Atheism

=== Implicit vs. explicit ===

{{Main|Implicit and explicit atheism}}

[[File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg|thumb|A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of [[Weak and strong atheism|weak/strong]] and [[Implicit and explicit atheism|implicit/explicit]] atheism.
<br />
Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in {{Font color|purple|'''purple'''}} on the '''right''') assert that ''"at least one deity exists"'' is a false statement.
<br />
Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in {{Font color|blue|'''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.
<br />
Implicit weak/negative atheists (in {{Font color|blue|'''blue'''}} on the '''left'''), according to authors such as George H. Smith, would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity but have not explicitly rejected such belief.
<br />
(Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)]]
Some of the ambiguity involved in defining ''atheism'' arises from the definitions of words like ''deity'' and ''god''. The variety of wildly different [[conceptions of God]] and deities lead to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the [[paganism|pagan]] deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as ''theism'' came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.{{sfn|Martin|2006}} With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any [[spirituality|spiritual]], [[supernatural]], or [[Transcendence (religion)|transcendental]] concepts.<ref name="eb2011-Rejection-of-all-religious-beliefs" />
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 been defined as the 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."<ref>{{cite book |last=d'Holbach |first=P.H.T. |author-link=Baron d'Holbach |title=Good Sense |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7319 |year=1772 |access-date=April 7, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110623131908/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7319 |archive-date=June 23, 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref> Similarly, [[George H. Smith]] 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."<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1979|p=14}}.</ref>

''Implicit atheism'' is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and ''explicit atheism'' is the conscious rejection of belief. It is usual to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism.<ref>{{cite web |author=[[Paul Draper (philosopher)|Paul Draper]] |quote=Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that "atheism" shouldn't be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, "atheism" should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God |title=Atheism and Agnosticism |publisher=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |access-date=October 24, 2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism |archive-date=October 25, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211025062002/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=McCormick |first1=Matt |title=Atheism |quote=It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God |publisher=[[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |access-date=October 24, 2021 |url=https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1 |archive-date=February 21, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100221061729/https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence |publisher=[[Philosophy Now]] |title=Where's The Evidence |author=Michael Anthony |quote = While the word 'atheism' has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew's article 'The Presumption of Atheism'), it is a highly non-standard use. |access-date=October 24, 2021 |archive-date=September 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190926013024/https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence |url-status=live}}</ref>

For the purposes of his paper on "philosophical atheism", [[Ernest Nagel]] contested including the mere absence of theistic belief as a type of atheism.<ref name= Nagel1959>{{cite book |title=Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind |chapter=Philosophical Concepts of Atheism |first=Ernest |last=Nagel |author-link=Ernest Nagel |year=1959 |publisher=Sheridan House |quote=I must begin by stating what sense I am attaching to the word 'atheism,' and how I am construing the theme of this paper. I shall understand by 'atheism' a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism.&nbsp;... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. 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.&nbsp;... I propose to examine some ''philosophic'' concepts of atheism}}
<br />reprinted in ''Critiques of God'', edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.</ref> [[Graham Oppy]] classifies as ''innocents'' those who never considered the question because they lack any understanding of what a god is, for example one-month-old babies.{{sfn|Oppy|2018|p=4|ps=: Agnostics are distinguished from innocents, who also neither believe that there are gods nor believe that there are no gods, by the fact that they have given consideration to the question of whether there are gods. Innocents are those who have never considered the question of whether there are gods. Typically, innocents have never considered the question of whether there are gods because they are not able to consider that question. How could that be? Well, in order to consider the question of whether there are gods, one must understand what it would mean for something to be a god. That is, one needs to have the concept of a god. Those who lack the concept of a god are not able to entertain the thought that there are gods. Consider, for example, one-month-old babies. It is very plausible that one-month-old babies lack the concept of a god. So it is very plausible that one-month-old babies are innocents. Other plausible cases of innocents include chimpanzees, human beings who have suffered severe traumatic brain injuries, and human beings with advanced dementia}}