Atheism

=== Ontological arguments ===

[[File:Light_Bends_from_the_Beyond.jpg|thumb|In his work ''[[De rerum natura]]'', [[Lucretius]] stated that everything consists of atoms moving in infinity.]]
Most atheists lean toward ontological [[monism]]: the belief that there is only one kind of fundamental substance. The philosophical [[materialism]] is a view that matter is the fundamental substance in nature. This omits the possibility of a non-material divine being.<ref name="Graham Oppy">{{cite book |last1=Oppy |first1=Graham |title=Atheism: The Basics |year=2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1138506916 |edition=First|pages=14, 15}}</ref> According to [[physicalism]], only physical entities exist.<ref name="Graham Oppy"/><ref name="Daniel Stoljar">{{cite web |last1=Stoljar |first1=Daniel |title=Physicalism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-date=November 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191103205051/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Philosophies opposed to the materialism or physicalism include [[idealism]], [[Mind–body dualism|dualism]] and other forms of monism.<ref name="Leopold Stubenberg">{{cite web |last1=Stubenberg |first1=Stubenberg |title=Neutral Monism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211135615/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Zdybicka 2005 19">{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=19}}.</ref><ref name="D. Gene Witmer">{{cite web |last1=Witmer |first1=D. Gene |title=Physicalism and Metaphysical Naturalism |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0258.xml |website=Oxford Bibliographies |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=April 13, 2021 |archive-date=April 13, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210413141153/https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0258.xml |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]] is also used to describe the view that everything that exists is fundamentally natural, and that there are no supernatural phenomena.<ref name="Graham Oppy"/> According to naturalist view, science can explain the world with physical laws and through natural phenomena.<ref name="David Papineau">{{cite web |last1=Papineau |first1=David |title=Naturalism |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ |access-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-date=April 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180426123419/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Philosopher [[Graham Oppy]] references a PhilPapers survey that says 56.5% of philosophers in academics lean toward physicalism; 49.8% lean toward naturalism.<ref name="Bourget and Chalmers">{{cite web |last1=Bourget |first1=David |last2=Chalmers |first2=David |title=The PhilPapers Surveys |url=https://philpapers.org/surveys/index.html |website=PhilPapers |publisher=The PhilPapers Foundation |access-date=April 13, 2021 |archive-date=July 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190723035239/https://philpapers.org/surveys/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

According to Graham Oppy, direct arguments for atheism aim at showing theism fails on its own terms, while indirect arguments are those inferred from direct arguments in favor of something else that is inconsistent with theism. For example, Oppy says arguing for naturalism is an argument for atheism since naturalism and theism "cannot both be true".<ref name="Ruse and Bullivant">{{cite book |last1=Oppy |first1=Graham |editor1-last=Bullivant |editor1-first=Stephen |editor2-last=Ruse |editor2-first=Michael |title=The Oxford Handbook of Atheism |date=2013 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=9780199644650 |edition=illustrated |chapter=chapter 4}}</ref>{{rp|53}} Fiona Ellis describes the "expansive naturalism" of [[John McDowell]], [[James Griffin (philosopher)|James Griffin]] and [[David Wiggins]] while also asserting there are things in human experience which cannot be explained in such terms, such as the concept of value, leaving room for theism.<ref name="Fiona Ellis">{{cite journal |last1=Ellis |first1=Fiona |title=Theistic naturalism |journal=[[The Philosophers' Magazine]] |date=2016 |volume=1st Quarter |issue=72 |page=45 |doi=10.5840/tpm20167224 |url=https://www.pdcnet.org/tpm/content/tpm_2016_0072_0045_0046 |access-date=May 1, 2021 |archive-date=April 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430232953/https://www.pdcnet.org/tpm/content/tpm_2016_0072_0045_0046 |url-status=live }}</ref> Christopher C. Knight asserts a [[theistic naturalism]].<ref name="Christopher C. Knight">{{cite journal |last1=Knight |first1=Christopher C. |title=Theistic Naturalism and "Special" Divine Providence |journal=Journal of Religion and Science |date=2009 |volume=44 |issue=3 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01014.x |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01014.x |publisher=Wylie online library |page=abstract |access-date=May 1, 2021 |archive-date=April 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430090059/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01014.x |url-status=live }}</ref> Nevertheless, Oppy argues that a strong naturalism favors atheism, though he finds the best direct arguments against theism to be the evidential problem of evil, and arguments concerning the contradictory nature of God were He to exist.<ref name="Ruse and Bullivant"/>{{rp|55–60}}