "There is nothing positive, affirmative, or equal about 'affirmative action' programs that give preference to some groups based on race."[72]
Legislation[edit]

Globe icon.
 The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2010)
Main article: List of anti-discrimination acts
Australia
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Canada
Ontario Human Rights Code 1962
Canadian Human Rights Act 1977
Hong Kong
Sex Discrimination Ordinance (1996)
Israel
Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, 2000
Employment (Equal Opportunities) Law, 1988
Prohibition of libel law 1965.[73]
Netherlands
Article 137c, part 1 of Wetboek van Strafrecht prohibits insults towards a group because of its race, religion, sexual orientation (straight or gay), handicap (somatically, mental or psychiatric) in public or by speech, by writing or by a picture. Maximum imprisonment one year of imprisonment or a fine of the third category.[74][75]
Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to two years and the maximum fine category to 4,[76] when the crime is committed as a habit or is committed by two or more persons.
Article 137d prohibits provoking to discrimination or hate against the group described above. Same penalties apply as in artickle 137c.[77]
Article 137e part 1 prohibits publishing a discriminatory statement, other than in formal message, or hands over an object (that contains discriminatory information) otherwise than on his request. Maximum imprisonment is 6 months or a fine of the third category.[74][78]
Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to one year and the maximum fine category to 4,[76] when the crime is committed as a habit or committed by two or more persons.
Article 137f prohibits supporting discriminatory activities by giving money or goods. Maximum imprisonment is 3 months or a fine of the second category.[79][80]
United Kingdom
Equal Pay Act 1970 – provides for equal pay for comparable work
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 – makes discrimination against women or men, including discrimination on the grounds of marital status, illegal in the workplace.
Human Rights Act 1998 – provides more scope for redressing all forms of discriminatory imbalances
United States
Equal Pay Act of 1963[81] – (part of the Fair Labor Standards Act) – prohibits wage discrimination by employers and labor organizations based on sex
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[82] – broadly prohibits discrimination in the workplace including hiring, firing, workforce reduction, benefits, and sexually harassing conduct
Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is charged with administering and enforcing the Act.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – covers discrimination based upon pregnancy in the workplace[83]
Violence Against Women Act
Theories[edit]
Social theories such as egalitarianism assert that social equality should prevail. In some societies, including most developed countries, each individual's civil rights include the right to be free from government sponsored social discrimination.[84] Due to a belief in the capacity to perceive pain or suffering shared by all animals, "abolitionist" or "vegan" egalitarianism maintains that the interests of every individual (regardless its species), warrant equal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is "speciesist".[85]
Labeling theory[edit]
Discrimination, in labeling theory, takes form as mental categorization of minorities and the use of stereotype. This theory describes difference as deviance from the norm, which results in internal devaluation and social stigma[86] that may be seen as discrimination. It is started by describing a "natural" social order. It is distinguished between the fundamental principle of fascism and social democracy.[clarification needed] The Nazis in 1930s-era Germany and the pre-1990 Apartheid government of South Africa used racially discriminatory agendas for their political ends. This practice continues with some present day governments.[citation needed]
Game theory[edit]
Economist Yanis Varoufakis (2013) argues that that "discrimination based on utterly arbitrary characteristics evolves quickly and systematically in the experimental laboratory", and that neither classical game theory nor neoclassical economics can explain this. [87] Varoufakis and Shaun Hargreaves-Heap (2002) ran an experiment where volunteers played a computer-mediated, multiround hawk-dove game (HD game). At the start of each session, each participant was assigned a color at random, either red or blue. At each round, each player learned the color assigned to his or her opponent, but nothing else about the opponent. Hargreaves-Heap and Varoufakis found that the players' behavior within a session frequently developed a discriminatory convention, giving a Nash equilibrium where players of one color (the "advantaged" color) consistently played the aggressive "hawk" strategy against players of the other, "disadvantaged" color, who played the acquiescent "dove" strategy against the advantaged color. Players of both colors used a mixed strategy when playing against players assigned the same color as their own.
The experimenters then added a cooperation option to the game, and found that disadvantaged players usually cooperated with each other, while advantaged players usually did not. They state that while the equilibria reached in the original HD game are predicted by evolutionary game theory, game theory does not explain the emergence of cooperation in the disadvantaged group. Citing earlier psychological work of Matthew Rabin, they hypothesize that a norm of differing entitlements emerges across the two groups, and that this norm could define a "fairness" equilibrium within the disadvantaged group.[88]
State vs. free market[edit]


 This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (December 2011)


 It has been suggested that Ethnic Penalty be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2013.
State discrimination[edit]



 In the 1990s, Bhutan expelled or forced to leave its Hindu population in the name of preserving its Buddhist culture and identity.
In politics, the dominating part of the population rules. Some believe the anti-semitic practices of the Nazi-Germany would not have happened in free markets, because they would have caused losses.[89]
However, government officials and politicians need not care about losses as much as companies, which decreases their incentive not to discriminate. In the U.S. for example, around 1900 African-Americans started to compete for jobs that had previously been all-white. Officials, voted in by white majorities, changed the hiring rules for the federal civil service. Photographs of applicants were made obligatory in civil service job applications, and hiring officials were given discretion to choose between the three top scoring applicants. The number of blacks in federal employment was kept artificially low for decades.[90]
In early 20th century South Africa mine owners preferred hiring black workers because they were cheaper. Then the whites successfully persuaded the government to enact laws that highly restricted the black's rights to work (see Apartheid).[90]
Similarly, to make more profits, producers secretly hired screenwriters who were on Senator Joseph McCarthy's blacklist, which mitigated the effects of the list.[90]
When the "Jim Crow" racial segregation laws were enacted in the U.S., many companies disobeyed them for years, because the market automatically punishes companies that discriminate: they lose customers and get additional expenses. It took 15 years for the government to break down the resistance of the companies.[91]
Markets punish the discriminator[edit]
In his book The Economics of Discrimination (University of Chicago Press, 1957) the Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker asserts that markets automatically punish the companies that discriminate.[89] According to Becker, the profitability of the company that discriminates is decreased, and the loss is "directly proportional to how much the employer's decision was based on prejudice, rather than on merit." Indeed, choosing a worker with lower performance (in comparison to salary) causes losses proportional to the difference in performance. Similarly, the customers who discriminate against certain kinds of workers in favor of less effective ones have to pay more for their services, on average.[89]
If a company discriminates, it typically loses profitability and market share to the companies that do not discriminate, unless the state limits free competition protecting the discriminators.[90]
In The Welfare Implications of Becker’s Discrimination Coefficient Richard S. Toikka disagrees, citing the ambivalent relations between discrimination and economic efficiency, as shown by the literature. According to Toikka the “discriminatory tastes,” in Becker’s explanation, was shown to be problematic because it implies discrimination is efficient.[92] Further, the very aim of the markets is to cater efficiently for the different "tastes" of all individuals, including customers, employees, employers, and firm owners (and discrimination happens within and between all these groups). If discrimination were just another "taste" then the markets were not to punish for it. Second, microeconomic theory turns to unusual method - explicit treatment of production functions - when it analyzes discrimination. And third, the very existence of discrimination in employment (defined as wages which differ from marginal product of the discriminated employees) at the long run, contradicts perfect competition and efficiency (which imply equality of wages and the said marginal product). Hence, the very existence of discrimination at the long run, contradicts the claim that the markets function well and punish the discriminators.[93]
See also[edit]


Ableism
Adultism
Affirmative action
Ageism
Allport's Scale
Anti-discrimination law
Apartheid
Antiziganism
Colorism
Cultural assimilation
Dignity
Employment discrimination
Egalitarianism
Equal opportunity

Equal rights
Ethnic penalty
Genetic discrimination
Genocide
Heightism
Homophobia
Institutionalized discrimination
List of countries by discrimination and violence against minorities
Microaggression theory
Persecution
Racial segregation
Realistic conflict theory

Racism
Reverse discrimination
Second-class citizen
Sexism
Social conflict
Speciesism
Slavery
State racism
Statistical discrimination (economics)
Stereotype
Structural violence
Stigma management
Transphobia
Xenophobia


Portal icon Discrimination portal
Portal icon Sociology portal

References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "discrimination, definition". March 2015.
2.Jump up ^ "discrimination, definition". Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Cambridge University. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
3.Jump up ^ Introduction to sociology. 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 2009. page 334. Print.
4.Jump up ^ "THE ORDER OF MASS" (PDF). International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. 2010. Retrieved November 19, 2011.
5.Jump up ^ "Bibliography on Race, Gender and Affirmative Action". Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action. University of Michigan. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
6.Jump up ^ "Definition of discrimination; Origin". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Introduction to sociology. 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 2009. page 324. Print.
8.Jump up ^ Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, "Private Discrimination: A Prioritarian, Desert-Accommodating Account", San Diego Law Review, 43, 817-856 (2006); Oscar Horta, "Discrimination in Terms of Moral Exclusion", Theoria: Swedish Journal of Philosophy, 76, 346-364 (2010).
9.Jump up ^ Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and co-operation. London: Routledge.
10.Jump up ^ Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
11.Jump up ^ Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. et al. (2004). "Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al". Political Psychology 25 (6): 823–844. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x.
12.Jump up ^ United Nations CyberSchoolBus: What is discrimination? PDF
13.Jump up ^ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
14.Jump up ^ "Definition of Ageism". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 4 December 2012.
15.Jump up ^ Kirkpatrick, George R.; Katsiaficas, George N.; Kirkpatrick, Robert George; Mary Lou Emery (1987). Introduction to critical sociology. Ardent Media. p. 261. ISBN 978-0-8290-1595-9. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
16.Jump up ^ Wilkinson J and Ferraro K, Thirty Years of Ageism Research. In Nelson T (ed). Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002
17.Jump up ^ "Young and Oppressed"[dead link]. youthrights.org. Retrieved on 11 April 2012.
18.Jump up ^ Lahey, J. (2005) Do Older Workers Face Discrimination?[dead link] Boston College.
19.Jump up ^ (2006) How Ageist is Britain?[dead link] London: Age Concern.
20.^ Jump up to: a b Discrimination, UNICEF
21.Jump up ^ Global Caste Discrimination
22.Jump up ^ Caste - The Facts[dead link]
23.Jump up ^ "India: Official Dalit population exceeds 200 million". International Dalit Solidarity Network. 29 May 2013. Retrieved 30 July 2014.
24.Jump up ^ Vornholt, Katharina; Sjir Uitdewilligen; Frans J.N. Nijhuis (December 2013). "Factors Affecting the Acceptance of People with Disabilities at Work: A Literature Review". Journal Of Occupational Rehabilitation 23 (4): 464. doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9426-0. Retrieved 2014-03-17.
25.Jump up ^ Frankfurt Business Media
26.Jump up ^ Race, Color, National Origin and Ancestry[dead link], State of Wisconsin
27.^ Jump up to: a b Ken LaMance, Prohibitions Against Race and Nationality
28.Jump up ^ Christiane Schwieren, Mechanisms Underlying Nationality-Based Discrimination in Teams. A Quasi-Experiment Testing Predictions From Social Psychology and Microeconomics, Maastricht University
29.Jump up ^ Emiratisation won't work if people don't want to learn | The National
30.Jump up ^ "Malaysia's lingering ethnic divide". March 4, 2008. BBC News.
31.Jump up ^ "Uighurs in China Say Bias Is Growing". The New York Times. October 7, 2013
32.Jump up ^ Levine, Bertram. (2005). "Not All Black and White". J. Cropp (Ed.), Resolving Racial Conflict, 193-218. London: University of Missouri Press.
33.Jump up ^ "Aboriginal Offenders: A Critical Situation". Office of the Correctional Investigator, Government of Canada. February 2013.
34.Jump up ^ "Prisoners in Australia, 2006". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006-12-14. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
35.Jump up ^ New Zealand's Prison Population
36.Jump up ^ Ramesh, Randeep. "More black people jailed in England and Wales proportionally than in US". The Guardian. October 11, 2010
37.Jump up ^ Callahan, Gene; Anderson, William (August–September 2001). "The Roots of Racial Profiling". Reason Online (Reason Foundation).
38.Jump up ^ How is the Criminal Justice System Racist?
39.Jump up ^ Blacks Hardest Hit by Incarceration Policy. Human Rights Watch. June 5, 2008.
40.Jump up ^ Maan Z. Madina, Arabic-English Dictionary of the Modern Literary Language, 1973.
41.Jump up ^ "Did Discrimination Enhance Intelligence of Jews?". National Geographic News. July 18, 2005
42.Jump up ^ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington. D.C., April 9–10, 1979
43.Jump up ^ OECD. OECD Employment Outlook 2008 – Statistical Annex. OECD, Paris, 2008, p. 358.
44.Jump up ^ Glott, R., Schmidt, P., & Ghosh, R. A. (2010, March). Wikipedia survey—Overview of results. Retrieved from UNI-MERIT at http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010- FINAL.pdf
45.Jump up ^ Reagle, J., & Rhue, L. (2011). Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/777/631
46.Jump up ^ Wilson, F. (2003) Organizational Behaviour and Gender (2nd Edition), Aldershot: Ashgate.
47.Jump up ^ Sex Discrimination | Employment Law | Citation.co.uk
48.Jump up ^ Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2008) "Gendering, Courtship and Pay Equity: Developing Attraction Theory to Understand Work-Life Balance and Entrepreneurial Behaviour", paper to the 31st ISBE Conference, 5th–7th November, Belfast
49.Jump up ^ Hyde, J. S. (2005). "The Gender Similarities Hypothesis". American Psychologist 60 (6): 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.6.581.
50.Jump up ^ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009. Report 1025, June 2010.
51.Jump up ^ Raymond F. Gregory, Women and Workplace Discrimination: Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality, Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003
52.Jump up ^ Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Glass Ceilings and Open Doors, Fordham Law Review, 64.2, 1995, pp.291-449; Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt, The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can’t Seem to Break the Invisible Barrier that Blocks them from the Top Jobs, The Wall Street Journal, 4, March 24, 1986, pp.10-40
53.Jump up ^ Kenneth Bolton, Joe R. Feagin Black in Blue: African-American Police Officers and Racism, Routledge, 2004
54.Jump up ^ "A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital". November 1995. Retrieved 2008-05-23.
55.Jump up ^ "Quick Stats on Women Workers, 2010". U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, 2010 Annual Averages and the Monthly Labor Review.
56.Jump up ^ Noack v YMCA of Greater Houston Area,132,S. Ct.425 (US, 2011)
57.Jump up ^ Cowan, Glora; O'Brien, Margaret (1990). "Gender and Survival vs. Death in Slasher Films: A Content Analysis". Sex Roles 23 (3–4): 187–196. doi:10.1007/BF00289865.
58.Jump up ^ World English Dictionary, "Sexual Orientation"
59.Jump up ^ MacInnis, Cara C.; Hodson, Gordon (2012). "Intergroup bias toward "Group X": Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals". Group Processes Intergroup Relations 15 (6): 725–743. doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.
60.Jump up ^ "New Benefits for Same-Sex Couples May Be Hard to Implement Abroad". ABC News. June 22, 2009.
61.Jump up ^ ILGA: 2009 Report on State Sponsored Homophobia (2009)[dead link]
62.Jump up ^ ILGA:7 countries still put people to death for same-sex acts[dead link]
63.Jump up ^ Homosexuality and Islam - ReligionFacts
64.Jump up ^ IRIN Middle East | Middle East | Iraq | IRAQ: Male homosexuality still a taboo | Human Rights |Feature
65.Jump up ^ "They Want Us Exterminated". Human Rights Watch. August 16, 2009.
66.Jump up ^ Harrison, Rebecca. "South African gangs use rape to "cure" lesbians". Reuters. March 13, 2009.
67.Jump up ^ Kelly, Annie. "Raped and killed for being a lesbian: South Africa ignores 'corrective' attacks". The Guardian. March 12, 2009.
68.Jump up ^ Mountz, Alison. (2009) Key Concepts in Political Geography. SAGE. pp.328
69.^ Jump up to: a b Said, Edward. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. pp.357
70.Jump up ^ Gregory, Derek. (2004) The Colonial Present. Blackwell Publishers. pp. 4
71.Jump up ^ Said, Edward. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. pp.360
72.Jump up ^ American Civil Rights Institute | Press Release[dead link]
73.Jump up ^ "Section 1 of the Israeli 'Libel Law 1965'". "Defines libel as a publication that may humiliate a person (individual or corporation) in the eyes of people, or to deem him/her/it object of hatred, contempt or ridicule their part; degrade a person for the acts, conduct or attributed qualities; damage ones job, whether public office or another job, damage ones business, trade, profession; degrade a person because of race, national origin, religion, place of residence, gender or sexual orientation."
74.^ Jump up to: a b € 7,800
75.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
76.^ Jump up to: a b € 19,500
77.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
78.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
79.Jump up ^ € 3,900
80.Jump up ^ wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Wetboek van Strafrecht - BWBR0001854
81.Jump up ^ Finduslaw.com
82.Jump up ^ Finduslaw.com
83.Jump up ^ "Pregnancy Discrimination Act". Retrieved 2008-05-14.
84.Jump up ^ "Civil rights". Retrieved 2006.
85.Jump up ^ Singer, Peter (1999) [1993]. "Equality for Animals?". Practical Ethics (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–58. ISBN 0-521-43971-X. "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. ... This is why the limit of sentience ... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. ... Similarly those I would call 'speciesists' give greater weight to their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species."
86.Jump up ^ Slattery, M. (2002). Key Ideas in Sociology. Nelson Thornes. pp. 134–137. ISBN 978-0-7487-6565-2.
87.Jump up ^ Yanis Varoufakis (2013). "Chapter 11: Evolving domination in the laboratory" (PDF). Economic Indeterminacy: A personal encounter with the economists' peculiar nemesis. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy. Routledge. p. 13. ISBN 0415668492.
88.Jump up ^ Shaun Hargreaves-Heap; Yanis Varoufakis (July 2002), "Some experimental evidence on the evolution of discrimination, co-operation and perceptions of fairness" (PDF), The Economic Journal (Royal Economic Society) 112: 679–703, doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00735
89.^ Jump up to: a b c The Economics of Discrimination, Robert P. Murphy, Library of Economics, AUGUST 2, 2010
90.^ Jump up to: a b c d Discrimination, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics
91.Jump up ^ Jennifer Roback, "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars." Journal of Economic History 56, no. 4 (December 1986): 893–917.
92.Jump up ^ Richard S. Toikka, The Welfare Implications of Becker’s Discrimination Coefficient, 13 J. ECON. THEORY 472, 472 (1976); Glen G. Cain, The Economic Analysis of Labor Market Discrimination: A Survey, in 1 HANDBOOK OF LABOR ECONOMICS 693, 774 (Orley Ashenfelter & Richard Layard eds., 1986).
93.Jump up ^ For review of the literature in regard to the last two points see Menahem Pasternak, Employment Discrimination: Some Economic Definitions, Critique and Legal Implications, 33 N. C. Cent. L. Rev. (2011) 163
Further reading[edit]
Gorman, Linda (2008). "Discrimination". In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Library of Economics and Liberty. ISBN 978-0865976658. OCLC 237794267.
External links[edit]
Topics.law.cornell.edu
Legal definitions Australia
Canada[dead link]
Russia
US
Employment Discrimination Laws in the United States
Discrimination Laws in Europe[dead link]
Behavioral Biology and Racism
Anti-Racism and Hate


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Abuse
























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal


  


Categories: Discrimination
Social justice
Abuse
Anti-social behaviour


























Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Беларуская
Български
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
Македонски
Malagasy
Bahasa Melayu
Монгол
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Polski
Português
Română
Romani
Русский
Shqip
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
West-Vlams
ייִדיש
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 June 2015, at 21:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination












Antireligion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

See also: Religious discrimination and Antitheism
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"

Irreligion[show]












Atheism[show]






























Agnosticism[show]










Nontheism[show]

















Naturalism[show]








People[show]








Books[show]











Secularist organizations[show]







Related topics[show]





Irreligion by country

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Antireligion is opposition to religion. Antireligion is distinct from atheism (the absence of a belief in deities) and antitheism (an opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Notable anti-religious people
3 See also
4 References

History[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)
According to historian Michael Burleigh, antireligion found its first mass expression in revolutionary France in response to organised resistance to "organised ... irreligion...an 'anti-clerical' and self-styled 'non-religious' state."[1]
The Soviet Union directed antireligious campaigns at all faiths,[2] including Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Shamanist religions. In the 1930s, during the Stalinist period, the government destroyed church buildings or put them into secular use (as museums of religion and atheism, clubs or storage facilities), executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted some members of religious groups.[2][3] Less violent attempts to reduce or eliminate the influence of religion in society were also carried out at other times in Soviet history. For instance, it was usually necessary to be an atheist in order to acquire any important political position or any prestigious scientific job; thus many people became atheists in order to advance their careers. Different sources disagree on the results of all this, with some claiming the death of 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups or persecutions without killings,[4] and other sources stating that only up to 500,000 Russian Orthodox Christians were persecuted by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups.[5]
The atheist state of the People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual destruction of all religion in Albania, including a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda.[6] The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946.[6][7] Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.
The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions. In the process, its acolytes killed nearly 1.7 million people.[8]
Notable anti-religious people[edit]
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
IntellectualsDavid Hume (1711-1776), Scottish agnostic philosopher, known for his skepticism, who wrote that human reason is wholly inadequate to make any assumptions about the divine, whether through a priori reasoning or observation of nature.[9]
Thomas Paine (1737–1809), English-American author and deist who wrote a scathing critique on religion in the The Age of Reason (1793-4). "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish [i.e. Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit".[10]
Karl Marx (1818–1883), German philosopher, social scientist, socialist. He is well known for his anti-religious views. He called religion "the opium of the people".[11]
John Dewey (1859–1952), an American pragmatist philosopher, who believed neither religion nor metaphysics could provide legitimate moral or social values, though scientific empiricism could (see science of morality).[12]
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British logician and philosopher who believed that authentic philosophy could only be pursued given an atheistic foundation of "unyielding despair". In 1948, he famously debated the Jesuit priest and philosophical historian Father Frederick Copleston on the existence of God.[13]
Richard Dawkins (born 1941), English biologist, one of the "four horsemen" of New Atheism. He wrote The God Delusion, criticizing belief in the divine, in 2006.[14]
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), British-American author and journalist, wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything in 2007[15]
Steven Pinker (born 1954), Canadian-American cognitive scientist who believes religion incites violence.[16]
Sam Harris (born 1967), American author and neuroscientist, who argues that religious moderation provides cover for dangerous fundamentalism.[17]
PZ Myers (born 1957), American biologist.
Phil Zuckerman (born 1969), American sociologist.
PoliticiansVladimir Lenin, Soviet leader from 1917 until 1924, who, like most Marxists, believed all religions to be "the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class"[18]
Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader between 1924 to 1953
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, Tamil politician, between 1938-73, who propagated the principles of rationalism, self-respect, women’s rights and eradication of caste in South India.
Enver Hoxha, Albanian communist leader between 1944 and 1985
Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet leader in 1953-64, who initiated, among other measures,[19][20] the 1958-1964 Soviet anti-religious campaign.
OthersBill Maher, who wrote and starred in Religulous, a 2008 documentary criticizing and mocking religion.
Jim Jefferies, Australian comedian
Marcus Brigstocke, British comedian
George Carlin, American comedian
James Randi, former magician, professional "debunker" of psychics, outspoken atheist and founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation.[21][22]
Philip Roth, contemporary Jewish-American novelist.[23]
See also[edit]
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Islamism, as distinct from Islamophobia
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Buddhism
Antitheism
Conflict thesis
Criticism of Islam
Discrimination against atheists
Evidentialism
Faith and rationality
Freethought
New Atheism
Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Persecution of Christians
Relationship between religion and science
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Religious intolerance
Religious persecution
Religious segregation
State atheism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Michael Burleigh Earthly Powers p 96-97 ISBN 0-00-719572-9
2.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm
3.Jump up ^ Timasheff, N. S. (1941). "The Church in the Soviet Union 1917 - 1941". Russian Review 1 (1): 20–30. doi:10.2307/125428. JSTOR 125428.
4.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-5 & 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing NOTE: They define 'martyr' on p235 as only including christians killed for faith and excluding other christians killed
5.Jump up ^ Емельянов Н.Е. Сколько репрессированных в России пострадали за Христа?
6.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm
7.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing
8.Jump up ^ Khmer Rouge: Christian baptism after massacres
9.Jump up ^ D. Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, 1779.
10.Jump up ^ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
11.Jump up ^ Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Collected Works, v. 3. New York.
12.Jump up ^ "Dewey felt that science alone contributed to 'human good,' which he defined exclusively in naturalistic terms. He rejected religion and metaphysics as valid supports for moral and social values, and felt that success of the scientific method presupposed the destruction of old knowledge before the new could be created. ... (Dewey, 1929, pp. 95, 145) "William Adrian, TRUTH, FREEDOM AND (DIS)ORDER IN THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Christian Higher Education', 4:2, 145-154
13.Jump up ^ "I think all the great religions of the world – Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism – both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. ... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." Bertrand Russell in "My Religious Reminiscences" (1957), reprinted in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell [1]
14.Jump up ^ Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful! The Guardian, 2001-10-11 "Has the world changed?." The Guardian. Accessed 2006-01-29.
15.Jump up ^ Grimes, William (16 December 2011). "Christopher Hitchens, Polemicist Who Slashed All, Freely, Dies at 62". New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "[T]he Bible, contrary to what a majority of Americans apparently believe, is far from a source of higher moral values. Religions have given us stonings, witch-burnings, crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay-bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happily be united in heaven." The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, presentation by Steven Pinker to the annual meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, October 29, 2004, on receipt of “The Emperor’s New Clothes Award.”
17.Jump up ^ "We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith.", S. Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006.
18.Jump up ^ "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about the religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."Lenin, V. I. "About the attitude of the working party toward the religion". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
19.Jump up ^ http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html
20.Jump up ^ Grossman, J. D. (1973). "Khrushchev's Anti-Religious Policy and the Campaign of 1954". Soviet Studies 24 (3): 374–386. doi:10.1080/09668137308410870. JSTOR 150643.
21.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/
22.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html
23.Jump up ^ "I'm anti-religious ... It's all a big lie ... I have such a huge dislike [of] the miserable record of religion." The Guardian, 2005-12-14 " The Guardian. 'It no longer feels a great injustice that I have to die'


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion











































































































































































































































































Portal
Category




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Theology






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  


Categories: Antireligion
Irreligion






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
日本語
Polski
Português
Română
Scots
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 April 2015, at 01:33.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion













Antireligion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

See also: Religious discrimination and Antitheism
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"

Irreligion[show]












Atheism[show]






























Agnosticism[show]










Nontheism[show]

















Naturalism[show]








People[show]








Books[show]











Secularist organizations[show]







Related topics[show]





Irreligion by country

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Antireligion is opposition to religion. Antireligion is distinct from atheism (the absence of a belief in deities) and antitheism (an opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Notable anti-religious people
3 See also
4 References

History[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)
According to historian Michael Burleigh, antireligion found its first mass expression in revolutionary France in response to organised resistance to "organised ... irreligion...an 'anti-clerical' and self-styled 'non-religious' state."[1]
The Soviet Union directed antireligious campaigns at all faiths,[2] including Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Shamanist religions. In the 1930s, during the Stalinist period, the government destroyed church buildings or put them into secular use (as museums of religion and atheism, clubs or storage facilities), executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted some members of religious groups.[2][3] Less violent attempts to reduce or eliminate the influence of religion in society were also carried out at other times in Soviet history. For instance, it was usually necessary to be an atheist in order to acquire any important political position or any prestigious scientific job; thus many people became atheists in order to advance their careers. Different sources disagree on the results of all this, with some claiming the death of 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups or persecutions without killings,[4] and other sources stating that only up to 500,000 Russian Orthodox Christians were persecuted by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups.[5]
The atheist state of the People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual destruction of all religion in Albania, including a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda.[6] The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946.[6][7] Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.
The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions. In the process, its acolytes killed nearly 1.7 million people.[8]
Notable anti-religious people[edit]
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
IntellectualsDavid Hume (1711-1776), Scottish agnostic philosopher, known for his skepticism, who wrote that human reason is wholly inadequate to make any assumptions about the divine, whether through a priori reasoning or observation of nature.[9]
Thomas Paine (1737–1809), English-American author and deist who wrote a scathing critique on religion in the The Age of Reason (1793-4). "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish [i.e. Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit".[10]
Karl Marx (1818–1883), German philosopher, social scientist, socialist. He is well known for his anti-religious views. He called religion "the opium of the people".[11]
John Dewey (1859–1952), an American pragmatist philosopher, who believed neither religion nor metaphysics could provide legitimate moral or social values, though scientific empiricism could (see science of morality).[12]
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British logician and philosopher who believed that authentic philosophy could only be pursued given an atheistic foundation of "unyielding despair". In 1948, he famously debated the Jesuit priest and philosophical historian Father Frederick Copleston on the existence of God.[13]
Richard Dawkins (born 1941), English biologist, one of the "four horsemen" of New Atheism. He wrote The God Delusion, criticizing belief in the divine, in 2006.[14]
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), British-American author and journalist, wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything in 2007[15]
Steven Pinker (born 1954), Canadian-American cognitive scientist who believes religion incites violence.[16]
Sam Harris (born 1967), American author and neuroscientist, who argues that religious moderation provides cover for dangerous fundamentalism.[17]
PZ Myers (born 1957), American biologist.
Phil Zuckerman (born 1969), American sociologist.
PoliticiansVladimir Lenin, Soviet leader from 1917 until 1924, who, like most Marxists, believed all religions to be "the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class"[18]
Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader between 1924 to 1953
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, Tamil politician, between 1938-73, who propagated the principles of rationalism, self-respect, women’s rights and eradication of caste in South India.
Enver Hoxha, Albanian communist leader between 1944 and 1985
Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet leader in 1953-64, who initiated, among other measures,[19][20] the 1958-1964 Soviet anti-religious campaign.
OthersBill Maher, who wrote and starred in Religulous, a 2008 documentary criticizing and mocking religion.
Jim Jefferies, Australian comedian
Marcus Brigstocke, British comedian
George Carlin, American comedian
James Randi, former magician, professional "debunker" of psychics, outspoken atheist and founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation.[21][22]
Philip Roth, contemporary Jewish-American novelist.[23]
See also[edit]
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Islamism, as distinct from Islamophobia
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Buddhism
Antitheism
Conflict thesis
Criticism of Islam
Discrimination against atheists
Evidentialism
Faith and rationality
Freethought
New Atheism
Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Persecution of Christians
Relationship between religion and science
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Religious intolerance
Religious persecution
Religious segregation
State atheism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Michael Burleigh Earthly Powers p 96-97 ISBN 0-00-719572-9
2.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm
3.Jump up ^ Timasheff, N. S. (1941). "The Church in the Soviet Union 1917 - 1941". Russian Review 1 (1): 20–30. doi:10.2307/125428. JSTOR 125428.
4.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-5 & 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing NOTE: They define 'martyr' on p235 as only including christians killed for faith and excluding other christians killed
5.Jump up ^ Емельянов Н.Е. Сколько репрессированных в России пострадали за Христа?
6.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm
7.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing
8.Jump up ^ Khmer Rouge: Christian baptism after massacres
9.Jump up ^ D. Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, 1779.
10.Jump up ^ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
11.Jump up ^ Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Collected Works, v. 3. New York.
12.Jump up ^ "Dewey felt that science alone contributed to 'human good,' which he defined exclusively in naturalistic terms. He rejected religion and metaphysics as valid supports for moral and social values, and felt that success of the scientific method presupposed the destruction of old knowledge before the new could be created. ... (Dewey, 1929, pp. 95, 145) "William Adrian, TRUTH, FREEDOM AND (DIS)ORDER IN THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Christian Higher Education', 4:2, 145-154
13.Jump up ^ "I think all the great religions of the world – Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism – both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. ... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." Bertrand Russell in "My Religious Reminiscences" (1957), reprinted in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell [1]
14.Jump up ^ Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful! The Guardian, 2001-10-11 "Has the world changed?." The Guardian. Accessed 2006-01-29.
15.Jump up ^ Grimes, William (16 December 2011). "Christopher Hitchens, Polemicist Who Slashed All, Freely, Dies at 62". New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "[T]he Bible, contrary to what a majority of Americans apparently believe, is far from a source of higher moral values. Religions have given us stonings, witch-burnings, crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay-bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happily be united in heaven." The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, presentation by Steven Pinker to the annual meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, October 29, 2004, on receipt of “The Emperor’s New Clothes Award.”
17.Jump up ^ "We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith.", S. Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006.
18.Jump up ^ "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about the religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."Lenin, V. I. "About the attitude of the working party toward the religion". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
19.Jump up ^ http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html
20.Jump up ^ Grossman, J. D. (1973). "Khrushchev's Anti-Religious Policy and the Campaign of 1954". Soviet Studies 24 (3): 374–386. doi:10.1080/09668137308410870. JSTOR 150643.
21.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/
22.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html
23.Jump up ^ "I'm anti-religious ... It's all a big lie ... I have such a huge dislike [of] the miserable record of religion." The Guardian, 2005-12-14 " The Guardian. 'It no longer feels a great injustice that I have to die'


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion











































































































































































































































































Portal
Category




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Theology






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  


Categories: Antireligion
Irreligion






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
日本語
Polski
Português
Română
Scots
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 April 2015, at 01:33.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion








This is a featured article. Click here for more information.

Page semi-protected

Atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Atheist" redirects here. For other uses, see Atheist (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Atheism
Atheismsymbol endorsed by AAI.svg


Concepts ·
 History
 [show]








Types[show]









Arguments for atheism[show]



















People[show]








Related stances[show]

































Portal icon Atheism portal ·
 WikiProject
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]
The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.[12] With the spread of freethought, skeptical 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 during the Age of Enlightenment.[13] The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to establish the foundations of society on human reason, not divine authority.[14]
Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in any supernatural deity include the lack of empirical evidence;[15][16] the problem of evil; the argument from inconsistent revelations; the rejection of concepts which cannot be falsified; and the argument from nonbelief.[15][17] Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[18][19] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[20] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that 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.[21]
Since conceptions of atheism vary, accurate estimations of current numbers of atheists are difficult.[22] Several comprehensive global polls on the subject have been conducted by Gallup International: their 2015 poll featured over 64,000 respondents and indicated that 11% were "convinced atheists" whereas an earlier 2012 poll found that 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists."[23][24] An older survey by the BBC, in 2004, recorded atheists as comprising 8% of the world's population.[25] Other older estimates have indicated that atheists comprise 2% of the world's population, while the irreligious add a further 12%.[26] According to other studies, rates of atheism are among the highest in Western nations, again to varying degrees: the United States, for example, returned 4%,[27] while Canada returned 28%.[28] The figures for a 2010 Eurobarometer survey in the European Union (EU), reported that 20% of the EU population claimed not to believe in "any sort of spirit, God or life force".[29]


Contents  [hide]
1 Definitions and distinctions 1.1 Range
1.2 Implicit vs. explicit
1.3 Positive vs. negative
1.4 Definition as impossible or impermanent
2 Concepts 2.1 Practical atheism
2.2 Theoretical atheism 2.2.1 Ontological arguments
2.2.2 Epistemological arguments
2.2.3 Metaphysical arguments
2.2.4 Logical arguments
2.3 Reductionary accounts of religion
2.4 Atheism within religions
3 Atheist philosophies
4 Atheism, religion, and morality 4.1 Association with world views and social behaviors
4.2 Atheism and irreligion
4.3 Divine command vs. ethics
4.4 Criticism of religion
5 Etymology
6 History 6.1 Early Indic religion
6.2 Classical antiquity
6.3 Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance
6.4 Early modern period
6.5 Since 1900
6.6 Other developments
7 New Atheism
8 Demographics
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links

Definitions and distinctions



 A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism.
 Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
 Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue 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 on how best to define and classify atheism,[30] 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. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] and has also been contrasted with it.[38][39][40] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.
Range
Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises 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.[41]
With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism.[42]
Implicit vs. explicit
Main article: Implicit and explicit atheism
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."[43] 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."[44] 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".[45]
Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[46] and Michael Martin[41] 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 terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[46] and in Catholic apologetics.[47] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[34] many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[48][49] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[48] 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.[50][51] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[52] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[53] 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 generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[54] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic, and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[55]
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.[56]
There is also a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes".[57] There have however been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes".[58]
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.[59]
Concepts



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[60]
The broadest demarcation of atheistic rationale is between practical and theoretical atheism.
Practical atheism
Main article: Apatheism
In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without reference to any deities. 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.[61] 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."[62]
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.[63]
Theoretical atheism
Ontological arguments
Further information: Agnostic atheism and Theological noncognitivism
Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. Theoretical atheism is mainly an ontology, precisely a physical ontology.
Epistemological arguments
Further information: Agnostic atheism and Theological noncognitivism
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 of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness 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 rationalistic agnosticism 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. Hume, however, held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts should be rejected as "sophistry and illusion".[64] The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.[61]
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.[65][66]
Metaphysical arguments
Further information: Monism and Physicalism
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)."[67]



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:[68] "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?"
Logical arguments
Further information: Arguments against the existence of God, Problem of evil, Divine hiddenness
Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal 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, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice, and mercy.[15]
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 omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people.[17] A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.[69]
Reductionary accounts of religion
Further information: Evolutionary origin of religions, Evolutionary psychology of religion and Psychology of religion
Philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach[70] and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud have 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.[71] 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."[72]
Atheism within religions
Further information: Nontheistic religions
Atheism is acceptable within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, Raelism,[73] and Neopagan movements[74] such as Wicca.[75] Āstika schools in Hinduism hold atheism to be a valid path to moksha, but extremely difficult, for the atheist can not expect any help from the divine on their journey.[76] Jainism believes the universe is eternal and has no need for a creator deity, however Tirthankaras are revered that can transcend space and time [77] and have more power than the god Indra.[78] Secular Buddhism does not advocate belief in gods. Early Buddhism was atheistic as Gautama Buddha's path involved no mention of gods. Later conceptions of Buddhism consider Buddha himself a god, suggest adherents can attain godhood, and revere Bodhisattvas[79] and Eternal Buddha.
Atheist philosophies
Further information: Atheist existentialism and Secular humanism
Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. 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.[61] One of the most common criticisms 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,[80] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[81] Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.[82]
French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre identified himself as a representative of an "atheist existentialism"[83] 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."[84] 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."[83] 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".[85]
Atheism, religion, and morality
See also: Atheism and religion, Criticism of atheism, Secular ethics and Secular morality
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. He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies.[86][87] His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average.[88][89]
Atheism and irreligion



Buddhism is sometimes described as nontheistic because of the absence of a creator god, but that can be too simplistic a view.[90]
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.[91] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[92][93] and Christian atheists.[94][95][96]
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.[97]
Philosophers such as Slavoj Žižek,[98] Alain de Botton,[99] and Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist,[100] 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.
Divine command vs. ethics
According to Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, 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.[101][102][103] Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do.[104] Friedrich Nietzsche believed in a morality independent of theistic belief, and stated that morality based upon God "has truth only if God is truth—it stands or falls with faith in God."[105][106][107]
There exist normative ethical systems that do not require principles and rules to be given by a deity. Some include virtue ethics, social contract, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and Objectivism. Sam 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.[108]
Philosophers Susan Neiman[109] and Julian Baggini[110] (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.[111] 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.[112] 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.[113]
Criticism of religion
See also: Criticism of religion
Some prominent atheists—most recently Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and following such thinkers as Bertrand Russell, Robert G. Ingersoll, Voltaire, and novelist José Saramago—have criticized religions, citing harmful aspects of religious practices and doctrines.[114]



Karl Marx
The 19th-century German political theorist and sociologist Karl Marx called religion "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". He goes on to say, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[115] Lenin said that "every religious idea and every idea of God "is unutterable vileness ... of the most dangerous kind, 'contagion' of the most abominable kind. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical contagions ... are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God decked out in the smartest ideological constumes ..."[116]
Sam Harris criticises Western religion's reliance on divine authority as lending itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism.[117] There is a correlation between religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religion (when religion is held because it serves ulterior interests)[118] and authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice.[119] These arguments—combined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, and terrorist attacks—have been used in response to claims of beneficial effects of belief in religion.[120] Believers counter-argue that some regimes that espouse atheism, such as in Soviet Russia, have also been guilty of mass murder.[121][122] In response to those claims, atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have stated that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by dogmatic Marxism, and that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[123][124]
Etymology



 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".[125]
In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (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 render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. 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.[12]
The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[126] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[127] and again in 1571.[128] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[129] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[130] and appears in English about 1587.[131] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[132][133] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[134] theist in 1662,[135] deism in 1675,[136] and theism in 1678.[137] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism 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 calling himself an atheist."[13]
Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[138] 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".[41]
History
Main article: History of atheism
While the earliest-found usage of the term atheism is in 16th-century France,[130][131] ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented from the Vedic period and the classical antiquity.
Early Indic religion
Main article: Atheism in Hinduism
Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[139] 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.[140] 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 of Vedas 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.[141] 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."[142]
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.[143]
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.[144] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[145] and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum.[146] Atomists such as Democritus attempted to explain the world in a purely materialistic way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order[147] and Prodicus also appears to have made clear atheistic statements in his work. Philodemus reports that Prodicus believed that "the gods of popular belief do not exist nor do they know, but primitive man, [out of admiration, deified] the fruits of the earth and virtually everything that contributed to his existence". Protagoras has sometimes been taken to be an atheist but rather espoused agnostic views, commenting that "Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life."[148] In the 3rd-century BCE the Greek philosophers Theodorus Cyrenaicus[146][149] and Strato of Lampsacus[150] did not believe gods exist.
Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE) was associated in the Athenian public mind with the trends in pre-Socratic philosophy towards naturalistic inquiry and the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena. Although such an interpretation misrepresents his thought he was portrayed in such a way in Aristophanes' comic play Clouds and was later to be tried and executed for impiety and corrupting the young. At his trial Socrates is reported as vehemently denying that he was an atheist and contemporary scholarship provides little reason to doubt this claim.[151][152]
Euhemerus (c. 300 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.[153] Although not strictly an atheist, Euhemerus was later criticized for having "spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods".[154]
Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy according to which the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention (see scientific determinism). Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind and one important way of doing this was by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife and the need to fear divine punishment after death.[155]
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.[156]
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.[157] 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.[158]
Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance
During the Early Middle Ages, the Islamic world underwent a Golden Age. With the associated advances in science and philosophy, Arab and Persian lands produced outspoken rationalists and atheists, including Muhammad al Warraq (fl. 7th century), Ibn al-Rawandi (827–911), Al-Razi (854–925), and Al-Maʿarri (973–1058). Al-Ma'arri wrote and taught that religion itself was a "fable invented by the ancients"[159] and that humans were "of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains."[160] Despite being relatively prolific writers, nearly none of their writing survives to the modern day, most of what little remains being preserved through quotations and excerpts in later works by Muslim apologists attempting to refute them.[161] Other prominent Golden Age scholars have been associated with rationalist thought and atheism as well, although the current intellectual atmosphere in the Islamic world, and the scant evidence that survives from the era, make this point a contentious one today.
In Europe, the espousal of atheistic views was rare during the Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages (see Medieval Inquisition); metaphysics and theology were the dominant interests pertaining to religion.[162] There were, however, movements within this period that furthered heterodox conceptions of the Christian god, including differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God. Individuals and groups such as Johannes Scotus Eriugena, David of Dinant, Amalric 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 thus our knowledge of him is limited to conjecture. William of Ockham inspired anti-metaphysical tendencies with his nominalistic limitation 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 Mirecourt and Nicholas of Autrecourt furthered this view. The resulting division between faith and reason influenced later radical and reformist theologians such as John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther.[162]
The Renaissance did much to expand the scope of free thought and skeptical inquiry. Individuals such as Leonardo 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, Michel de Montaigne, and François Rabelais.[156]
Early modern period
Historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that the Reformation had paved the way for atheists by attacking the authority of the Catholic Church, which in turn "quietly inspired other thinkers to attack the authority of the new Protestant churches".[163] Deism gained influence in France, Prussia, and England. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza was "probably the first well known 'semi-atheist' to announce himself in a Christian land in the modern era", according to Blainey. Spinoza believed that natural laws explained the workings of the universe. In 1661 he published his Short Treatise on God.[164]
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 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".[165]
The first known explicit atheist was the German critic of religion Matthias Knutzen in his three writings of 1674.[166] He was followed by two other explicit atheist writers, the Polish ex-Jesuit philosopher Kazimierz Łyszczyński and in the 1720s by the French priest Jean Meslier.[167] In the course of the 18th century, other openly atheistic thinkers followed, such as Baron d'Holbach, Jacques-André Naigeon, and other French materialists.[168] John Locke in contrast, though an advocate of tolerance, urged authorities not to tolerate atheism, believing that the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos.[169]
The philosopher David Hume developed a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, and Immanuel Kant's philosophy has strongly questioned the very possibility of a metaphysical knowledge. Both philosophers undermined the metaphysical basis of natural theology and criticized classical arguments for the existence of God.



Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1841) would greatly influence philosophers such as Engels, Marx, David Strauss, Nietzsche, and Max 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 modern anthropology of religion.
Blainey notes that, although Voltaire is widely considered to have strongly contributed to atheistic thinking during the Revolution, he also considered fear of God to have discouraged further disorder, having said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[170] In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), the philosopher Edmund Burke denounced atheism, writing of a "literary cabal" who had "some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion. This object they pursued with a degree of zeal which hitherto had been discovered only in the propagators of some system of piety ... These atheistical fathers have a bigotry of their own ...". But, Burke asserted, "man is by his constitution a religious animal" and "atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and ... it cannot prevail long".[171]
Baron d'Holbach was a prominent figure in the French Enlightenment who is best known for his atheism and for his voluminous writings against religion, the most famous of them being The System of Nature (1770) but also Christianity Unveiled. One 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, lasting until the Thermidorian Reaction. The radical Jacobins seized 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. The Napoleonic era further institutionalized the secularization of French society, and exported the revolution to northern Italy, in the hopes of creating pliable republics.[citation needed]
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 Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Max Stirner, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.[172]
G.J. Holyoake was the last person (1842) imprisoned in Great Britain due to atheist beliefs.[173] Stephen Law states that Holyoake "first coined the term 'secularism'".[174]
Since 1900
Further information: Marxism and religion



Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. Marxist‒Leninist atheism was influential in the 20th century.
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, objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, anarchism, logical positivism, Marxism, feminism,[175] and the general scientific and rationalist movement.
In addition, state atheism emerged in Eastern Europe and Asia during that period, particularly in the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and in Communist China under Mao Zedong. Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheists.[176][177] After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China.[178][179][180]



 1929 cover of the USSR League of Militant Atheists magazine, showing the gods of the Abrahamic religions being crushed by the Communist 5-year plan
While Geoffrey Blainey has written that "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity",[181] Richard Madsen has pointed out that Hitler and Stalin each opened and closed churches as a matter of political expedience, and Stalin softened his opposition to Christianity in order to improve public acceptance of his regime during the war.[182] Blackford and Schüklenk have written that "the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism."[183]
Logical positivism and scientism paved the way for neopositivism, analytical philosophy, structuralism, and naturalism. 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 of Lévi-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.[54][184]
Other developments



 The British philosopher Bertrand Russell
Other leaders like E. V. Ramasami Naicker (Periyar), a prominent atheist leader of India, fought against Hinduism and Brahmins for discriminating and dividing people in the name of caste and religion.[185] 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.[186]
Atheist Vashti McCollum was the plaintiff in a landmark 1948 Supreme Court case that struck down religious education in US public schools.[187] Madalyn Murray O'Hair was perhaps one of the most influential American atheists; she brought forth the 1963 Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett which banned compulsory prayer in public schools.[188] In 1966, Time magazine asked "Is God Dead?"[189] 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 Christian view of theology.[190] The Freedom From Religion Foundation was co-founded by Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976 in the United States, and incorporated nationally in 1978. It promotes the separation of church and state.[191][192]
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."[193] However, Gregory S. Paul and Phil Zuckerman consider this a myth and suggest that the actual situation is much more complex and nuanced.[194]
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.[195]
In 2012, the first "Women in Secularism" conference was held in Arlington, Virginia.[196] Secular Woman was organized in 2012 as a national organization focused on nonreligious women.[197] The atheist feminist movement has also become increasingly focused on fighting sexism and sexual harassment within the atheist movement itself.[198] In August 2012, Jennifer McCreight (the organizer of Boobquake) founded a movement within atheism known as Atheism Plus, or A+, that "applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime".[199][200][201]
In 2013 the first atheist monument on American government property was unveiled at the Bradford County Courthouse in Florida: a 1,500-pound granite bench and plinth inscribed with quotes by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair.[202][203]
New Atheism



 The "Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse" (clockwise from top left): Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.
Main article: 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."[204] The movement is commonly associated with Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens.[205][206] Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism.[206]
These atheists generally seek to disassociate themselves from the mass political atheism that gained ascendency in various nations in the 20th century. In best selling books, 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, have been cited by authors such as Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Stenger, and Hitchens as evidence of a need to move society towards atheism.[207]
Demographics
Main article: Demographics of atheism
Further information: Religiosity and education



 Percentage of people in various European countries who said: "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force." (2005)[208]
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.[209] A Hindu atheist would declare oneself as a Hindu, although also being an atheist at the same time.[210] A 2010 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 9.6% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.0%, with a very large majority based in Asia. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[211] The average annual change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was −0.17%.[211] A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.[212]
The 2012 Gallup Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism, measured the percentage of people who viewed themselves as "a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?" 13% reported to be "convinced atheists".[213] The top ten countries with people who viewed themselves as "convinced atheists" were China (47%), Japan (31%), the Czech Republic (30%), France (29%), South Korea (15%), Germany (15%), Netherlands (14%), Austria (10%), Iceland (10%), Australia (10%), and the Republic of Ireland (10%). The top ten countries with people who described themselves as "a religious person" were Ghana (96%), Nigeria (93%), Armenia (92%), Fiji (92%), Macedonia (90%), Romania (89%), Iraq (88%), Kenya (88%), Peru (86%), and Brazil (85%).[214]
Europe. According to the 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, the percentage of those polled who agreed with the statement "you don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" varied from: France (40%), Czech Republic (37%), Sweden (34%), Netherlands (30%), and Estonia (29%), down to Poland (5%), Greece (4%), Cyprus (3%), Malta (2%), and Romania (1%), with the European Union as a whole at 20%.[29] In a 2012 Eurobarometer poll on discrimination in the European Union, 16% of those polled considered themselves non believers/agnostics and 7% considered themselves atheists.[215] According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 22% of Australians have "no religion", a category that includes atheists.[216]
According to a Pew Research Center survey in 2012 religiously unaffiliated (including agnostics and atheists) make up about 18.2% of Europeans.[217] According to the same survey, the religiously unaffiliated are the majority of the population only in two European countries: Czech Republic (75%) and Estonia (60%).[217] There are another four countries where the unaffiliated make up a majority of the population: North Korea (71%), Japan (57%), Hong Kong (56%), and China (52%).[217]
In the United States, there was a 1% to 5% increase in self-reported atheism from 2005 to 2012, and a larger drop in those who self-identified as "religious", down by 13%, from 73% to 60%.[218] According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, 3.1% of the US adult population identify as atheist, up from 1.6% in 2007, and within the religiously unaffiliated (or "no religion") demographic, atheists made up 13.6%.[219]



 Proportion of atheists and agnostics around the world.
Socio-economics. A study noted positive correlations between levels of education and secularity, including atheism, in America.[88]
According to evolutionary psychologist Nigel Barber, atheism blossoms in places where most people feel economically secure, particularly in the social democracies of Europe, as there is less uncertainty about the future with extensive social safety nets and better health care resulting in a greater quality of life and higher life expectancy. By contrast, in underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists.[220]
Atheism and education. A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife 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,[221] 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".[222]
An article published by The University of Chicago Chronicle that discussed the above study, stated that 76% of physicians in the United States believe in God, more than the 7% of scientists above, but still less than the 85% of the general population.[223] 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."[224]
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.[225]
In 1958, Professor Michael Argyle of the University of Oxford 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.[226] Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education are associated with increased religious participation and religious practice in daily life, but also correlate with greater tolerance for atheists' public opposition to religion and greater skepticism of "exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism".[227] Other studies have also examined the relationship between religiosity and intelligence; in a meta-analysis, 53 of 63 studies found that analytical intelligence correlated negatively with religiosity, with 35 of the 53 reaching statistical significance, while 10 studies found a positive correlation, 2 of which reached significance.[228]
See also
A Brief History of Disbelief
Adevism
Antitheism
Apostasy
Atheist existentialism
Atheist feminism
Brights movement
Christian atheism
Criticism of atheism
Discrimination against atheists
Dysteleology
Empiricism
Irreligion by country
Jewish atheism
List of atheists
List of secularist organizations
Out Campaign
Secular religion
Tabula rasa
Wealth and religion
Wikiversity course Beyond Theism
Book icon Book: Atheism



Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 Socrates.pngPhilosophy portal
 P religion world.svgReligion portal
 

Notes
1.Jump up ^ Nielsen 2013: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."
2.Jump up ^ Edwards 2005: "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."
3.Jump up ^ Rowe 1998: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ... an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."
4.^ Jump up to: a b Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
5.^ Jump up to: a b Simon Blackburn, ed. (2008). "atheism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."
6.Jump up ^ Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism") first list one of the more narrow definitions. Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. Archived from the original on 2011-05-13. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought" – entry by Vergilius Ferm
7.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
8.Jump up ^ "Definitions: Atheism". Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama. Retrieved 2012-12-01.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). 1989. "Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism"
10.Jump up ^ "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2011-05-14. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "...belief in the existence of a god or gods..."
11.Jump up ^ Smart, J. J. C., "Atheism and Agnosticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
12.^ Jump up to: a b Drachmann, A. B. (1977) [1922]. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-201-8. "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 átheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, átheos 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."
13.^ Jump up to: a b Armstrong 1999.
14.Jump up ^ Hancock, Ralph (1996). The Legacy of the French Revolution. Lanham, United States: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. p. 22. ISBN 978-0847678426. Retrieved 2015-05-30.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Various authors. "Logical Arguments for Atheism". The Secular Web Library. Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2012-10-02.
16.Jump up ^ Shook, John R. "Skepticism about the Supernatural" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-10-02.
17.^ Jump up to: a b Drange, Theodore M. (1996). "The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief". Secular Web Library. Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2012-10-02.
18.Jump up ^ Honderich, Ted (Ed.) (1995). "Humanism". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p 376. ISBN 0-19-866132-0.
19.Jump up ^ Fales, Evan. Naturalism and Physicalism, in Martin 2006, pp. 122–131.
20.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, pp. 3–4.
21.Jump up ^ Stenger 2007, pp. 17–18, citing Parsons, Keith M. (1989). God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytical Defense of Theism. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-551-5.
22.Jump up ^ Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-521-60367-6. OL 22379448M. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
23.Jump up ^ "Religiosity and Atheism Index" (PDF). Zurich: WIN/GIA. 27 July 2012. Retrieved 2013-10-01.
24.Jump up ^ "New Survey Shows the World's Most and Least Religious Places". NPR. 13 April 2015. Retrieved 2015-04-29.
25.Jump up ^ "UK among most secular nations". BBC News. 2004-02-26. Retrieved 2015-01-14.
26.Jump up ^ "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2007". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Retrieved 2013-11-21. 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).
11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.
27.Jump up ^ "Religious Views and Beliefs Vary Greatly by Country, According to the Latest Financial Times/Harris Poll". Financial Times/Harris Interactive. 20 December 2006. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
28.Jump up ^ http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
29.^ Jump up to: a b Social values, Science and Technology (PDF). Directorate General Research, European Union. 2010. p. 207. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-04-30. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
30.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1911. Archived from the original on 2011-05-12. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous. Its meaning varies (a) according to the various definitions of deity, and especially (b) according as it is (i.) deliberately adopted by a thinker as a description of his own theological standpoint, or (ii.) applied by one set of thinkers to their opponents. As to (a), it is obvious that atheism from the standpoint of the Christian is a very different conception as compared with atheism as understood by a Deist, a Positivist, a follower of Euhemerus or Herbert Spencer, or a Buddhist."
31.Jump up ^ Martin 1990, pp. 467–468: "In the popular sense an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists, while an atheist disbelieves that God exists. However, this common contrast of agnosticism with atheism will hold only if one assumes that atheism means positive atheism. In the popular sense, agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism. Since negative atheism by definition simply means not holding any concept of God, it is compatible with neither believing nor disbelieving in God."
32.Jump up ^ Flint 1903, pp. 49–51: "The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one."
33.Jump up ^ Holland, Aaron. Agnosticism, in Flynn 2007, p. 34: "It is important to note that this interpretation of agnosticism is compatible with theism or atheism, since it is only asserted that knowledge of God's existence is unattainable."
34.^ Jump up to: a b Martin 2006, p. 2: "But agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism in that agnosticism entails negative atheism. Since agnostics do not believe in God, they are by definition negative atheists. This is not to say that negative atheism entails agnosticism. A negative atheist might disbelieve in God but need not."
35.Jump up ^ Barker 2008, p. 96: "People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, "I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic."
36.Jump up ^ Besant, Annie. Why Should Atheists Be Persecuted?. in Bradlaugh et al. 1884, pp. 185–186: "The Atheist waits for proof of God. Till that proof comes he remains, as his name implies, without God. His mind is open to every new truth, after it has passed the warder Reason at the gate."
37.Jump up ^ Holyoake, George Jacob (1842). "Mr. Mackintosh's New God". The Oracle of Reason, Or, Philosophy Vindicated 1 (23): 186. "On the contrary, I, as an Atheist, simply profess that I do not see sufficient reason to believe that there is a god. I do not pretend to know that there is no god. The whole question of god's existence, belief or disbelief, a question of probability or of improbability, not knowledge."
38.Jump up ^ Nielsen 2013: "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
39.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica Concise. Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems."
40.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1911. Archived from the original on 2011-05-12. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "But dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism."
41.^ Jump up to: a b c Martin 2006.
42.Jump up ^ "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". Encyclopædia Britannica 1 (15th ed.). 2011. p. 666. 0852294735. Archived from the original on 2011-05-12. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
43.Jump up ^ d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). Good Sense. Retrieved 2011-04-07.
44.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, p. 14.
45.Jump up ^ Nagel, Ernest (1959). "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism". Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind. Sheridan House. "I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of 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. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."
 reprinted in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.
46.^ Jump up to: a b Flew 1976, pp. 14ff: "In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."
47.Jump up ^ Maritain, Jacques (July 1949). "On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism". The Review of Politics 11 (3): 267–280. doi:10.1017/S0034670500044168.
48.^ Jump up to: a b Kenny, Anthony (2006). "Why I Am Not an Atheist". What I believe. Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-8971-0. "The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed."
49.Jump up ^ "Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism". Huffington Post. 28 May 2013. Retrieved 2013-11-26.
50.Jump up ^ O'Brien, Breda (7 July 2009). "Many atheists I know would be certain of a high place in heaven". Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2011-05-20. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
51.Jump up ^ Matthew Warner (8 June 2012). "More faith to be an atheist than a Christian". Retrieved 2013-11-26.
52.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, pp. 30–34. "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."
53.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 22. "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."
54.^ Jump up to: a b Smart, J.C.C. (9 March 2004). "Atheism and Agnosticism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
55.Jump up ^ Dawkins 2006, p. 50.
56.Jump up ^ 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.
57.Jump up ^ See, for example: Pressley, Sue Anne (September 8, 1996). "Atheist Group Moves Ahead Without O'Hair". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-10-22.
58.Jump up ^ Lowder, Jeffery Jay (1997). "Atheism and Society". Archived from the original on 2011-05-22. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
59.Jump up ^ Harris 2006, p. 51.
60.Jump up ^ Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach, System of Nature; or, the Laws of the Moral and Physical World (London, 1797), Vol. 1, p. 25
61.^ Jump up to: a b c Zdybicka 2005, p. 20.
62.Jump up ^ Schafersman, Steven D. (February 1997). "Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry". Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise. Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas. Retrieved 2011-04-07. Revised May 2007
63.Jump up ^ Zdybicka 2005, p. 21.
64.Jump up ^ Hume 1748, Part III: "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
65.Jump up ^ Drange, Theodore M. (1998). "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism". Internet Infidels, Secular Web Library. Retrieved 2007-APR-07.
66.Jump up ^ Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, Truth and Logic. Dover. pp. 115–116. In a footnote, Ayer attributes this view to "Professor H. H. Price".
67.Jump up ^ Zdybicka 2005, p. 19.
68.Jump up ^ Hume 1779.
69.Jump up ^ V.A. Gunasekara, "The Buddhist Attitude to God". Archived from the original on 2008-01-02. In the Bhuridatta Jataka, "The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha."
70.Jump up ^ Feuerbach, Ludwig (1841) The Essence of Christianity
71.Jump up ^ Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Grove Press, 1974. Pages 51–52.
72.Jump up ^ Bakunin, Michael (1916). "God and the State". New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association. Archived from the original on 2011-05-21. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
73.Jump up ^ The Raelian Foundation (2005). Intelligent Design. p. 312.
74.Jump up ^ Johnson, Philip et al. (2005). Claydon, David et al., eds. Religious and Non-Religious Spirituality in the Western World ("New Age"). A New Vision, A New Heart, A Renewed Call 2 (William Carey Library). p. 194. ISBN 978-0-87808-364-0. "Although Neo-Pagans share common commitments to nature and spirit there is a diversity of beliefs and practices ... Some are atheists, others are polytheists (several gods exist), some are pantheists (all is God) and others are panentheists (all is in God)."
75.Jump up ^ Matthews, Carol S. (2009). New Religions. Chelsea House Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7910-8096-2. "There is no universal worldview that all Neo-Pagans/Wiccans hold. One online information source indicates that depending on how the term God is defined, Neo-Pagans might be classified as monotheists, duotheists (two gods), polytheists, pantheists, or atheists."
76.Jump up ^ Chakravarti, Sitansu (1991). Hinduism, a way of life. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 65. ISBN 978-81-208-0899-7. Retrieved 2014-07-15. "For the thoroughgoing atheist, the path is extremely difficult, if not lonely, for he can not develop any relationship of love with God, nor can he expect any divine help on the long and arduous journey."
77.Jump up ^ Pattanaik, Devdutt (2009-08-18). "63 worthy beings". Mid-day. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
78.Jump up ^ Muni Nagraj. Āgama and Tripiṭaka: A Comparative Study : a Critical Study of the Jaina and the Buddhist Canonical Literature, Volume 1. Today & Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers. p. 203. ISBN 978-81-7022-730-4.
79.Jump up ^ Kedar, Nath Tiwari (1997). Comparative Religion. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 50. ISBN 81-208-0293-4.
80.Jump up ^ Gleeson, David (10 August 2006). "Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Atheism". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
81.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, p. 275. "Perhaps the most common criticism of atheism is the claim that it leads inevitably to moral bankruptcy."
82.Jump up ^ Pascal, Blaise (1669). Pensées, II: "The Misery of Man Without God".
83.^ Jump up to: a b Sartre 2004, p. 127.
84.Jump up ^ Sartre 2001, p. 45.
85.Jump up ^ Sartre 2001, p. 32.
86.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart (2004). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
87.Jump up ^ Bruce, Steve (2003). Religion and Politics location=Cambridge, UK.
88.^ Jump up to: a b Zuckerman, Phil (2009). "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" (PDF). Sociology Compass 3 (6): 949–971. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x.
89.Jump up ^ "Societies without God are more benevolent". The Guardian. 2 September 2010. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
90.Jump up ^ Wallace, B. Alan Ph.D. (November 1999). "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" (PDF). National Conference of the American Academy of Religion lectures. Boston, MA. p. 8. Retrieved 2014-07-22."Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavaºga to the tath›gatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
91.Jump up ^ Winston, Robert (Ed.) (2004). Human. New York: DK Publishing, Inc. p. 299. ISBN 0-7566-1901-7. "Nonbelief has existed for centuries. For example, Buddhism and Jainism have been called atheistic religions because they do not advocate belief in gods."
92.Jump up ^ "Humanistic Judaism". BBC. 20 July 2006. Archived from the original on 2011-04-16. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
93.Jump up ^ Levin, S. (May 1995). "Jewish Atheism". New Humanist 110 (2): 13–15.
94.Jump up ^ "Christian Atheism". BBC. 17 May 2006. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
95.Jump up ^ Altizer, Thomas J. J. (1967). The Gospel of Christian Atheism. London: Collins. pp. 102–103. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
96.Jump up ^ Lyas, Colin (January 1970). "On the Coherence of Christian Atheism". Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 45 (171): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100009578.
97.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, pp. 21–22
98.Jump up ^ Slavoj Žižek: Less Than Nothing (2012)
99.Jump up ^ Alain de Botton: Religion for Atheists (2012)
100.Jump up ^ Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist: The Global Empire (2012)
101.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, p. 275. "Among the many myths associated with religion, none is more widespread - [sic]or more disastrous in its effects—than the myth that moral values cannot be divorced from the belief in a god."
102.Jump up ^ In Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Book Eleven: Brother Ivan Fyodorovich, Chapter 4) there is the famous argument that If there is no God, all things are permitted.: "'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?'"
103.Jump up ^ For Kant, the presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams ..." (Critique of Pure Reason, A811).
104.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 38
105.Jump up ^ Human Rights, Virtue, and the Common Good. Rowman & Littlefield. 1996. ISBN 978-0-8476-8279-9. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "That problem was brought home to us with dazzling clarity by Nietzsche, who had reflected more deeply than any of his contemporaries on the implications of godlessness and come to the conclusion that a fatal contradiction lay at the heart of modern theological enterprise: it thought that Christian morality, which it wished to preserve, was independent of Christian dogma, which it rejected. This, in Nietzsche's mind, was an absurdity. It amounted to nothing less than dismissing the architect while trying to keep the building or getting rid of the lawgiver while claiming the protection of the law."
106.Jump up ^ The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell. 11 May 2009. ISBN 978-1-4051-7657-6. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Morality "has truth only if God is truth–it stands or falls with faith in God" (Nietzche 1968, p. 70). The moral argument for the existence of God essentially takes Nietzche's assertion as one of its premises: if there is no God, then "there are altogether no moral facts"."
107.Jump up ^ Victorian Subjects. Duke University Press. 1991. ISBN 978-0-8223-1110-2. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Like other mid-nineteenth-century writers, George Eliot was not fully aware of the implications of her humanism, and, as Nietzsche saw, attempted the difficult task of upholding the Christian morality of altruism without faith in the Christian God."
108.Jump up ^ Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia Ethica. Archived from the original on 2011-05-14. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
109.Jump up ^ Susan Neiman (6 November 2006). Beyond Belief Session 6 (Conference). Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA: The Science Network.
110.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 40
111.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 43
112.Jump up ^ 101 Ethical Dilemmas, 2nd edition, by Cohen, M., Routledge 2007, pp 184–5. (Cohen notes particularly that Plato and Aristotle produced arguments in favour of slavery.)
113.Jump up ^ Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, by Cohen, M, Second edition 2008
114.Jump up ^ Harris 2005, Harris 2006, Dawkins 2006, Hitchens 2007, Russell 1957
115.Jump up ^ Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Collected Works, v. 3. New York.
116.Jump up ^ Martin Amis; Koba the Dread; Vintage Books; London; 2003; ISBN 978-0-09-943802-1; p. 30–31
117.Jump up ^ Harris 2006a.
118.Jump up ^ Moreira-almeida, A.; Neto, F.; Koenig, H. G. (2006). "Religiousness and mental health: a review". Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 28 (3): 242–250. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000006. PMID 16924349.
119.Jump up ^ See for example: Kahoe, R.D. (June 1977). "Intrinsic Religion and Authoritarianism: A Differentiated Relationship". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16 (2): 179–182. doi:10.2307/1385749. JSTOR 1385749. Also see: Altemeyer, Bob; Hunsberger, Bruce (1992). "Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice". International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2 (2): 113–133. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5.
120.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). "An Atheist Manifesto". Truthdig. Archived from the original on 2011-05-16. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree."
121.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (4 November 2010). Ethics for a Brave New World. Stand To Reason. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'"
122.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist's Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
123.Jump up ^ Dawkins 2006, p. 291.
124.Jump up ^ 10 myths and 10 truths about Atheism Sam Harris
125.Jump up ^ The word αθεοι—in any of its forms—appears nowhere else in the Septuagint or the New Testament. Robertson, A.T. (1960) [1932]. "Ephesians: Chapter 2". Word Pictures in the New Testament. Broadman Press. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Old Greek word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the original sense of being without God and also in the sense of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See Paul's words in Ro 1:18–32."
126.Jump up ^ "atheist". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2009. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
127.Jump up ^ Martiall, John (1566). A Replie to Mr Calfhills Blasphemous Answer Made Against the Treatise of the Cross. English recusant literature, 1558–1640 203. Louvain. p. 51. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
128.Jump up ^ Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571). The Psalmes of David and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries. pp. Ep. Ded. 3. "The Atheistes which say..there is no God." Translated from Latin.
129.Jump up ^ Hanmer, Meredith (1577). The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius. London. p. 63. OCLC 55193813. "The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men."
130.^ Jump up to: a b Merriam-Webster Online:Atheism, retrieved 2013-11-21, "First Known Use: 1546"
131.^ Jump up to: a b Rendered as Athisme: de Mornay, Philippe (1581). A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion: Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists, and other infidels [De la vérite de la religion chréstienne (1581, Paris)]. Translated from French to English by Arthur Golding & Philip Sidney and published in London, 1587. "Athisme, that is to say, vtter godlesnes."
132.Jump up ^ Vergil, Polydore (c. 1534). English history. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Godd would not longe suffer this impietie, or rather atheonisme."
133.Jump up ^ 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. prep. by J. A. Simpson ... (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (Second ed.). Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-861186-2.
134.Jump up ^ Burton, Robert (1621). deist. The Anatomy of Melancholy. Part III, section IV. II. i. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Cousin-germans to these men are many of our great Philosophers and Deists"
135.Jump up ^ Martin, Edward (1662). "Five Letters". His opinion concerning the difference between the Church of England and Geneva [etc.] London. p. 45. "To have said my office..twice a day..among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason, Puritanes [etc.]."
136.Jump up ^ Bailey, Nathan (1675). An universal etymological English dictionary. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
137.Jump up ^ "Secondly, that nothing out of nothing, in the sense of the atheistic objectors, viz. that nothing, which once was not, could by any power whatsoever be brought into being, is absolutely false; and that, if it were true, it would make no more against theism than it does against atheism ..." Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Chapter V Section II p.73
138.Jump up ^ In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, atheism is usually 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 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.
139.Jump up ^ Pandian (1996). India, that is, sidd. Allied Publishers. p. 64. ISBN 978-81-7023-561-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
140.Jump up ^ Dasgupta, Surendranath (1992). A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 258. ISBN 978-81-208-0412-8. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
141.Jump up ^ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. (Princeton University Press: 1957, Twelfth Princeton Paperback printing 1989) pp. 227–249. ISBN 0-691-01958-4.
142.Jump up ^ Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Eighth Reprint Edition. (University of Calcutta: 1984). p. 55.
143.Jump up ^ Joshi, L.R. (1966). "A New Interpretation of Indian Atheism". Philosophy East and West 16 (3/4): 189–206. doi:10.2307/1397540. JSTOR 1397540.
144.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, pp. 73–74. "Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment."
145.Jump up ^ Solmsen, Friedrich (1942). Plato's Theology. Cornell University Press. p 25.
146.^ Jump up to: a b ... nullos esse omnino Diagoras et Theodorus Cyrenaicus ... Cicero, Marcus Tullius: De natura deorum. Comments and English text by Richard D. McKirahan. Thomas Library, Bryn Mawr College, 1997, page 3. ISBN 0-929524-89-6
147.Jump up ^ "religion, study of". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
148.Jump up ^ Bremmer, Jan. Atheism in Antiquity, in Martin 2006, pp. 12–13
149.Jump up ^ Diogenes Laërtius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, ii
150.Jump up ^ Cicero, Lucullus, 121. in Reale, G., A History of Ancient Philosophy. SUNY Press. (1985).
151.Jump up ^ Bremmer, Jan. Atheism in Antiquity, in Martin 2006, pp. 14–19
152.Jump up ^ Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Smith, Nicholas D. (2004). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Trial of Socrates. Routledge. p. 112. ISBN 0-415-15681-5. In particular, he argues that the claim he is a complete atheist contradicts the other part of the indictment, that he introduced "new divinities".
153.Jump up ^ Fragments of Euhemerus' work in Ennius' Latin translation have been preserved in Patristic writings (e.g. by Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea), which all rely on earlier fragments in Diodorus 5,41–46 & 6.1. Testimonies, especially in the context of polemical criticism, are found e.g. in Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus 8.
154.Jump up ^ Plutarch, Moralia—Isis and Osiris 23
155.Jump up ^ "Epicurus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2013-11-10.
156.^ Jump up to: a b Stein, Gordon (Ed.) (1980). "The History of Freethought and Atheism". An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. New York: Prometheus. Retrieved 2007-APR-03.
157.Jump up ^ Wikisource-logo.svg "Atheism" in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.
158.Jump up ^ Maycock, A. L. and Ronald Knox (2003). Inquisition from Its Establishment to the Great Schism: An Introductory Study. ISBN 0-7661-7290-2.
159.Jump up ^ Reynold Alleyne Nicholson, 1962, A Literary History of the Arabs, page 318. Routledge
160.Jump up ^ Freethought Traditions in the Islamic World by Fred Whitehead; also quoted in Cyril Glasse, (2001), The New Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 278. Rowman Altamira.
161.Jump up ^ Al-Zandaqa Wal Zanadiqa, by Mohammad Abd-El Hamid Al-Hamad, first edition 1999, Dar Al-Taliaa Al-Jadida, Syria (Arabic)
162.^ Jump up to: a b Zdybicka 2005, p. 4
163.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.388
164.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.343
165.Jump up ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". Retrieved 2013-11-26.
166.Jump up ^ Winfried Schröder, in: Matthias Knutzen: Schriften und Materialien (2010), p. 8. See also Rececca Moore, The Heritage of Western Humanism, Scepticism and Freethought (2011), calling Knutzen "the first open advocate of a modern atheist perspective" online here
167.Jump up ^ "Michel Onfray on Jean Meslier". William Paterson University. Retrieved 2011-11-04.
168.Jump up ^ d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). The System of Nature 2. Retrieved 2011-04-07.
169.Jump up ^ Jeremy Waldron; God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought; Cambridge, UK; 2002; p.217
170.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; pp. 390–391
171.Jump up ^ Reflections on the Revolution in France; (1790) by Edmund Burke
172.Jump up ^ Ray, Matthew Alun (2003). Subjectivity and Irreligion: Atheism and Agnosticism in Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-3456-0. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
173.Jump up ^ Law, Stephen (2011). Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-19-955364-8. Law notes that he may have also been the first imprisoned on such a charge.
174.Jump up ^ Law, Stephen (2011). Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-19-955364-8.
175.Jump up ^ Overall, Christine (2006). "Feminism and Atheism". The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. ISBN 978-1-139-82739-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09. in Martin 2006, pp. 233–246
176.Jump up ^ Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340
177.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p. 494
178.Jump up ^ Rowan Callick; Party Time - Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112
179.Jump up ^ "White Paper—Freedom of Religious Belief in China". Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America. October 1997. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
180.Jump up ^ "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.
181.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543
182.Jump up ^ Madsen, Richard (2014). "Religion Under Communism". In Smith, S. A. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Oxford University Press. p. 588. ISBN 9780199602056.
183.Jump up ^ Blackford, R.; Schüklenk, U. (2013). "Myth 27 Many Atrocities Have Been Committed in the Name of Atheism". 50 great myths about atheism. John Wiley & Sons. p. 88. ISBN 9780470674048.
184.Jump up ^ Zdybicka 2005, p. 16
185.Jump up ^ Michael, S. M. (1999). "Dalit Visions of a Just Society". In S. M. Michael (ed.). Untouchable: Dalits in Modern India. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 31–33. ISBN 1-55587-697-8.
186.Jump up ^ "He who created god was a fool, he who spreads his name is a scoundrel, and he who worships him is a barbarian." Hiorth, Finngeir (1996). "Atheism in South India". International Humanist and Ethical Union, International Humanist News. Retrieved 2013-11-21
187.Jump up ^ Martin, Douglas (26 Aug 2006). "Vashti McCollum, 93, Plaintiff In a Landmark Religion Suit - Obituary (Obit); Biography". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-11-10.
188.Jump up ^ Jurinski, James (2004). Religion on Trial. Walnut Creek, California: AltraMira Press. p. 48. ISBN 0-7591-0601-0. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
189.Jump up ^ TIME Magazine cover online. Apr 8, 1966. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
190.Jump up ^ "Toward a Hidden God". Time Magazine online. Apr 8, 1966. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
191.Jump up ^ Erickson, Doug (25 February 2010). "The atheists' calling the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking its latest battle to the U.S. Supreme court. It's a milestone for the often-vilified but financially strong group, which has seen its membership grow to an all-time high". Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
192.Jump up ^ Erickson, Doug (25 February 2007). "The Atheists' Calling". Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
193.Jump up ^ "Timothy Samuel Shah Explains 'Why God is Winning'." 2006-07-18. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
194.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory; Zuckerman, Phil (2007). "Why the Gods Are Not Winning". Edge 209. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
195.Jump up ^ Landsberg 2010
196.Jump up ^ "Women in Secularism". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
197.Jump up ^ "Secular Woman:About". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
198.Jump up ^ "A Timeline of the Sexual Harassment Accusations". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
199.Jump up ^ "Blaghag: Atheism+". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
200.Jump up ^ "How I unwittingly infiltrated the boys club, why it's time for a new wave of atheism". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
201.Jump up ^ "About Atheism+". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
202.Jump up ^ "Alligator News". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
203.Jump up ^ "Atheists unveil monument in Florida and promise to build 50 more". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
204.Jump up ^ Hooper, Simon. "The rise of the New Atheists". CNN. Archived from the original on 2010-04-08. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
205.Jump up ^ Gribbin, Alice (22 December 2011). "Preview: The Four Horsemen of New Atheism reunited". New Statesman. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
206.^ Jump up to: a b Stenger 2009.
207.Jump up ^ Alan E Garfield. "Finding Shared Values in a Diverse Society: Lessons From the Intelligent Design Controversy" (PDF). Vermont Law Review (Vermont Law Review). 33 Book 2. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
208.Jump up ^ "Social values, Science and Technology" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-04-30. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
209.Jump up ^ "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents, Section on accuracy of non-Religious Demographic Data". Archived from the original on 2011-04-22. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
210.Jump up ^ Huxley, Andrew (2002). Religion, Law and Tradition: Comparative Studies in Religious Law. Routledge. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-7007-1689-0. OL 7763963M. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
211.^ Jump up to: a b "Religion: Year in Review 2010: Worldwide Adherents of All Religions". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
212.Jump up ^ Joas, Hans; Wiegandt, Klaus, eds. (2010). Secularization and the World Religions. Liverpool University Press. p. 122 (footnote 1). ISBN 978-1-84631-187-1. OL 25285702M. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
213.Jump up ^ "WIN-Gallup International "Religiosity and Atheism Index" reveals atheists are a small minority in the early years of 21st century". 6 August 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
214.Jump up ^ "GLOBAL INDEX OF RELIGION AND ATHEISM - Press Release" (PDF). Gallup - Red C.
215.Jump up ^ "Discrimination in the EU in 2012" (PDF), Special Eurobarometer, 383 (European Union: European Commission), 2012: 233, retrieved 14 August 2013 The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?", with a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and non-believer/agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.
216.Jump up ^ "Cultural Diversity In Australia". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
217.^ Jump up to: a b c Religiously Unaffiliated
218.Jump up ^ "BBC News – Viewpoints: Why is faith falling in the US?". BBC Online. 22 August 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
219.Jump up ^ America’s Changing Religious Landscape, Pew Research Center, 12 May 2015.
220.Jump up ^ Nigel Barber (2010). Why Atheism Will Replace Religion. Psychology Today. Retrieved 2013-05-22.
221.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J.; Zheng, Larry; Li, CC (1998). "Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject God". Nature 394 (6691): 313–4. doi:10.1038/28478. PMID 9690462. Available at StephenJayGould.org, Stephen Jay Gould archive. Retrieved 2006-12-17
222.Jump up ^ William H. Swatos; Daniel V. A. Olson, ed. (2000). The Secularization Debate (chapter by Rodney Stark). Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-0761-6. Retrieved 2011-08-19. "Recently, quite amazing time series data on the beliefs of scientists were published in Nature. Leuba's standard for belief in God is so stringent it would exclude a substantial portion of "mainline" clergy. It obviously was an intentional ploy on his part. He wanted to show that men of science were irreligious." Stark, Rodney; Finke, Roger. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. University of California Press. Retrieved 2011-08-19. "Recently, quite amazing time series data on the beliefs of scientists were published in Nature. Leuba's standard for belief in God is so stringent it would exclude a substantial portion of "mainline" clergy. It obviously was an intentional ploy on his part. He wanted to show that men of science were irreligious."
223.Jump up ^ "Survey on physicians' religious beliefs shows majority faithful". The University of Chicago. Retrieved 2011-04-08. "The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally compared to 81 percent of all adults."
224.Jump up ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, 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."
225.Jump up ^ Shermer 1999, pp. 76–79.
226.Jump up ^ Argyle, Michael (1958). Religious Behaviour. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp. 93–96. ISBN 0-415-17589-5.
227.Jump up ^ Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans' Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations". Review of Religious Research 53 (2): 161. doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4.
228.Jump up ^ Rathi, Akshat (August 11, 2013). "New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2014-05-29.
References
Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage. ISBN 0-09-927367-5.
Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280424-3.
Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press. ISBN 978-1-56975-677-5. OL 24313839M.
Bradlaugh, Charles; Besant, Annie; Bradlaugh, Alice; Moss, A. B.; Cattell, C. C.; Standring, G.; Aveling, E. (1884). The Atheistic Platform. London: Freethought Publishing.
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press. ISBN 0-593-05548-9.
Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 978-0-02-865780-6.
Flew, Antony (1976). The Presumption of Atheism, and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Flint, Robert (1903). Agnosticism: The Croall Lecture for 1887–88. William Blackwood and Sons. OL 7193167M.
Flynn, Tom, ed. (25 October 2007). "The new encyclopedia of unbelief". The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-391-3. OL 8851140M.
Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W. W. Norton & Company.
Harris, Sam (19 September 2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-27877-7. OL 25353925M.
Harris, Sam (April 2006). "The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos". Free Inquiry 26 (3). ISSN 0272-0701. Retrieved 2013-11-21. alternate URL
Hitchens, Christopher (2007). god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Random House. ISBN 978-0-7710-4143-3.
Hume, David (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. London. OL 7145748M.
Hume, David (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. London.
Landsberg, Mitchell (28 September 2010). "Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2011-05-11. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 978-0-87722-642-0. OL 8110936M. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Martin, Michael, ed. (2006). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84270-0. OL 22379448M. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
Nielsen, Kai (2013). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian, and other essays on religion and related subjects. Simon and Schuster.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (2001) [1946]. "Existentialism and Humanism". In Priest, Stephen. Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings. London: Routledge. p. 45. ISBN 0-415-21367-3.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (2004) [1946]. "An existentialist ethics". In Gensler, Harry J.; Spurgin, Earl W.; Swindal, James C. Ethics: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge. p. 127. ISBN 0-415-25680-1.
Shermer, Michael (1999). How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God. New York: William H Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-3561-X.
Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-124-X. LCCN 79002726. OL 4401616M.
Stenger, Victor J. (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-652-5.
Stenger, Victor J. (22 September 2009). The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. Prometheus. ISBN 1-59102-751-9. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
Zdybicka, Zofia J. (2005). "Atheism" (PDF). In Maryniarczyk, Andrzej. Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1. Polish Thomas Aquinas Association. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Further reading
Berman, David (1990). A History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-04727-7.
Bradlaugh, Charles, Annie Besant and others. (1884) The Atheistic Platform: 12 Lectures. London: Freethought Publishing. [1]
Buckley, M. J. (1990). At the Origins of Modern Atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-04897-1.
Flew, Antony (2005). God and Philosophy. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-330-0.
Tom Flynn, ed. (2007). The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-391-2.
Gaskin, J.C.A., ed. (1989). Varieties of Unbelief: From Epicurus to Sartre. •New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-340681-X.
Germani, Alan (15 September 2008). "The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists". The Objective Standard (Glen Allen Press) 3 (3). Archived from the original on 2011-04-28. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Harbour, Daniel (2003). An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3229-9.
Harris, Sam (2 October 2007). "The Problem with Atheism". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2011-05-24. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Howson, Colin (2011). Objecting to God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-18665-0
Jacoby, Susan (2004). Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. Metropolitan Books. ISBN 978-0-8050-7442-0.
Krueger, D. E. (1998). What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1-57392-214-5.
Ledrew, S. (2012). "The evolution of atheism: Scientific and humanistic approaches". History of the Human Sciences 25 (3): 70. doi:10.1177/0952695112441301.
Le Poidevin, R. (1996). Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09338-4.
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.
Maritain, Jacques (1952). The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-943-0. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier, ed. (2003). The Impossibility of God. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-120-0.
Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier, ed. (2006). The Improbability of God. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-381-5.
McTaggart, John; McTaggart, Ellis (1930) [1906]. Some Dogmas of Religion (New ed.). London: Edward Arnold & Co. ISBN 0-548-14955-0.
Nielsen, Kai (1985). Philosophy and Atheism. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0-87975-289-0.
Nielsen, Kai (2001). Naturalism and Religion. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1-57392-853-4.
Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto. New York: Arcade Publishing. ISBN 978-1-55970-820-3. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Oppy, Graham (2006). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-86386-4. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Rafford, R. L. (1987). "Atheophobia—an introduction". Religious Humanism 21 (1): 32–37.
Robinson, Richard (1964). An Atheist's Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-824191-7. Archived from the original on 2011-04-25. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Rosenberg, Alex (2011). The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 978-0-393-08023-0
Russell, Paul (11 February 2013). "Hume on Religion". In Edward N. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab. Retrieved 2013-11-24.
Sharpe, R.A. (1997). The Moral Case Against Religious Belief. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0-334-02680-6.
Thrower, James (1971). A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton. ISBN 0-301-71101-1.
Walters, Kerry (2010). Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-2493-8
Zuckerman, Phil (2010). Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. NYU Press. ISBN 0-8147-9723-7.
Zuckerman, Phil, ed. (2010). Atheism and secularity. Santa Barbara, Calif. [u.a.]: Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35183-9.
External links

Find more about
Atheism
 at Wikipedia's sister projects

Search Wiktionary Definitions from Wiktionary
Search Commons Media from Commons
Search Wikinews News stories from Wikinews
Search Wikiquote Quotations from Wikiquote
Search Wikisource Source texts from Wikisource
Search Wikibooks Textbooks from Wikibooks
Search Wikiversity Learning resources from Wikiversity
Atheism at PhilPapers
Atheism at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
Atheism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The New Atheists in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism at DMOZ – Includes links to organizations and websites.
Positive atheism: Great Historical Writings Historical writing sorted by authors.
Religion & Ethics—Atheism at bbc.co.uk.
Secular Web library – Library of both historical and modern writings, a comprehensive online resource for freely available material on atheism.
The Demand for Religion – A study on the demographics of Atheism by Wolfgang Jagodzinski (University of Cologne) and Andrew Greeley (University of Chicago and University of Arizona).


[show] 
Links to related articles











































































































































































Portal icon 






















































































































































































































































































Portal
Category













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































  


Categories: Atheism
Criticism of religion
Philosophical movements
Philosophy of religion
Secularism
Skepticism












Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

View source

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
Alemannisch
Ænglisc
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Bahasa Banjar
Башҡортса
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎
Български
Boarisch
བོད་ཡིག
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Буряад
Català
Čeština
Corsu
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Fiji Hindi
Føroyskt
Français
Frysk
Furlan
Gaeilge
Gaelg
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Hawai`i
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Ido
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Interlingue
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Basa Jawa
ქართული
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Kreyòl ayisyen
Kurdî
Лезги
ລາວ
Latina
Latviešu
Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Lojban
Lumbaart
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
Malti
मराठी
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
Mirandés
Монгол
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nāhuatl
Nederlands
नेपाली
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Нохчийн
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پنجابی
Papiamentu
پښتو
Picard
Piemontèis
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русиньскый
Русский
Саха тыла
Scots
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Ślůnski
کوردیی ناوەندی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
తెలుగు
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche
Tiếng Việt
Võro
Winaray
ייִדיש
粵語
Zazaki
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 01:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism












This is a featured article. Click here for more information.

Page semi-protected

Atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Atheist" redirects here. For other uses, see Atheist (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Atheism
Atheismsymbol endorsed by AAI.svg


Concepts ·
 History
 [show]








Types[show]









Arguments for atheism[show]



















People[show]








Related stances[show]

































Portal icon Atheism portal ·
 WikiProject
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]
The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.[12] With the spread of freethought, skeptical 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 during the Age of Enlightenment.[13] The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to establish the foundations of society on human reason, not divine authority.[14]
Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in any supernatural deity include the lack of empirical evidence;[15][16] the problem of evil; the argument from inconsistent revelations; the rejection of concepts which cannot be falsified; and the argument from nonbelief.[15][17] Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[18][19] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[20] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that 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.[21]
Since conceptions of atheism vary, accurate estimations of current numbers of atheists are difficult.[22] Several comprehensive global polls on the subject have been conducted by Gallup International: their 2015 poll featured over 64,000 respondents and indicated that 11% were "convinced atheists" whereas an earlier 2012 poll found that 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists."[23][24] An older survey by the BBC, in 2004, recorded atheists as comprising 8% of the world's population.[25] Other older estimates have indicated that atheists comprise 2% of the world's population, while the irreligious add a further 12%.[26] According to other studies, rates of atheism are among the highest in Western nations, again to varying degrees: the United States, for example, returned 4%,[27] while Canada returned 28%.[28] The figures for a 2010 Eurobarometer survey in the European Union (EU), reported that 20% of the EU population claimed not to believe in "any sort of spirit, God or life force".[29]


Contents  [hide]
1 Definitions and distinctions 1.1 Range
1.2 Implicit vs. explicit
1.3 Positive vs. negative
1.4 Definition as impossible or impermanent
2 Concepts 2.1 Practical atheism
2.2 Theoretical atheism 2.2.1 Ontological arguments
2.2.2 Epistemological arguments
2.2.3 Metaphysical arguments
2.2.4 Logical arguments
2.3 Reductionary accounts of religion
2.4 Atheism within religions
3 Atheist philosophies
4 Atheism, religion, and morality 4.1 Association with world views and social behaviors
4.2 Atheism and irreligion
4.3 Divine command vs. ethics
4.4 Criticism of religion
5 Etymology
6 History 6.1 Early Indic religion
6.2 Classical antiquity
6.3 Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance
6.4 Early modern period
6.5 Since 1900
6.6 Other developments
7 New Atheism
8 Demographics
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links

Definitions and distinctions



 A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism.
 Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
 Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue 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 on how best to define and classify atheism,[30] 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. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] and has also been contrasted with it.[38][39][40] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.
Range
Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises 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.[41]
With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism.[42]
Implicit vs. explicit
Main article: Implicit and explicit atheism
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."[43] 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."[44] 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".[45]
Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[46] and Michael Martin[41] 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 terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[46] and in Catholic apologetics.[47] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[34] many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[48][49] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[48] 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.[50][51] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[52] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[53] 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 generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[54] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic, and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[55]
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.[56]
There is also a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes".[57] There have however been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes".[58]
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.[59]
Concepts



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[60]
The broadest demarcation of atheistic rationale is between practical and theoretical atheism.
Practical atheism
Main article: Apatheism
In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without reference to any deities. 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.[61] 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."[62]
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.[63]
Theoretical atheism
Ontological arguments
Further information: Agnostic atheism and Theological noncognitivism
Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. Theoretical atheism is mainly an ontology, precisely a physical ontology.
Epistemological arguments
Further information: Agnostic atheism and Theological noncognitivism
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 of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness 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 rationalistic agnosticism 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. Hume, however, held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts should be rejected as "sophistry and illusion".[64] The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.[61]
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.[65][66]
Metaphysical arguments
Further information: Monism and Physicalism
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)."[67]



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:[68] "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?"
Logical arguments
Further information: Arguments against the existence of God, Problem of evil, Divine hiddenness
Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal 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, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice, and mercy.[15]
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 omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people.[17] A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.[69]
Reductionary accounts of religion
Further information: Evolutionary origin of religions, Evolutionary psychology of religion and Psychology of religion
Philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach[70] and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud have 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.[71] 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."[72]
Atheism within religions
Further information: Nontheistic religions
Atheism is acceptable within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, Raelism,[73] and Neopagan movements[74] such as Wicca.[75] Āstika schools in Hinduism hold atheism to be a valid path to moksha, but extremely difficult, for the atheist can not expect any help from the divine on their journey.[76] Jainism believes the universe is eternal and has no need for a creator deity, however Tirthankaras are revered that can transcend space and time [77] and have more power than the god Indra.[78] Secular Buddhism does not advocate belief in gods. Early Buddhism was atheistic as Gautama Buddha's path involved no mention of gods. Later conceptions of Buddhism consider Buddha himself a god, suggest adherents can attain godhood, and revere Bodhisattvas[79] and Eternal Buddha.
Atheist philosophies
Further information: Atheist existentialism and Secular humanism
Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. 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.[61] One of the most common criticisms 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,[80] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[81] Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.[82]
French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre identified himself as a representative of an "atheist existentialism"[83] 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."[84] 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."[83] 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".[85]
Atheism, religion, and morality
See also: Atheism and religion, Criticism of atheism, Secular ethics and Secular morality
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. He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies.[86][87] His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average.[88][89]
Atheism and irreligion



Buddhism is sometimes described as nontheistic because of the absence of a creator god, but that can be too simplistic a view.[90]
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.[91] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[92][93] and Christian atheists.[94][95][96]
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.[97]
Philosophers such as Slavoj Žižek,[98] Alain de Botton,[99] and Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist,[100] 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.
Divine command vs. ethics
According to Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, 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.[101][102][103] Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do.[104] Friedrich Nietzsche believed in a morality independent of theistic belief, and stated that morality based upon God "has truth only if God is truth—it stands or falls with faith in God."[105][106][107]
There exist normative ethical systems that do not require principles and rules to be given by a deity. Some include virtue ethics, social contract, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and Objectivism. Sam 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.[108]
Philosophers Susan Neiman[109] and Julian Baggini[110] (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.[111] 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.[112] 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.[113]
Criticism of religion
See also: Criticism of religion
Some prominent atheists—most recently Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and following such thinkers as Bertrand Russell, Robert G. Ingersoll, Voltaire, and novelist José Saramago—have criticized religions, citing harmful aspects of religious practices and doctrines.[114]



Karl Marx
The 19th-century German political theorist and sociologist Karl Marx called religion "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". He goes on to say, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[115] Lenin said that "every religious idea and every idea of God "is unutterable vileness ... of the most dangerous kind, 'contagion' of the most abominable kind. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical contagions ... are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God decked out in the smartest ideological constumes ..."[116]
Sam Harris criticises Western religion's reliance on divine authority as lending itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism.[117] There is a correlation between religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religion (when religion is held because it serves ulterior interests)[118] and authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice.[119] These arguments—combined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, and terrorist attacks—have been used in response to claims of beneficial effects of belief in religion.[120] Believers counter-argue that some regimes that espouse atheism, such as in Soviet Russia, have also been guilty of mass murder.[121][122] In response to those claims, atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have stated that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by dogmatic Marxism, and that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[123][124]
Etymology



 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".[125]
In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (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 render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. 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.[12]
The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[126] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[127] and again in 1571.[128] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[129] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[130] and appears in English about 1587.[131] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[132][133] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[134] theist in 1662,[135] deism in 1675,[136] and theism in 1678.[137] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism 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 calling himself an atheist."[13]
Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[138] 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".[41]
History
Main article: History of atheism
While the earliest-found usage of the term atheism is in 16th-century France,[130][131] ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented from the Vedic period and the classical antiquity.
Early Indic religion
Main article: Atheism in Hinduism
Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[139] 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.[140] 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 of Vedas 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.[141] 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."[142]
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.[143]
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.[144] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[145] and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum.[146] Atomists such as Democritus attempted to explain the world in a purely materialistic way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order[147] and Prodicus also appears to have made clear atheistic statements in his work. Philodemus reports that Prodicus believed that "the gods of popular belief do not exist nor do they know, but primitive man, [out of admiration, deified] the fruits of the earth and virtually everything that contributed to his existence". Protagoras has sometimes been taken to be an atheist but rather espoused agnostic views, commenting that "Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life."[148] In the 3rd-century BCE the Greek philosophers Theodorus Cyrenaicus[146][149] and Strato of Lampsacus[150] did not believe gods exist.
Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE) was associated in the Athenian public mind with the trends in pre-Socratic philosophy towards naturalistic inquiry and the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena. Although such an interpretation misrepresents his thought he was portrayed in such a way in Aristophanes' comic play Clouds and was later to be tried and executed for impiety and corrupting the young. At his trial Socrates is reported as vehemently denying that he was an atheist and contemporary scholarship provides little reason to doubt this claim.[151][152]
Euhemerus (c. 300 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.[153] Although not strictly an atheist, Euhemerus was later criticized for having "spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods".[154]
Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy according to which the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention (see scientific determinism). Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind and one important way of doing this was by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife and the need to fear divine punishment after death.[155]
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.[156]
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.[157] 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.[158]
Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance
During the Early Middle Ages, the Islamic world underwent a Golden Age. With the associated advances in science and philosophy, Arab and Persian lands produced outspoken rationalists and atheists, including Muhammad al Warraq (fl. 7th century), Ibn al-Rawandi (827–911), Al-Razi (854–925), and Al-Maʿarri (973–1058). Al-Ma'arri wrote and taught that religion itself was a "fable invented by the ancients"[159] and that humans were "of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains."[160] Despite being relatively prolific writers, nearly none of their writing survives to the modern day, most of what little remains being preserved through quotations and excerpts in later works by Muslim apologists attempting to refute them.[161] Other prominent Golden Age scholars have been associated with rationalist thought and atheism as well, although the current intellectual atmosphere in the Islamic world, and the scant evidence that survives from the era, make this point a contentious one today.
In Europe, the espousal of atheistic views was rare during the Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages (see Medieval Inquisition); metaphysics and theology were the dominant interests pertaining to religion.[162] There were, however, movements within this period that furthered heterodox conceptions of the Christian god, including differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God. Individuals and groups such as Johannes Scotus Eriugena, David of Dinant, Amalric 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 thus our knowledge of him is limited to conjecture. William of Ockham inspired anti-metaphysical tendencies with his nominalistic limitation 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 Mirecourt and Nicholas of Autrecourt furthered this view. The resulting division between faith and reason influenced later radical and reformist theologians such as John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther.[162]
The Renaissance did much to expand the scope of free thought and skeptical inquiry. Individuals such as Leonardo 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, Michel de Montaigne, and François Rabelais.[156]
Early modern period
Historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that the Reformation had paved the way for atheists by attacking the authority of the Catholic Church, which in turn "quietly inspired other thinkers to attack the authority of the new Protestant churches".[163] Deism gained influence in France, Prussia, and England. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza was "probably the first well known 'semi-atheist' to announce himself in a Christian land in the modern era", according to Blainey. Spinoza believed that natural laws explained the workings of the universe. In 1661 he published his Short Treatise on God.[164]
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 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".[165]
The first known explicit atheist was the German critic of religion Matthias Knutzen in his three writings of 1674.[166] He was followed by two other explicit atheist writers, the Polish ex-Jesuit philosopher Kazimierz Łyszczyński and in the 1720s by the French priest Jean Meslier.[167] In the course of the 18th century, other openly atheistic thinkers followed, such as Baron d'Holbach, Jacques-André Naigeon, and other French materialists.[168] John Locke in contrast, though an advocate of tolerance, urged authorities not to tolerate atheism, believing that the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos.[169]
The philosopher David Hume developed a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, and Immanuel Kant's philosophy has strongly questioned the very possibility of a metaphysical knowledge. Both philosophers undermined the metaphysical basis of natural theology and criticized classical arguments for the existence of God.



Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1841) would greatly influence philosophers such as Engels, Marx, David Strauss, Nietzsche, and Max 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 modern anthropology of religion.
Blainey notes that, although Voltaire is widely considered to have strongly contributed to atheistic thinking during the Revolution, he also considered fear of God to have discouraged further disorder, having said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[170] In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), the philosopher Edmund Burke denounced atheism, writing of a "literary cabal" who had "some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion. This object they pursued with a degree of zeal which hitherto had been discovered only in the propagators of some system of piety ... These atheistical fathers have a bigotry of their own ...". But, Burke asserted, "man is by his constitution a religious animal" and "atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and ... it cannot prevail long".[171]
Baron d'Holbach was a prominent figure in the French Enlightenment who is best known for his atheism and for his voluminous writings against religion, the most famous of them being The System of Nature (1770) but also Christianity Unveiled. One 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, lasting until the Thermidorian Reaction. The radical Jacobins seized 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. The Napoleonic era further institutionalized the secularization of French society, and exported the revolution to northern Italy, in the hopes of creating pliable republics.[citation needed]
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 Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Max Stirner, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.[172]
G.J. Holyoake was the last person (1842) imprisoned in Great Britain due to atheist beliefs.[173] Stephen Law states that Holyoake "first coined the term 'secularism'".[174]
Since 1900
Further information: Marxism and religion



Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. Marxist‒Leninist atheism was influential in the 20th century.
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, objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, anarchism, logical positivism, Marxism, feminism,[175] and the general scientific and rationalist movement.
In addition, state atheism emerged in Eastern Europe and Asia during that period, particularly in the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and in Communist China under Mao Zedong. Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheists.[176][177] After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China.[178][179][180]



 1929 cover of the USSR League of Militant Atheists magazine, showing the gods of the Abrahamic religions being crushed by the Communist 5-year plan
While Geoffrey Blainey has written that "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity",[181] Richard Madsen has pointed out that Hitler and Stalin each opened and closed churches as a matter of political expedience, and Stalin softened his opposition to Christianity in order to improve public acceptance of his regime during the war.[182] Blackford and Schüklenk have written that "the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism."[183]
Logical positivism and scientism paved the way for neopositivism, analytical philosophy, structuralism, and naturalism. 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 of Lévi-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.[54][184]
Other developments



 The British philosopher Bertrand Russell
Other leaders like E. V. Ramasami Naicker (Periyar), a prominent atheist leader of India, fought against Hinduism and Brahmins for discriminating and dividing people in the name of caste and religion.[185] 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.[186]
Atheist Vashti McCollum was the plaintiff in a landmark 1948 Supreme Court case that struck down religious education in US public schools.[187] Madalyn Murray O'Hair was perhaps one of the most influential American atheists; she brought forth the 1963 Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett which banned compulsory prayer in public schools.[188] In 1966, Time magazine asked "Is God Dead?"[189] 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 Christian view of theology.[190] The Freedom From Religion Foundation was co-founded by Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976 in the United States, and incorporated nationally in 1978. It promotes the separation of church and state.[191][192]
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."[193] However, Gregory S. Paul and Phil Zuckerman consider this a myth and suggest that the actual situation is much more complex and nuanced.[194]
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.[195]
In 2012, the first "Women in Secularism" conference was held in Arlington, Virginia.[196] Secular Woman was organized in 2012 as a national organization focused on nonreligious women.[197] The atheist feminist movement has also become increasingly focused on fighting sexism and sexual harassment within the atheist movement itself.[198] In August 2012, Jennifer McCreight (the organizer of Boobquake) founded a movement within atheism known as Atheism Plus, or A+, that "applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime".[199][200][201]
In 2013 the first atheist monument on American government property was unveiled at the Bradford County Courthouse in Florida: a 1,500-pound granite bench and plinth inscribed with quotes by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair.[202][203]
New Atheism



 The "Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse" (clockwise from top left): Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.
Main article: 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."[204] The movement is commonly associated with Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens.[205][206] Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism.[206]
These atheists generally seek to disassociate themselves from the mass political atheism that gained ascendency in various nations in the 20th century. In best selling books, 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, have been cited by authors such as Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Stenger, and Hitchens as evidence of a need to move society towards atheism.[207]
Demographics
Main article: Demographics of atheism
Further information: Religiosity and education



 Percentage of people in various European countries who said: "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force." (2005)[208]
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.[209] A Hindu atheist would declare oneself as a Hindu, although also being an atheist at the same time.[210] A 2010 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 9.6% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.0%, with a very large majority based in Asia. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[211] The average annual change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was −0.17%.[211] A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.[212]
The 2012 Gallup Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism, measured the percentage of people who viewed themselves as "a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?" 13% reported to be "convinced atheists".[213] The top ten countries with people who viewed themselves as "convinced atheists" were China (47%), Japan (31%), the Czech Republic (30%), France (29%), South Korea (15%), Germany (15%), Netherlands (14%), Austria (10%), Iceland (10%), Australia (10%), and the Republic of Ireland (10%). The top ten countries with people who described themselves as "a religious person" were Ghana (96%), Nigeria (93%), Armenia (92%), Fiji (92%), Macedonia (90%), Romania (89%), Iraq (88%), Kenya (88%), Peru (86%), and Brazil (85%).[214]
Europe. According to the 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, the percentage of those polled who agreed with the statement "you don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" varied from: France (40%), Czech Republic (37%), Sweden (34%), Netherlands (30%), and Estonia (29%), down to Poland (5%), Greece (4%), Cyprus (3%), Malta (2%), and Romania (1%), with the European Union as a whole at 20%.[29] In a 2012 Eurobarometer poll on discrimination in the European Union, 16% of those polled considered themselves non believers/agnostics and 7% considered themselves atheists.[215] According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 22% of Australians have "no religion", a category that includes atheists.[216]
According to a Pew Research Center survey in 2012 religiously unaffiliated (including agnostics and atheists) make up about 18.2% of Europeans.[217] According to the same survey, the religiously unaffiliated are the majority of the population only in two European countries: Czech Republic (75%) and Estonia (60%).[217] There are another four countries where the unaffiliated make up a majority of the population: North Korea (71%), Japan (57%), Hong Kong (56%), and China (52%).[217]
In the United States, there was a 1% to 5% increase in self-reported atheism from 2005 to 2012, and a larger drop in those who self-identified as "religious", down by 13%, from 73% to 60%.[218] According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, 3.1% of the US adult population identify as atheist, up from 1.6% in 2007, and within the religiously unaffiliated (or "no religion") demographic, atheists made up 13.6%.[219]



 Proportion of atheists and agnostics around the world.
Socio-economics. A study noted positive correlations between levels of education and secularity, including atheism, in America.[88]
According to evolutionary psychologist Nigel Barber, atheism blossoms in places where most people feel economically secure, particularly in the social democracies of Europe, as there is less uncertainty about the future with extensive social safety nets and better health care resulting in a greater quality of life and higher life expectancy. By contrast, in underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists.[220]
Atheism and education. A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife 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,[221] 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".[222]
An article published by The University of Chicago Chronicle that discussed the above study, stated that 76% of physicians in the United States believe in God, more than the 7% of scientists above, but still less than the 85% of the general population.[223] 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."[224]
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.[225]
In 1958, Professor Michael Argyle of the University of Oxford 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.[226] Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education are associated with increased religious participation and religious practice in daily life, but also correlate with greater tolerance for atheists' public opposition to religion and greater skepticism of "exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism".[227] Other studies have also examined the relationship between religiosity and intelligence; in a meta-analysis, 53 of 63 studies found that analytical intelligence correlated negatively with religiosity, with 35 of the 53 reaching statistical significance, while 10 studies found a positive correlation, 2 of which reached significance.[228]
See also
A Brief History of Disbelief
Adevism
Antitheism
Apostasy
Atheist existentialism
Atheist feminism
Brights movement
Christian atheism
Criticism of atheism
Discrimination against atheists
Dysteleology
Empiricism
Irreligion by country
Jewish atheism
List of atheists
List of secularist organizations
Out Campaign
Secular religion
Tabula rasa
Wealth and religion
Wikiversity course Beyond Theism
Book icon Book: Atheism



Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 Socrates.pngPhilosophy portal
 P religion world.svgReligion portal
 

Notes
1.Jump up ^ Nielsen 2013: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."
2.Jump up ^ Edwards 2005: "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."
3.Jump up ^ Rowe 1998: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ... an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."
4.^ Jump up to: a b Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
5.^ Jump up to: a b Simon Blackburn, ed. (2008). "atheism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."
6.Jump up ^ Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism") first list one of the more narrow definitions. Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. Archived from the original on 2011-05-13. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought" – entry by Vergilius Ferm
7.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
8.Jump up ^ "Definitions: Atheism". Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama. Retrieved 2012-12-01.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). 1989. "Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism"
10.Jump up ^ "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2011-05-14. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "...belief in the existence of a god or gods..."
11.Jump up ^ Smart, J. J. C., "Atheism and Agnosticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
12.^ Jump up to: a b Drachmann, A. B. (1977) [1922]. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-201-8. "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 átheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, átheos 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."
13.^ Jump up to: a b Armstrong 1999.
14.Jump up ^ Hancock, Ralph (1996). The Legacy of the French Revolution. Lanham, United States: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. p. 22. ISBN 978-0847678426. Retrieved 2015-05-30.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Various authors. "Logical Arguments for Atheism". The Secular Web Library. Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2012-10-02.
16.Jump up ^ Shook, John R. "Skepticism about the Supernatural" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-10-02.
17.^ Jump up to: a b Drange, Theodore M. (1996). "The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief". Secular Web Library. Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2012-10-02.
18.Jump up ^ Honderich, Ted (Ed.) (1995). "Humanism". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p 376. ISBN 0-19-866132-0.
19.Jump up ^ Fales, Evan. Naturalism and Physicalism, in Martin 2006, pp. 122–131.
20.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, pp. 3–4.
21.Jump up ^ Stenger 2007, pp. 17–18, citing Parsons, Keith M. (1989). God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytical Defense of Theism. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-551-5.
22.Jump up ^ Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-521-60367-6. OL 22379448M. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
23.Jump up ^ "Religiosity and Atheism Index" (PDF). Zurich: WIN/GIA. 27 July 2012. Retrieved 2013-10-01.
24.Jump up ^ "New Survey Shows the World's Most and Least Religious Places". NPR. 13 April 2015. Retrieved 2015-04-29.
25.Jump up ^ "UK among most secular nations". BBC News. 2004-02-26. Retrieved 2015-01-14.
26.Jump up ^ "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2007". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Retrieved 2013-11-21. 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).
11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.
27.Jump up ^ "Religious Views and Beliefs Vary Greatly by Country, According to the Latest Financial Times/Harris Poll". Financial Times/Harris Interactive. 20 December 2006. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
28.Jump up ^ http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
29.^ Jump up to: a b Social values, Science and Technology (PDF). Directorate General Research, European Union. 2010. p. 207. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-04-30. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
30.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1911. Archived from the original on 2011-05-12. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous. Its meaning varies (a) according to the various definitions of deity, and especially (b) according as it is (i.) deliberately adopted by a thinker as a description of his own theological standpoint, or (ii.) applied by one set of thinkers to their opponents. As to (a), it is obvious that atheism from the standpoint of the Christian is a very different conception as compared with atheism as understood by a Deist, a Positivist, a follower of Euhemerus or Herbert Spencer, or a Buddhist."
31.Jump up ^ Martin 1990, pp. 467–468: "In the popular sense an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists, while an atheist disbelieves that God exists. However, this common contrast of agnosticism with atheism will hold only if one assumes that atheism means positive atheism. In the popular sense, agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism. Since negative atheism by definition simply means not holding any concept of God, it is compatible with neither believing nor disbelieving in God."
32.Jump up ^ Flint 1903, pp. 49–51: "The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one."
33.Jump up ^ Holland, Aaron. Agnosticism, in Flynn 2007, p. 34: "It is important to note that this interpretation of agnosticism is compatible with theism or atheism, since it is only asserted that knowledge of God's existence is unattainable."
34.^ Jump up to: a b Martin 2006, p. 2: "But agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism in that agnosticism entails negative atheism. Since agnostics do not believe in God, they are by definition negative atheists. This is not to say that negative atheism entails agnosticism. A negative atheist might disbelieve in God but need not."
35.Jump up ^ Barker 2008, p. 96: "People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, "I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic."
36.Jump up ^ Besant, Annie. Why Should Atheists Be Persecuted?. in Bradlaugh et al. 1884, pp. 185–186: "The Atheist waits for proof of God. Till that proof comes he remains, as his name implies, without God. His mind is open to every new truth, after it has passed the warder Reason at the gate."
37.Jump up ^ Holyoake, George Jacob (1842). "Mr. Mackintosh's New God". The Oracle of Reason, Or, Philosophy Vindicated 1 (23): 186. "On the contrary, I, as an Atheist, simply profess that I do not see sufficient reason to believe that there is a god. I do not pretend to know that there is no god. The whole question of god's existence, belief or disbelief, a question of probability or of improbability, not knowledge."
38.Jump up ^ Nielsen 2013: "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
39.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica Concise. Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2011-12-15. "Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems."
40.Jump up ^ "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1911. Archived from the original on 2011-05-12. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "But dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism."
41.^ Jump up to: a b c Martin 2006.
42.Jump up ^ "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". Encyclopædia Britannica 1 (15th ed.). 2011. p. 666. 0852294735. Archived from the original on 2011-05-12. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
43.Jump up ^ d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). Good Sense. Retrieved 2011-04-07.
44.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, p. 14.
45.Jump up ^ Nagel, Ernest (1959). "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism". Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind. Sheridan House. "I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of 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. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."
 reprinted in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.
46.^ Jump up to: a b Flew 1976, pp. 14ff: "In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."
47.Jump up ^ Maritain, Jacques (July 1949). "On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism". The Review of Politics 11 (3): 267–280. doi:10.1017/S0034670500044168.
48.^ Jump up to: a b Kenny, Anthony (2006). "Why I Am Not an Atheist". What I believe. Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-8971-0. "The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed."
49.Jump up ^ "Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism". Huffington Post. 28 May 2013. Retrieved 2013-11-26.
50.Jump up ^ O'Brien, Breda (7 July 2009). "Many atheists I know would be certain of a high place in heaven". Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2011-05-20. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
51.Jump up ^ Matthew Warner (8 June 2012). "More faith to be an atheist than a Christian". Retrieved 2013-11-26.
52.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, pp. 30–34. "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."
53.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 22. "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."
54.^ Jump up to: a b Smart, J.C.C. (9 March 2004). "Atheism and Agnosticism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
55.Jump up ^ Dawkins 2006, p. 50.
56.Jump up ^ 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.
57.Jump up ^ See, for example: Pressley, Sue Anne (September 8, 1996). "Atheist Group Moves Ahead Without O'Hair". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-10-22.
58.Jump up ^ Lowder, Jeffery Jay (1997). "Atheism and Society". Archived from the original on 2011-05-22. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
59.Jump up ^ Harris 2006, p. 51.
60.Jump up ^ Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach, System of Nature; or, the Laws of the Moral and Physical World (London, 1797), Vol. 1, p. 25
61.^ Jump up to: a b c Zdybicka 2005, p. 20.
62.Jump up ^ Schafersman, Steven D. (February 1997). "Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry". Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise. Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas. Retrieved 2011-04-07. Revised May 2007
63.Jump up ^ Zdybicka 2005, p. 21.
64.Jump up ^ Hume 1748, Part III: "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
65.Jump up ^ Drange, Theodore M. (1998). "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism". Internet Infidels, Secular Web Library. Retrieved 2007-APR-07.
66.Jump up ^ Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, Truth and Logic. Dover. pp. 115–116. In a footnote, Ayer attributes this view to "Professor H. H. Price".
67.Jump up ^ Zdybicka 2005, p. 19.
68.Jump up ^ Hume 1779.
69.Jump up ^ V.A. Gunasekara, "The Buddhist Attitude to God". Archived from the original on 2008-01-02. In the Bhuridatta Jataka, "The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha."
70.Jump up ^ Feuerbach, Ludwig (1841) The Essence of Christianity
71.Jump up ^ Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. Grove Press, 1974. Pages 51–52.
72.Jump up ^ Bakunin, Michael (1916). "God and the State". New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association. Archived from the original on 2011-05-21. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
73.Jump up ^ The Raelian Foundation (2005). Intelligent Design. p. 312.
74.Jump up ^ Johnson, Philip et al. (2005). Claydon, David et al., eds. Religious and Non-Religious Spirituality in the Western World ("New Age"). A New Vision, A New Heart, A Renewed Call 2 (William Carey Library). p. 194. ISBN 978-0-87808-364-0. "Although Neo-Pagans share common commitments to nature and spirit there is a diversity of beliefs and practices ... Some are atheists, others are polytheists (several gods exist), some are pantheists (all is God) and others are panentheists (all is in God)."
75.Jump up ^ Matthews, Carol S. (2009). New Religions. Chelsea House Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7910-8096-2. "There is no universal worldview that all Neo-Pagans/Wiccans hold. One online information source indicates that depending on how the term God is defined, Neo-Pagans might be classified as monotheists, duotheists (two gods), polytheists, pantheists, or atheists."
76.Jump up ^ Chakravarti, Sitansu (1991). Hinduism, a way of life. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 65. ISBN 978-81-208-0899-7. Retrieved 2014-07-15. "For the thoroughgoing atheist, the path is extremely difficult, if not lonely, for he can not develop any relationship of love with God, nor can he expect any divine help on the long and arduous journey."
77.Jump up ^ Pattanaik, Devdutt (2009-08-18). "63 worthy beings". Mid-day. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
78.Jump up ^ Muni Nagraj. Āgama and Tripiṭaka: A Comparative Study : a Critical Study of the Jaina and the Buddhist Canonical Literature, Volume 1. Today & Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers. p. 203. ISBN 978-81-7022-730-4.
79.Jump up ^ Kedar, Nath Tiwari (1997). Comparative Religion. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 50. ISBN 81-208-0293-4.
80.Jump up ^ Gleeson, David (10 August 2006). "Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Atheism". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
81.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, p. 275. "Perhaps the most common criticism of atheism is the claim that it leads inevitably to moral bankruptcy."
82.Jump up ^ Pascal, Blaise (1669). Pensées, II: "The Misery of Man Without God".
83.^ Jump up to: a b Sartre 2004, p. 127.
84.Jump up ^ Sartre 2001, p. 45.
85.Jump up ^ Sartre 2001, p. 32.
86.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart (2004). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
87.Jump up ^ Bruce, Steve (2003). Religion and Politics location=Cambridge, UK.
88.^ Jump up to: a b Zuckerman, Phil (2009). "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" (PDF). Sociology Compass 3 (6): 949–971. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x.
89.Jump up ^ "Societies without God are more benevolent". The Guardian. 2 September 2010. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
90.Jump up ^ Wallace, B. Alan Ph.D. (November 1999). "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" (PDF). National Conference of the American Academy of Religion lectures. Boston, MA. p. 8. Retrieved 2014-07-22."Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavaºga to the tath›gatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
91.Jump up ^ Winston, Robert (Ed.) (2004). Human. New York: DK Publishing, Inc. p. 299. ISBN 0-7566-1901-7. "Nonbelief has existed for centuries. For example, Buddhism and Jainism have been called atheistic religions because they do not advocate belief in gods."
92.Jump up ^ "Humanistic Judaism". BBC. 20 July 2006. Archived from the original on 2011-04-16. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
93.Jump up ^ Levin, S. (May 1995). "Jewish Atheism". New Humanist 110 (2): 13–15.
94.Jump up ^ "Christian Atheism". BBC. 17 May 2006. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
95.Jump up ^ Altizer, Thomas J. J. (1967). The Gospel of Christian Atheism. London: Collins. pp. 102–103. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
96.Jump up ^ Lyas, Colin (January 1970). "On the Coherence of Christian Atheism". Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 45 (171): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100009578.
97.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, pp. 21–22
98.Jump up ^ Slavoj Žižek: Less Than Nothing (2012)
99.Jump up ^ Alain de Botton: Religion for Atheists (2012)
100.Jump up ^ Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist: The Global Empire (2012)
101.Jump up ^ Smith 1979, p. 275. "Among the many myths associated with religion, none is more widespread - [sic]or more disastrous in its effects—than the myth that moral values cannot be divorced from the belief in a god."
102.Jump up ^ In Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Book Eleven: Brother Ivan Fyodorovich, Chapter 4) there is the famous argument that If there is no God, all things are permitted.: "'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?'"
103.Jump up ^ For Kant, the presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams ..." (Critique of Pure Reason, A811).
104.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 38
105.Jump up ^ Human Rights, Virtue, and the Common Good. Rowman & Littlefield. 1996. ISBN 978-0-8476-8279-9. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "That problem was brought home to us with dazzling clarity by Nietzsche, who had reflected more deeply than any of his contemporaries on the implications of godlessness and come to the conclusion that a fatal contradiction lay at the heart of modern theological enterprise: it thought that Christian morality, which it wished to preserve, was independent of Christian dogma, which it rejected. This, in Nietzsche's mind, was an absurdity. It amounted to nothing less than dismissing the architect while trying to keep the building or getting rid of the lawgiver while claiming the protection of the law."
106.Jump up ^ The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell. 11 May 2009. ISBN 978-1-4051-7657-6. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Morality "has truth only if God is truth–it stands or falls with faith in God" (Nietzche 1968, p. 70). The moral argument for the existence of God essentially takes Nietzche's assertion as one of its premises: if there is no God, then "there are altogether no moral facts"."
107.Jump up ^ Victorian Subjects. Duke University Press. 1991. ISBN 978-0-8223-1110-2. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Like other mid-nineteenth-century writers, George Eliot was not fully aware of the implications of her humanism, and, as Nietzsche saw, attempted the difficult task of upholding the Christian morality of altruism without faith in the Christian God."
108.Jump up ^ Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia Ethica. Archived from the original on 2011-05-14. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
109.Jump up ^ Susan Neiman (6 November 2006). Beyond Belief Session 6 (Conference). Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA: The Science Network.
110.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 40
111.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, p. 43
112.Jump up ^ 101 Ethical Dilemmas, 2nd edition, by Cohen, M., Routledge 2007, pp 184–5. (Cohen notes particularly that Plato and Aristotle produced arguments in favour of slavery.)
113.Jump up ^ Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, by Cohen, M, Second edition 2008
114.Jump up ^ Harris 2005, Harris 2006, Dawkins 2006, Hitchens 2007, Russell 1957
115.Jump up ^ Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Collected Works, v. 3. New York.
116.Jump up ^ Martin Amis; Koba the Dread; Vintage Books; London; 2003; ISBN 978-0-09-943802-1; p. 30–31
117.Jump up ^ Harris 2006a.
118.Jump up ^ Moreira-almeida, A.; Neto, F.; Koenig, H. G. (2006). "Religiousness and mental health: a review". Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 28 (3): 242–250. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000006. PMID 16924349.
119.Jump up ^ See for example: Kahoe, R.D. (June 1977). "Intrinsic Religion and Authoritarianism: A Differentiated Relationship". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16 (2): 179–182. doi:10.2307/1385749. JSTOR 1385749. Also see: Altemeyer, Bob; Hunsberger, Bruce (1992). "Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice". International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2 (2): 113–133. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5.
120.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). "An Atheist Manifesto". Truthdig. Archived from the original on 2011-05-16. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree."
121.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (4 November 2010). Ethics for a Brave New World. Stand To Reason. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'"
122.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist's Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
123.Jump up ^ Dawkins 2006, p. 291.
124.Jump up ^ 10 myths and 10 truths about Atheism Sam Harris
125.Jump up ^ The word αθεοι—in any of its forms—appears nowhere else in the Septuagint or the New Testament. Robertson, A.T. (1960) [1932]. "Ephesians: Chapter 2". Word Pictures in the New Testament. Broadman Press. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Old Greek word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the original sense of being without God and also in the sense of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See Paul's words in Ro 1:18–32."
126.Jump up ^ "atheist". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2009. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
127.Jump up ^ Martiall, John (1566). A Replie to Mr Calfhills Blasphemous Answer Made Against the Treatise of the Cross. English recusant literature, 1558–1640 203. Louvain. p. 51. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
128.Jump up ^ Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur (1571). The Psalmes of David and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries. pp. Ep. Ded. 3. "The Atheistes which say..there is no God." Translated from Latin.
129.Jump up ^ Hanmer, Meredith (1577). The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius. London. p. 63. OCLC 55193813. "The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men."
130.^ Jump up to: a b Merriam-Webster Online:Atheism, retrieved 2013-11-21, "First Known Use: 1546"
131.^ Jump up to: a b Rendered as Athisme: de Mornay, Philippe (1581). A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion: Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists, and other infidels [De la vérite de la religion chréstienne (1581, Paris)]. Translated from French to English by Arthur Golding & Philip Sidney and published in London, 1587. "Athisme, that is to say, vtter godlesnes."
132.Jump up ^ Vergil, Polydore (c. 1534). English history. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Godd would not longe suffer this impietie, or rather atheonisme."
133.Jump up ^ 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. prep. by J. A. Simpson ... (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (Second ed.). Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-861186-2.
134.Jump up ^ Burton, Robert (1621). deist. The Anatomy of Melancholy. Part III, section IV. II. i. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "Cousin-germans to these men are many of our great Philosophers and Deists"
135.Jump up ^ Martin, Edward (1662). "Five Letters". His opinion concerning the difference between the Church of England and Geneva [etc.] London. p. 45. "To have said my office..twice a day..among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason, Puritanes [etc.]."
136.Jump up ^ Bailey, Nathan (1675). An universal etymological English dictionary. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
137.Jump up ^ "Secondly, that nothing out of nothing, in the sense of the atheistic objectors, viz. that nothing, which once was not, could by any power whatsoever be brought into being, is absolutely false; and that, if it were true, it would make no more against theism than it does against atheism ..." Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Chapter V Section II p.73
138.Jump up ^ In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, atheism is usually 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 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.
139.Jump up ^ Pandian (1996). India, that is, sidd. Allied Publishers. p. 64. ISBN 978-81-7023-561-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
140.Jump up ^ Dasgupta, Surendranath (1992). A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 258. ISBN 978-81-208-0412-8. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
141.Jump up ^ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. (Princeton University Press: 1957, Twelfth Princeton Paperback printing 1989) pp. 227–249. ISBN 0-691-01958-4.
142.Jump up ^ Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Eighth Reprint Edition. (University of Calcutta: 1984). p. 55.
143.Jump up ^ Joshi, L.R. (1966). "A New Interpretation of Indian Atheism". Philosophy East and West 16 (3/4): 189–206. doi:10.2307/1397540. JSTOR 1397540.
144.Jump up ^ Baggini 2003, pp. 73–74. "Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment."
145.Jump up ^ Solmsen, Friedrich (1942). Plato's Theology. Cornell University Press. p 25.
146.^ Jump up to: a b ... nullos esse omnino Diagoras et Theodorus Cyrenaicus ... Cicero, Marcus Tullius: De natura deorum. Comments and English text by Richard D. McKirahan. Thomas Library, Bryn Mawr College, 1997, page 3. ISBN 0-929524-89-6
147.Jump up ^ "religion, study of". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
148.Jump up ^ Bremmer, Jan. Atheism in Antiquity, in Martin 2006, pp. 12–13
149.Jump up ^ Diogenes Laërtius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, ii
150.Jump up ^ Cicero, Lucullus, 121. in Reale, G., A History of Ancient Philosophy. SUNY Press. (1985).
151.Jump up ^ Bremmer, Jan. Atheism in Antiquity, in Martin 2006, pp. 14–19
152.Jump up ^ Brickhouse, Thomas C.; Smith, Nicholas D. (2004). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Trial of Socrates. Routledge. p. 112. ISBN 0-415-15681-5. In particular, he argues that the claim he is a complete atheist contradicts the other part of the indictment, that he introduced "new divinities".
153.Jump up ^ Fragments of Euhemerus' work in Ennius' Latin translation have been preserved in Patristic writings (e.g. by Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea), which all rely on earlier fragments in Diodorus 5,41–46 & 6.1. Testimonies, especially in the context of polemical criticism, are found e.g. in Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus 8.
154.Jump up ^ Plutarch, Moralia—Isis and Osiris 23
155.Jump up ^ "Epicurus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2013-11-10.
156.^ Jump up to: a b Stein, Gordon (Ed.) (1980). "The History of Freethought and Atheism". An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. New York: Prometheus. Retrieved 2007-APR-03.
157.Jump up ^ Wikisource-logo.svg "Atheism" in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.
158.Jump up ^ Maycock, A. L. and Ronald Knox (2003). Inquisition from Its Establishment to the Great Schism: An Introductory Study. ISBN 0-7661-7290-2.
159.Jump up ^ Reynold Alleyne Nicholson, 1962, A Literary History of the Arabs, page 318. Routledge
160.Jump up ^ Freethought Traditions in the Islamic World by Fred Whitehead; also quoted in Cyril Glasse, (2001), The New Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 278. Rowman Altamira.
161.Jump up ^ Al-Zandaqa Wal Zanadiqa, by Mohammad Abd-El Hamid Al-Hamad, first edition 1999, Dar Al-Taliaa Al-Jadida, Syria (Arabic)
162.^ Jump up to: a b Zdybicka 2005, p. 4
163.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.388
164.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.343
165.Jump up ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". Retrieved 2013-11-26.
166.Jump up ^ Winfried Schröder, in: Matthias Knutzen: Schriften und Materialien (2010), p. 8. See also Rececca Moore, The Heritage of Western Humanism, Scepticism and Freethought (2011), calling Knutzen "the first open advocate of a modern atheist perspective" online here
167.Jump up ^ "Michel Onfray on Jean Meslier". William Paterson University. Retrieved 2011-11-04.
168.Jump up ^ d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). The System of Nature 2. Retrieved 2011-04-07.
169.Jump up ^ Jeremy Waldron; God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought; Cambridge, UK; 2002; p.217
170.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; pp. 390–391
171.Jump up ^ Reflections on the Revolution in France; (1790) by Edmund Burke
172.Jump up ^ Ray, Matthew Alun (2003). Subjectivity and Irreligion: Atheism and Agnosticism in Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-3456-0. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
173.Jump up ^ Law, Stephen (2011). Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-19-955364-8. Law notes that he may have also been the first imprisoned on such a charge.
174.Jump up ^ Law, Stephen (2011). Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-19-955364-8.
175.Jump up ^ Overall, Christine (2006). "Feminism and Atheism". The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. ISBN 978-1-139-82739-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09. in Martin 2006, pp. 233–246
176.Jump up ^ Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340
177.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p. 494
178.Jump up ^ Rowan Callick; Party Time - Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112
179.Jump up ^ "White Paper—Freedom of Religious Belief in China". Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America. October 1997. Retrieved 2007-09-05.
180.Jump up ^ "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.
181.Jump up ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543
182.Jump up ^ Madsen, Richard (2014). "Religion Under Communism". In Smith, S. A. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Oxford University Press. p. 588. ISBN 9780199602056.
183.Jump up ^ Blackford, R.; Schüklenk, U. (2013). "Myth 27 Many Atrocities Have Been Committed in the Name of Atheism". 50 great myths about atheism. John Wiley & Sons. p. 88. ISBN 9780470674048.
184.Jump up ^ Zdybicka 2005, p. 16
185.Jump up ^ Michael, S. M. (1999). "Dalit Visions of a Just Society". In S. M. Michael (ed.). Untouchable: Dalits in Modern India. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 31–33. ISBN 1-55587-697-8.
186.Jump up ^ "He who created god was a fool, he who spreads his name is a scoundrel, and he who worships him is a barbarian." Hiorth, Finngeir (1996). "Atheism in South India". International Humanist and Ethical Union, International Humanist News. Retrieved 2013-11-21
187.Jump up ^ Martin, Douglas (26 Aug 2006). "Vashti McCollum, 93, Plaintiff In a Landmark Religion Suit - Obituary (Obit); Biography". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-11-10.
188.Jump up ^ Jurinski, James (2004). Religion on Trial. Walnut Creek, California: AltraMira Press. p. 48. ISBN 0-7591-0601-0. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
189.Jump up ^ TIME Magazine cover online. Apr 8, 1966. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
190.Jump up ^ "Toward a Hidden God". Time Magazine online. Apr 8, 1966. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
191.Jump up ^ Erickson, Doug (25 February 2010). "The atheists' calling the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking its latest battle to the U.S. Supreme court. It's a milestone for the often-vilified but financially strong group, which has seen its membership grow to an all-time high". Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
192.Jump up ^ Erickson, Doug (25 February 2007). "The Atheists' Calling". Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
193.Jump up ^ "Timothy Samuel Shah Explains 'Why God is Winning'." 2006-07-18. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
194.Jump up ^ Paul, Gregory; Zuckerman, Phil (2007). "Why the Gods Are Not Winning". Edge 209. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
195.Jump up ^ Landsberg 2010
196.Jump up ^ "Women in Secularism". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
197.Jump up ^ "Secular Woman:About". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
198.Jump up ^ "A Timeline of the Sexual Harassment Accusations". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
199.Jump up ^ "Blaghag: Atheism+". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
200.Jump up ^ "How I unwittingly infiltrated the boys club, why it's time for a new wave of atheism". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
201.Jump up ^ "About Atheism+". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
202.Jump up ^ "Alligator News". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
203.Jump up ^ "Atheists unveil monument in Florida and promise to build 50 more". Retrieved 2013-11-21.
204.Jump up ^ Hooper, Simon. "The rise of the New Atheists". CNN. Archived from the original on 2010-04-08. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
205.Jump up ^ Gribbin, Alice (22 December 2011). "Preview: The Four Horsemen of New Atheism reunited". New Statesman. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
206.^ Jump up to: a b Stenger 2009.
207.Jump up ^ Alan E Garfield. "Finding Shared Values in a Diverse Society: Lessons From the Intelligent Design Controversy" (PDF). Vermont Law Review (Vermont Law Review). 33 Book 2. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
208.Jump up ^ "Social values, Science and Technology" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-04-30. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
209.Jump up ^ "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents, Section on accuracy of non-Religious Demographic Data". Archived from the original on 2011-04-22. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
210.Jump up ^ Huxley, Andrew (2002). Religion, Law and Tradition: Comparative Studies in Religious Law. Routledge. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-7007-1689-0. OL 7763963M. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
211.^ Jump up to: a b "Religion: Year in Review 2010: Worldwide Adherents of All Religions". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
212.Jump up ^ Joas, Hans; Wiegandt, Klaus, eds. (2010). Secularization and the World Religions. Liverpool University Press. p. 122 (footnote 1). ISBN 978-1-84631-187-1. OL 25285702M. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
213.Jump up ^ "WIN-Gallup International "Religiosity and Atheism Index" reveals atheists are a small minority in the early years of 21st century". 6 August 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
214.Jump up ^ "GLOBAL INDEX OF RELIGION AND ATHEISM - Press Release" (PDF). Gallup - Red C.
215.Jump up ^ "Discrimination in the EU in 2012" (PDF), Special Eurobarometer, 383 (European Union: European Commission), 2012: 233, retrieved 14 August 2013 The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?", with a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and non-believer/agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.
216.Jump up ^ "Cultural Diversity In Australia". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
217.^ Jump up to: a b c Religiously Unaffiliated
218.Jump up ^ "BBC News – Viewpoints: Why is faith falling in the US?". BBC Online. 22 August 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
219.Jump up ^ America’s Changing Religious Landscape, Pew Research Center, 12 May 2015.
220.Jump up ^ Nigel Barber (2010). Why Atheism Will Replace Religion. Psychology Today. Retrieved 2013-05-22.
221.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J.; Zheng, Larry; Li, CC (1998). "Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject God". Nature 394 (6691): 313–4. doi:10.1038/28478. PMID 9690462. Available at StephenJayGould.org, Stephen Jay Gould archive. Retrieved 2006-12-17
222.Jump up ^ William H. Swatos; Daniel V. A. Olson, ed. (2000). The Secularization Debate (chapter by Rodney Stark). Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-0761-6. Retrieved 2011-08-19. "Recently, quite amazing time series data on the beliefs of scientists were published in Nature. Leuba's standard for belief in God is so stringent it would exclude a substantial portion of "mainline" clergy. It obviously was an intentional ploy on his part. He wanted to show that men of science were irreligious." Stark, Rodney; Finke, Roger. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. University of California Press. Retrieved 2011-08-19. "Recently, quite amazing time series data on the beliefs of scientists were published in Nature. Leuba's standard for belief in God is so stringent it would exclude a substantial portion of "mainline" clergy. It obviously was an intentional ploy on his part. He wanted to show that men of science were irreligious."
223.Jump up ^ "Survey on physicians' religious beliefs shows majority faithful". The University of Chicago. Retrieved 2011-04-08. "The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally compared to 81 percent of all adults."
224.Jump up ^ "Scientists and Belief". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, 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."
225.Jump up ^ Shermer 1999, pp. 76–79.
226.Jump up ^ Argyle, Michael (1958). Religious Behaviour. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp. 93–96. ISBN 0-415-17589-5.
227.Jump up ^ Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans' Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations". Review of Religious Research 53 (2): 161. doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4.
228.Jump up ^ Rathi, Akshat (August 11, 2013). "New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2014-05-29.
References
Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage. ISBN 0-09-927367-5.
Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280424-3.
Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press. ISBN 978-1-56975-677-5. OL 24313839M.
Bradlaugh, Charles; Besant, Annie; Bradlaugh, Alice; Moss, A. B.; Cattell, C. C.; Standring, G.; Aveling, E. (1884). The Atheistic Platform. London: Freethought Publishing.
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press. ISBN 0-593-05548-9.
Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 978-0-02-865780-6.
Flew, Antony (1976). The Presumption of Atheism, and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Flint, Robert (1903). Agnosticism: The Croall Lecture for 1887–88. William Blackwood and Sons. OL 7193167M.
Flynn, Tom, ed. (25 October 2007). "The new encyclopedia of unbelief". The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-391-3. OL 8851140M.
Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W. W. Norton & Company.
Harris, Sam (19 September 2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-27877-7. OL 25353925M.
Harris, Sam (April 2006). "The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos". Free Inquiry 26 (3). ISSN 0272-0701. Retrieved 2013-11-21. alternate URL
Hitchens, Christopher (2007). god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Random House. ISBN 978-0-7710-4143-3.
Hume, David (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. London. OL 7145748M.
Hume, David (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. London.
Landsberg, Mitchell (28 September 2010). "Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2011-05-11. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 978-0-87722-642-0. OL 8110936M. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Martin, Michael, ed. (2006). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84270-0. OL 22379448M. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
Nielsen, Kai (2013). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian, and other essays on religion and related subjects. Simon and Schuster.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (2001) [1946]. "Existentialism and Humanism". In Priest, Stephen. Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings. London: Routledge. p. 45. ISBN 0-415-21367-3.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (2004) [1946]. "An existentialist ethics". In Gensler, Harry J.; Spurgin, Earl W.; Swindal, James C. Ethics: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge. p. 127. ISBN 0-415-25680-1.
Shermer, Michael (1999). How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God. New York: William H Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-3561-X.
Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-124-X. LCCN 79002726. OL 4401616M.
Stenger, Victor J. (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-652-5.
Stenger, Victor J. (22 September 2009). The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. Prometheus. ISBN 1-59102-751-9. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
Zdybicka, Zofia J. (2005). "Atheism" (PDF). In Maryniarczyk, Andrzej. Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1. Polish Thomas Aquinas Association. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Further reading
Berman, David (1990). A History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-04727-7.
Bradlaugh, Charles, Annie Besant and others. (1884) The Atheistic Platform: 12 Lectures. London: Freethought Publishing. [1]
Buckley, M. J. (1990). At the Origins of Modern Atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-04897-1.
Flew, Antony (2005). God and Philosophy. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-330-0.
Tom Flynn, ed. (2007). The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-391-2.
Gaskin, J.C.A., ed. (1989). Varieties of Unbelief: From Epicurus to Sartre. •New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-340681-X.
Germani, Alan (15 September 2008). "The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists". The Objective Standard (Glen Allen Press) 3 (3). Archived from the original on 2011-04-28. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Harbour, Daniel (2003). An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3229-9.
Harris, Sam (2 October 2007). "The Problem with Atheism". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2011-05-24. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Howson, Colin (2011). Objecting to God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-18665-0
Jacoby, Susan (2004). Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. Metropolitan Books. ISBN 978-0-8050-7442-0.
Krueger, D. E. (1998). What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1-57392-214-5.
Ledrew, S. (2012). "The evolution of atheism: Scientific and humanistic approaches". History of the Human Sciences 25 (3): 70. doi:10.1177/0952695112441301.
Le Poidevin, R. (1996). Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09338-4.
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.
Maritain, Jacques (1952). The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-943-0. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier, ed. (2003). The Impossibility of God. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-120-0.
Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier, ed. (2006). The Improbability of God. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-381-5.
McTaggart, John; McTaggart, Ellis (1930) [1906]. Some Dogmas of Religion (New ed.). London: Edward Arnold & Co. ISBN 0-548-14955-0.
Nielsen, Kai (1985). Philosophy and Atheism. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0-87975-289-0.
Nielsen, Kai (2001). Naturalism and Religion. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1-57392-853-4.
Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto. New York: Arcade Publishing. ISBN 978-1-55970-820-3. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Oppy, Graham (2006). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-86386-4. Archived from the original on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Rafford, R. L. (1987). "Atheophobia—an introduction". Religious Humanism 21 (1): 32–37.
Robinson, Richard (1964). An Atheist's Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-824191-7. Archived from the original on 2011-04-25. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
Rosenberg, Alex (2011). The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 978-0-393-08023-0
Russell, Paul (11 February 2013). "Hume on Religion". In Edward N. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab. Retrieved 2013-11-24.
Sharpe, R.A. (1997). The Moral Case Against Religious Belief. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0-334-02680-6.
Thrower, James (1971). A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton. ISBN 0-301-71101-1.
Walters, Kerry (2010). Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-2493-8
Zuckerman, Phil (2010). Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. NYU Press. ISBN 0-8147-9723-7.
Zuckerman, Phil, ed. (2010). Atheism and secularity. Santa Barbara, Calif. [u.a.]: Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35183-9.
External links

Find more about
Atheism
 at Wikipedia's sister projects

Search Wiktionary Definitions from Wiktionary
Search Commons Media from Commons
Search Wikinews News stories from Wikinews
Search Wikiquote Quotations from Wikiquote
Search Wikisource Source texts from Wikisource
Search Wikibooks Textbooks from Wikibooks
Search Wikiversity Learning resources from Wikiversity
Atheism at PhilPapers
Atheism at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
Atheism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The New Atheists in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism at DMOZ – Includes links to organizations and websites.
Positive atheism: Great Historical Writings Historical writing sorted by authors.
Religion & Ethics—Atheism at bbc.co.uk.
Secular Web library – Library of both historical and modern writings, a comprehensive online resource for freely available material on atheism.
The Demand for Religion – A study on the demographics of Atheism by Wolfgang Jagodzinski (University of Cologne) and Andrew Greeley (University of Chicago and University of Arizona).


[show] 
Links to related articles











































































































































































Portal icon 






















































































































































































































































































Portal
Category













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































  


Categories: Atheism
Criticism of religion
Philosophical movements
Philosophy of religion
Secularism
Skepticism












Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

View source

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
Alemannisch
Ænglisc
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Bahasa Banjar
Башҡортса
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎
Български
Boarisch
བོད་ཡིག
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Буряад
Català
Čeština
Corsu
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Fiji Hindi
Føroyskt
Français
Frysk
Furlan
Gaeilge
Gaelg
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Hawai`i
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Ido
Ilokano
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Interlingue
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Basa Jawa
ქართული
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Kreyòl ayisyen
Kurdî
Лезги
ລາວ
Latina
Latviešu
Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Lojban
Lumbaart
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
Malti
मराठी
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
Mirandés
Монгол
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nāhuatl
Nederlands
नेपाली
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Нохчийн
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پنجابی
Papiamentu
پښتو
Picard
Piemontèis
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русиньскый
Русский
Саха тыла
Scots
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Ślůnski
کوردیی ناوەندی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
తెలుగు
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche
Tiếng Việt
Võro
Winaray
ייִדיש
粵語
Zazaki
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 June 2015, at 01:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism













Rejection of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about historical rejection of Jesus, both in and outside the New Testament. For people who have renounced Christianity, see Apostasy in Christianity.



 Jesus disputes with the Pharisees and is rejected, from the Bowyer Bible, 19th century.
The New Testament includes a number of incidents of the rejection of Jesus during his lifetime, by local communities and individuals.


Contents  [hide]
1 Hometown rejection
2 Rejection of the cornerstone
3 Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum
4 Not welcomed in a Samaritan village
5 Many disciples leave
6 Rejection as the Jewish messiah
7 See also
8 References

Hometown rejection[edit]
See also: Mark 6, Pauline Christianity and Paul the Apostle and Judaism
In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark there is an account of a visit by Jesus to his hometown with his followers. On the Sabbath, he enters a synagogue and begins to teach. It says that many who heard were 'astounded', and that they were offended, asking "is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary?". It adds that he could do no 'deeds of power there' except to heal a few sick people. Amazed at the community's lack of belief in him, he observes that "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house."(Mark 6:1-6)
The account given in the Gospel of Matthew edits this account by having those in the synagogue describe Jesus as the 'son of the carpenter' and stating that he could not do many deeds of power (rather than none).[1] (Matthew 13:54-58)
The Gospel of Luke moves this story to the beginning of Jesus' preaching in Galilee, to introduce what follows.[2] In this version, Jesus is described as performing a public reading of scripture; he claims to be the fulfillment of a prophecy at Isaiah 61:1-2. (Luke 4:16-30)
In Matthew and Mark the crowd is also described as referring to Jesus as being the brother of James, Simon, Joseph, and Judas (in Mark they also mention, but do not name, Jesus's sisters) in a manner suggesting that the crowd regards them as just ordinary people, and criticising Jesus' quite different behaviour.
Luke adds that Jesus recounted stories about how, during the time of Elijah, only a Sidonian woman was saved, and how, during the time of Elisha, though there were many lepers in Israel, only a Syrian was cleansed. This, according to Luke, caused the people to attack Jesus and chase him to the top of a hill in order to try to throw Jesus off, though Jesus slips away. Some scholars conclude that the historical accuracy of Luke's version is questionable, in this particular case citing that there is no cliff face in Nazareth.[3]
The negative view of Jesus' family may be related to the conflict between Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christians. A. N. Wilson suggests that the negative relationship between Jesus and his family was placed in the Gospels (especially in the Gospel of Mark) to dissuade early Christians from following the Jesus cult that was administered by Jesus’ family: "…it would not be surprising if other parts of the church, particularly the Gentiles, liked telling stories about Jesus as a man who had no sympathy or support from his family."[4] Jeffrey Bütz[5] is more succinct: "…by the time Mark was writing in the late 60s, the Gentile churches outside of Israel were beginning to resent the authority wielded by Jerusalem where James and the apostles were leaders, thus providing the motive for Mark’s antifamily stance… (p. 44)." Other prominent scholars agree (e.g., Crosson, 1973;[6] Mack, 1988;[7] Painter. 1999).[8]
Rejection of the cornerstone[edit]
Events in the
Life of Jesus
according to the Gospels
Life of Jesus

Early life[show]














Ministry[show]










Passion[show]






















Resurrection[show]








In rest of the NT[show]



Portals: P christianity.svg Christianity Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg Bible
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Main article: Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen
See also: Mark 12
Matthew 21:42, Acts 4:11 and Mark 12:10 talk of Jesus as the stone which the builders (or "husbandmen") rejected. 1 Peter 2:7 discusses this rejection of Jesus. This references similar wording from Psalms 118:22.
Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum[edit]
According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the Galilean villages of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum did not repent in response to Jesus's teaching, so Jesus declared their damnation to Hades (Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:13-15).
Not welcomed in a Samaritan village[edit]
According to Luke 9:51-56, when Jesus entered a Samaritan village, he was not welcomed, because he was going on to Jerusalem. (There was enmity between Judeans and their Temple in Jerusalem and Samaritans and their temple on Mount Gerizim) His disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven on the village but Jesus reprimanded them and they continued on to another village.[9]
Many disciples leave[edit]
John 6:60-6:66 records "many disciples" leaving Jesus after he said that those who eat his body and drink his blood will remain in him and have eternal life (John 6:48-59). In John 6:67-71 Jesus asks the Twelve Apostles if they also want to leave, but St. Peter responds that they have become believers.
Rejection as the Jewish messiah[edit]
Further information: Jewish messianism and Judaism's view of Jesus
Jesus is rejected in Judaism as a failed Jewish Messiah claimant.[10][11][12] Belief in the divinity of any human being is incompatible with Judaism:[13][14]
The Torah says "God is not a man (איש : ['iysh]) that He should lie, nor is He a mortal (בן–אדם : [ben-'adam]) that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?"[15] (Book of Numbers Bamidbar 23:19).[13][14]
"The point is this: that the whole Christology of the Church - the whole complex of doctrines about the Son of God who died on the Cross to save humanity from sin and death - is incompatible with Judaism, and indeed in discontinuity with the Hebraism that preceded it."[16]
"Aside from its belief in Jesus as the Messiah, Christianity has altered many of the most fundamental concepts of Judaism." (Kaplan, Aryeh)[17]
"...the doctrine of Christ was and will remain alien to Jewish religious thought."[18]
"For two thousand years, Jews rejected the claim that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the dogmatic claims about him made by the church fathers - that he was born of a virgin, the son of God, part of a divine Trinity, and was resurrected after his death. ... For two thousand years, a central wish of Christianity was to be the object of desire by Jews, whose conversion would demonstrate their acceptance that Jesus has fulfilled their own biblical prophecies."[19]
"No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian. It is not possible for someone to be both Christian and Jewish."[20]
On the Jewish side, the accounts of Jewish rejection of Jesus are prominently featured in the Birkat haMinim of the Amidah and the Talmud. The Talmud indicates that Rabbi Gamaliel II directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph for the central Amidah-prayer, inveighing against (early Christian) informers and heretics, which was inserted as the twelfth paragraph in modern sequence (Birkat haMinim).[21]
On the Christian side, the accounts of Jewish rejection of Jesus are prominently featured in the New Testament, especially John's gospel. For example, in 7:1-9 Jesus moves around in Galilee but avoids Judea, because "the Jews/Judeans" were looking for a chance to kill him. In 7:12-13 some said "he is a good man" whereas others said he deceives the people, but these were all "whispers", no one would speak publicly for "fear of the Jews/Judeans". Jewish rejection is also recorded in 7:45-52, 8:39-59, 10:22-42 and 12:36-43. 12:42 says many did believe, but they kept it private, for fear the Pharisees would exclude them from the Synagogue, see also Council of Jamnia.



 An illustration from a medieval manuscript. Top: Jews (identifiable by rouelle) reject Jesus. Bottom: Jews are being burned at stake.
According to Jeremy Cohen,

"[e]ven before the Gospels appeared, the apostle Paul (or, more probably, one of his disciples) portrayed the Jews as Christ's killers[22] ... But though the New Testament clearly looks to the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus, Paul and the evangelists did not yet condemn all Jews, by the very fact of their Jewishness, as murderers of God and his messiah. That condemnation, however, was soon to come."[23]
Emil Fackenheim wrote in 1987:

"... Except in relations with Christians, the Christ of Christianity is not a Jewish issue. There simply can be no dialogue worthy of the name unless Christians accept—nay, treasure—the fact that Jews through the two millennia of Christianity have had an agenda of their own. There can be no Jewish-Christian dialogue worthy of the name unless one Christian activity is abandoned, missions to the Jews. It must be abandoned, moreover, not as a temporary strategy but in principle, as a bimillennial theological mistake. The cost of that mistake in Christian love and Jewish blood one hesitates to contemplate."[24]
See also[edit]
But to bring a sword
Life of Jesus in the New Testament
Mount Precipice
Olivet discourse
Physician, heal thyself
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Daniel J. Harrington (1 October 2010). Meeting St. Matthew Today. Loyola Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-8294-3104-9.
2.Jump up ^ Mark Allan Powell, What are They Saying about Luke? (Paulist Press, 1989), page 19.
3.Jump up ^ The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller editor, 1992, page 126, translation note to Luke 4:29: "Nazareth is not built on or near a cliff face. Luke generally seems poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Aspects of his geography may therefore be fictive."
4.Jump up ^ Wilson, A.N., Jesus: A life. 1992. New York: Norton & Co., page 86.
5.Jump up ^ Butz, Jeffrey. The brother of Jesus and the lost teachings of Christianity. 2005. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions.
6.Jump up ^ Crosson, John Dominic. “Mark and the relatives of Jesus”. Novum Testamentum, 15, 1973
7.Jump up ^ Mack, Burton. A myth of innocence: Mark and Christian origins. 1988. Philadelphia: Fortress
8.Jump up ^ Painter, John. Just James: The brother of Jesus in history and tradition. 1999. Minneapolis: Fortress Press
9.Jump up ^ The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, editor, 1992, Polebridge Press, ISBN 0-944344-30-5, page 140, translation note to Luke 9:53: "Samaritans would not offer hospitality to those travelling to the temple in Jerusalem, which the Samaritans regarded as an illegitimate rival to their own temple on Mount Gerasim (see John 4:20)."
10.Jump up ^ Berger, David; Wyschogrod, Michael (1978). Jews and "Jewish Christianity". [New York]: KTAV Publ. House. ISBN 0-87068-675-5.
11.Jump up ^ Singer, Tovia (2010). Let's Get Biblical. RNBN Publishers; 2nd edition (2010). ISBN 978-0615348391.
12.Jump up ^ Kaplan, Aryeh (1985). The real Messiah? a Jewish response to missionaries (New ed. ed.). New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth. ISBN 978-1879016118. The real Messiah (pdf)
13.^ Jump up to: a b Singer, Tovia. "Monotheism". Retrieved 19 August 2013.
14.^ Jump up to: a b Spiro, Ken (Rabbi, Masters Degree in History). "Seeds of Christianity". Judaism online. Simpletoremember.com. Retrieved 19 August 2013.
15.Jump up ^ Rashi: "God is not a man that He should lie": He has already promised them to bring them to and give them possession of the land of the seven nations, and you expect to kill them in the desert? [See Mid. Tanchuma Mass’ei 7, Num. Rabbah 23:8] "Would He say…": Heb. הַהוּא. This is in the form of a question. And the Targum [Onkelos] renders "who later relent". They reconsider and change their minds.
16.Jump up ^ Rayner, John D. A Jewish Understanding of the World, Berghahn Books, 1998, p. 187. ISBN 1-57181-974-6
17.Jump up ^ The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology: Volume 1, Illuminating Expositions on Jewish Thought and Practice, Mesorah Publication, 1991, p. 264. ISBN 0-89906-866-9
18.Jump up ^ Wylen, Stephen M. Settings of Silver: An Introduction to Judaism, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 75. ISBN 0-8091-3960-X
19.Jump up ^ (Jewish Views of Jesus by Susannah Heschel, in Jesus In The World's Faiths: Leading Thinkers From Five Faiths Reflect On His Meaning by Gregory A. Barker, editor. Orbis Books, 2005 ISBN 1-57075-573-6. p.149
20.Jump up ^ Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Barry Dov Lerner
21.Jump up ^ Ber. iv. 3; see Grätz, "Gesch." 3d ed., iv. 30 et seq..
22.Jump up ^ "... the Jews, who killed both the Lord and the prophets." (I Thessalonians 2:14-15)
23.Jump up ^ Jeremy Cohen (2007): Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen. Oxford University Press. p.55 ISBN 0-19-517841-6
24.Jump up ^ Fackenheim, Emil (1987). What is Judaism? An Interpretation for the Present Age. Summit Books. p. 249. ISBN 0-671-46243-1.

Rejection of Jesus
Life of Jesus: Ministry

Preceded by
Samaritan woman at the well First Rejection at Nazareth
 Matthew 4:13-16 & Luke 4:16-31 Succeeded by
Calling of Matthew
Preceded by
Daughter of Jairus Second Rejection at Nazareth
 Matthew 13:54-58 & Mark 6:1-6 Succeeded by
John the Baptist Beheaded
  


Categories: 1st-century Christianity
Judaism in the New Testament
Gospel episodes
Judaism-related controversies


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 May 2015, at 09:44.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_of_Jesus










Rejection of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about historical rejection of Jesus, both in and outside the New Testament. For people who have renounced Christianity, see Apostasy in Christianity.



 Jesus disputes with the Pharisees and is rejected, from the Bowyer Bible, 19th century.
The New Testament includes a number of incidents of the rejection of Jesus during his lifetime, by local communities and individuals.


Contents  [hide]
1 Hometown rejection
2 Rejection of the cornerstone
3 Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum
4 Not welcomed in a Samaritan village
5 Many disciples leave
6 Rejection as the Jewish messiah
7 See also
8 References

Hometown rejection[edit]
See also: Mark 6, Pauline Christianity and Paul the Apostle and Judaism
In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark there is an account of a visit by Jesus to his hometown with his followers. On the Sabbath, he enters a synagogue and begins to teach. It says that many who heard were 'astounded', and that they were offended, asking "is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary?". It adds that he could do no 'deeds of power there' except to heal a few sick people. Amazed at the community's lack of belief in him, he observes that "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house."(Mark 6:1-6)
The account given in the Gospel of Matthew edits this account by having those in the synagogue describe Jesus as the 'son of the carpenter' and stating that he could not do many deeds of power (rather than none).[1] (Matthew 13:54-58)
The Gospel of Luke moves this story to the beginning of Jesus' preaching in Galilee, to introduce what follows.[2] In this version, Jesus is described as performing a public reading of scripture; he claims to be the fulfillment of a prophecy at Isaiah 61:1-2. (Luke 4:16-30)
In Matthew and Mark the crowd is also described as referring to Jesus as being the brother of James, Simon, Joseph, and Judas (in Mark they also mention, but do not name, Jesus's sisters) in a manner suggesting that the crowd regards them as just ordinary people, and criticising Jesus' quite different behaviour.
Luke adds that Jesus recounted stories about how, during the time of Elijah, only a Sidonian woman was saved, and how, during the time of Elisha, though there were many lepers in Israel, only a Syrian was cleansed. This, according to Luke, caused the people to attack Jesus and chase him to the top of a hill in order to try to throw Jesus off, though Jesus slips away. Some scholars conclude that the historical accuracy of Luke's version is questionable, in this particular case citing that there is no cliff face in Nazareth.[3]
The negative view of Jesus' family may be related to the conflict between Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christians. A. N. Wilson suggests that the negative relationship between Jesus and his family was placed in the Gospels (especially in the Gospel of Mark) to dissuade early Christians from following the Jesus cult that was administered by Jesus’ family: "…it would not be surprising if other parts of the church, particularly the Gentiles, liked telling stories about Jesus as a man who had no sympathy or support from his family."[4] Jeffrey Bütz[5] is more succinct: "…by the time Mark was writing in the late 60s, the Gentile churches outside of Israel were beginning to resent the authority wielded by Jerusalem where James and the apostles were leaders, thus providing the motive for Mark’s antifamily stance… (p. 44)." Other prominent scholars agree (e.g., Crosson, 1973;[6] Mack, 1988;[7] Painter. 1999).[8]
Rejection of the cornerstone[edit]
Events in the
Life of Jesus
according to the Gospels
Life of Jesus

Early life[show]














Ministry[show]










Passion[show]






















Resurrection[show]








In rest of the NT[show]



Portals: P christianity.svg Christianity Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg Bible
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Main article: Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen
See also: Mark 12
Matthew 21:42, Acts 4:11 and Mark 12:10 talk of Jesus as the stone which the builders (or "husbandmen") rejected. 1 Peter 2:7 discusses this rejection of Jesus. This references similar wording from Psalms 118:22.
Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum[edit]
According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the Galilean villages of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum did not repent in response to Jesus's teaching, so Jesus declared their damnation to Hades (Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:13-15).
Not welcomed in a Samaritan village[edit]
According to Luke 9:51-56, when Jesus entered a Samaritan village, he was not welcomed, because he was going on to Jerusalem. (There was enmity between Judeans and their Temple in Jerusalem and Samaritans and their temple on Mount Gerizim) His disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven on the village but Jesus reprimanded them and they continued on to another village.[9]
Many disciples leave[edit]
John 6:60-6:66 records "many disciples" leaving Jesus after he said that those who eat his body and drink his blood will remain in him and have eternal life (John 6:48-59). In John 6:67-71 Jesus asks the Twelve Apostles if they also want to leave, but St. Peter responds that they have become believers.
Rejection as the Jewish messiah[edit]
Further information: Jewish messianism and Judaism's view of Jesus
Jesus is rejected in Judaism as a failed Jewish Messiah claimant.[10][11][12] Belief in the divinity of any human being is incompatible with Judaism:[13][14]
The Torah says "God is not a man (איש : ['iysh]) that He should lie, nor is He a mortal (בן–אדם : [ben-'adam]) that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?"[15] (Book of Numbers Bamidbar 23:19).[13][14]
"The point is this: that the whole Christology of the Church - the whole complex of doctrines about the Son of God who died on the Cross to save humanity from sin and death - is incompatible with Judaism, and indeed in discontinuity with the Hebraism that preceded it."[16]
"Aside from its belief in Jesus as the Messiah, Christianity has altered many of the most fundamental concepts of Judaism." (Kaplan, Aryeh)[17]
"...the doctrine of Christ was and will remain alien to Jewish religious thought."[18]
"For two thousand years, Jews rejected the claim that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the dogmatic claims about him made by the church fathers - that he was born of a virgin, the son of God, part of a divine Trinity, and was resurrected after his death. ... For two thousand years, a central wish of Christianity was to be the object of desire by Jews, whose conversion would demonstrate their acceptance that Jesus has fulfilled their own biblical prophecies."[19]
"No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian. It is not possible for someone to be both Christian and Jewish."[20]
On the Jewish side, the accounts of Jewish rejection of Jesus are prominently featured in the Birkat haMinim of the Amidah and the Talmud. The Talmud indicates that Rabbi Gamaliel II directed Samuel ha-Katan to write another paragraph for the central Amidah-prayer, inveighing against (early Christian) informers and heretics, which was inserted as the twelfth paragraph in modern sequence (Birkat haMinim).[21]
On the Christian side, the accounts of Jewish rejection of Jesus are prominently featured in the New Testament, especially John's gospel. For example, in 7:1-9 Jesus moves around in Galilee but avoids Judea, because "the Jews/Judeans" were looking for a chance to kill him. In 7:12-13 some said "he is a good man" whereas others said he deceives the people, but these were all "whispers", no one would speak publicly for "fear of the Jews/Judeans". Jewish rejection is also recorded in 7:45-52, 8:39-59, 10:22-42 and 12:36-43. 12:42 says many did believe, but they kept it private, for fear the Pharisees would exclude them from the Synagogue, see also Council of Jamnia.



 An illustration from a medieval manuscript. Top: Jews (identifiable by rouelle) reject Jesus. Bottom: Jews are being burned at stake.
According to Jeremy Cohen,

"[e]ven before the Gospels appeared, the apostle Paul (or, more probably, one of his disciples) portrayed the Jews as Christ's killers[22] ... But though the New Testament clearly looks to the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus, Paul and the evangelists did not yet condemn all Jews, by the very fact of their Jewishness, as murderers of God and his messiah. That condemnation, however, was soon to come."[23]
Emil Fackenheim wrote in 1987:

"... Except in relations with Christians, the Christ of Christianity is not a Jewish issue. There simply can be no dialogue worthy of the name unless Christians accept—nay, treasure—the fact that Jews through the two millennia of Christianity have had an agenda of their own. There can be no Jewish-Christian dialogue worthy of the name unless one Christian activity is abandoned, missions to the Jews. It must be abandoned, moreover, not as a temporary strategy but in principle, as a bimillennial theological mistake. The cost of that mistake in Christian love and Jewish blood one hesitates to contemplate."[24]
See also[edit]
But to bring a sword
Life of Jesus in the New Testament
Mount Precipice
Olivet discourse
Physician, heal thyself
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Daniel J. Harrington (1 October 2010). Meeting St. Matthew Today. Loyola Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-8294-3104-9.
2.Jump up ^ Mark Allan Powell, What are They Saying about Luke? (Paulist Press, 1989), page 19.
3.Jump up ^ The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller editor, 1992, page 126, translation note to Luke 4:29: "Nazareth is not built on or near a cliff face. Luke generally seems poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Aspects of his geography may therefore be fictive."
4.Jump up ^ Wilson, A.N., Jesus: A life. 1992. New York: Norton & Co., page 86.
5.Jump up ^ Butz, Jeffrey. The brother of Jesus and the lost teachings of Christianity. 2005. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions.
6.Jump up ^ Crosson, John Dominic. “Mark and the relatives of Jesus”. Novum Testamentum, 15, 1973
7.Jump up ^ Mack, Burton. A myth of innocence: Mark and Christian origins. 1988. Philadelphia: Fortress
8.Jump up ^ Painter, John. Just James: The brother of Jesus in history and tradition. 1999. Minneapolis: Fortress Press
9.Jump up ^ The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, editor, 1992, Polebridge Press, ISBN 0-944344-30-5, page 140, translation note to Luke 9:53: "Samaritans would not offer hospitality to those travelling to the temple in Jerusalem, which the Samaritans regarded as an illegitimate rival to their own temple on Mount Gerasim (see John 4:20)."
10.Jump up ^ Berger, David; Wyschogrod, Michael (1978). Jews and "Jewish Christianity". [New York]: KTAV Publ. House. ISBN 0-87068-675-5.
11.Jump up ^ Singer, Tovia (2010). Let's Get Biblical. RNBN Publishers; 2nd edition (2010). ISBN 978-0615348391.
12.Jump up ^ Kaplan, Aryeh (1985). The real Messiah? a Jewish response to missionaries (New ed. ed.). New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth. ISBN 978-1879016118. The real Messiah (pdf)
13.^ Jump up to: a b Singer, Tovia. "Monotheism". Retrieved 19 August 2013.
14.^ Jump up to: a b Spiro, Ken (Rabbi, Masters Degree in History). "Seeds of Christianity". Judaism online. Simpletoremember.com. Retrieved 19 August 2013.
15.Jump up ^ Rashi: "God is not a man that He should lie": He has already promised them to bring them to and give them possession of the land of the seven nations, and you expect to kill them in the desert? [See Mid. Tanchuma Mass’ei 7, Num. Rabbah 23:8] "Would He say…": Heb. הַהוּא. This is in the form of a question. And the Targum [Onkelos] renders "who later relent". They reconsider and change their minds.
16.Jump up ^ Rayner, John D. A Jewish Understanding of the World, Berghahn Books, 1998, p. 187. ISBN 1-57181-974-6
17.Jump up ^ The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology: Volume 1, Illuminating Expositions on Jewish Thought and Practice, Mesorah Publication, 1991, p. 264. ISBN 0-89906-866-9
18.Jump up ^ Wylen, Stephen M. Settings of Silver: An Introduction to Judaism, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 75. ISBN 0-8091-3960-X
19.Jump up ^ (Jewish Views of Jesus by Susannah Heschel, in Jesus In The World's Faiths: Leading Thinkers From Five Faiths Reflect On His Meaning by Gregory A. Barker, editor. Orbis Books, 2005 ISBN 1-57075-573-6. p.149
20.Jump up ^ Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Barry Dov Lerner
21.Jump up ^ Ber. iv. 3; see Grätz, "Gesch." 3d ed., iv. 30 et seq..
22.Jump up ^ "... the Jews, who killed both the Lord and the prophets." (I Thessalonians 2:14-15)
23.Jump up ^ Jeremy Cohen (2007): Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen. Oxford University Press. p.55 ISBN 0-19-517841-6
24.Jump up ^ Fackenheim, Emil (1987). What is Judaism? An Interpretation for the Present Age. Summit Books. p. 249. ISBN 0-671-46243-1.

Rejection of Jesus
Life of Jesus: Ministry

Preceded by
Samaritan woman at the well First Rejection at Nazareth
 Matthew 4:13-16 & Luke 4:16-31 Succeeded by
Calling of Matthew
Preceded by
Daughter of Jairus Second Rejection at Nazareth
 Matthew 13:54-58 & Mark 6:1-6 Succeeded by
John the Baptist Beheaded
  


Categories: 1st-century Christianity
Judaism in the New Testament
Gospel episodes
Judaism-related controversies


Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 23 May 2015, at 09:44.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_of_Jesus