|
=== Škála ===
Časť nejednoznačnosti a kontroverzie ohľadne definície ateizmu je zapríčinená ťažkosťami s dosiahnutím konsenzu pri definovaní slov ako [[božstvo]] a [[boh]]. Rôznorodosť výrazne odlišných [[Koncepcie Boha|koncepcií Boha]] a božstiev vedie k odlišným predstavám toho, čo ateizmus predstavuje. [[Staroveký Rím|Starovekí Rimania]] napríklad obviňovali [[Kresťan|kresťanov]] z ateizmu, pretože neuctievali [[Pohanstvo|pohanské]] božstvá. Ako sa postupne začal chápať [[teizmus]] ako viera v akékoľvek božstvo, tento pohľad postupne upadol do nemilosti.<ref name=":0">Martin, Michael, ed. (2006). ''The Cambridge Companion to Atheism''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN <bdi>978-0-521-84270-9</bdi>.OL 22379448M.</ref>
Vzhľadom na rozsah zamietnutých javov, ateizmus môže popierať čokoľvek od existencie božstva po existenciu akýchkoľvek [[Spiritualita|spirituálnych]], [[Paranormálny jav|nadprirodzených]], či [[Transcendencia (náboženstvo)|transcendentných]] konceptov, ako je [[budhizmus]], [[hinduizmus]], [[džinizmus]] a [[taoizmus]].<ref>"Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]''. '''1''' (15th ed.). 2011. p. 666. 0852294735.</ref>
{{Main|Implicitný a explicitný ateizmus}}
Definície ateizmu sa tiež rôznia v stupni stanoviska, ktoré osoba zaujíma voči myšlienke existencie boha/bohov. Ateizmus býva niekedy definovaný ako jednoduchá absencia viery v to, že nejaké božstvá/bohovia existujú. Takto široká definícia by zahŕňala aj novorodencov a všetkých ostatných ľudí, ktorí neboli vystavení teistickým myšlienkam. Už v roku 1772 [[Paul Heinrich Dietrich von Holbach|Barón d'Holbach]] povedal, že "Všetky deti sa rodia ako ateisti; nemajú žiadnu predstavu Boha."<ref>{{cite book|last=d'Holbach|first=P.H.T.|authorlink=Baron d'Holbach|title=Good Sense|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7319|year=1772|accessdate=2011-04-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110623131908/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7319|archive-date=23 June 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Podobne sa [[George H. Smith]] (1979) domnieval, že: "Človek, ktorý je neznalý teizmu je ateista, pretože neverí v boha. Do tejto kategórie by malo patriť aj dieťa s konceptuálnou kapacitou uchopiť daný problém, ale ktoré si stále daný problém neuvedomuje. Fakt, že takéto dieťa neverí v boha ho kvalifikuje ako ateistu."<ref>Smith, George H. (1979). ''[[iarchive:atheismcaseagain00smit_0|Atheism: The Case Against God]]''. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN <bdi>978-0-87975-124-1</bdi>. LCCN 79002726.OL 4401616M</ref> ''ImplicitImplicitný atheismateizmus'' isje "thechýbanie absenceteistickej ofviery theisticbez beliefjej withoutvedomého a conscious rejection of itodmietnutia" anda ''explicitexplicitný atheismateizmus'' isje thevedomé consciousodmietnutie rejection of beliefviery. 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|authorlink=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. ... 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. ... I propose to examine some ''philosophic'' concepts of atheism ...}}
Pre účely svojho článku o "filozofickom ateizme", [[Ernest Nagel]] namietal zaradenie jednoduchej absencie teistického pohľadu na svet ako typu ateizmu.<ref name="Nagel1959">{{cite book|title=Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind|chapter=Philosophical Concepts of Atheism|first=Ernest|last=Nagel|authorlink=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. ... 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. ... I propose to examine some ''philosophic'' concepts of atheism ...}} Reprint v ''Critiques of God'', editor Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.</ref> [[Graham Oppy]] klasifikoval pojmom ''nevinní'' tých, ktorí nikdy túto otázku nezvažovali, pretože im chýbala schopnosť akéhokoľvek pochopenia čo je to boh. Podľa neho by sem mohli patriť jednomesační novorodenci, ľudia s ťažkým [[Poranenie mozgu|poranením mozgu]] alebo pacienti s rozvinutou [[Demencia|demenciou]].<ref>Oppy, Graham (2018). ''Atheism and Agnosticism''. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108555340. ISBN 978-1-108-55534-0</ref>
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. According to Oppy, these could be [[Infant cognitive development|one-month-old babies]], humans with severe traumatic [[Brain injury|brain injuries]], or patients with [[Dementia|advanced dementia]].{{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}}
=== PositivePozitívny vs. negativenegatívny ===
{{Main|NegativeNegatívny anda positivepozitívny atheismateizmus}}
Philosophers such as [[Antony Flew]]<ref name="presumption">{{harvnb|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."</ref> and [[Michael Martin (philosopher)|Michael Martin]]{{sfn|Martin|2006}} 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<ref name="presumption" /> and in Catholic apologetics.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm|title=On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism|journal=The Review of Politics|first=Jacques|last=Maritain|date=July 1949|volume=11|issue=3|pages=267–280|doi=10.1017/S0034670500044168|ref=harv|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20051113062053/http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm|archivedate=13 November 2005}}</ref> Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
Filozofi ako [[Antony Flew]]<ref name=":1">Flew, Antony (1976). ''The Presumption of Atheism, and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality''. New York: Barnes and Noble.</ref> a [[Michael Martin (philosopher)|Michael Martin]]<ref name=":0" /> rozlišovali pozitívny (silný/tvrdý) a negatívny (slabý/mäkký) ateizmus. Pozitívny ateizmus je výslovné presvedčenie, že bohovia neexistujú. Negatívny ateizmus zahŕňa všetky ostatné formy non-teizmu. Podľa tejto kategorizácie, každý kto nie je teista, je buď negatívny alebo pozitívny ateista. Termíny slabý a ''silný'' sú relatívne nové, kým termíny ''negatívny'' a ''pozitívny'' ateizmus sú historicky staršie; používali sa (mierne odlišnými spôsobmi) vo filozofickej literatúre<ref name=":1" /> a katolíckej apologetike.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm|title=On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism|journal=The Review of Politics|first=Jacques|last=Maritain|date=July 1949|volume=11|issue=3|pages=267–280|doi=10.1017/S0034670500044168|ref=harv|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20051113062053/http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm|archivedate=13 November 2005}}</ref> Podľa tohto vymedzenia ateizmu väčšina agnostikov patrí medzi negatívnych ateistov.
While Martin, for example, asserts that [[agnosticism]] [[Logical consequence|entails]] negative atheism,<ref name="martin-agnosticism-entails" /> many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,<ref name="Kenny2006">{{cite book|first=Anthony|last=Kenny|authorlink=Anthony Kenny|title=What I believe|chapter=Why I Am Not an Atheist|publisher=Continuum|isbn=978-0-8264-8971-5|quote=The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed.|year=2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/why-im-not-an-atheist-the-case-for-agnosticism_b_3345544.html|title=Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism|date=28 May 2013|publisher=Huffington Post|accessdate=2013-11-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131209105433/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/why-im-not-an-atheist-the-case-for-agnosticism_b_3345544.html|archive-date=9 December 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.<ref name="Kenny2006" /> The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as an indication that atheism requires a [[leap of faith]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Many atheists I know would be certain of a high place in heaven|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0725/1224251303564.html|last=O'Brien|first=Breda|authorlink=Breda O'Brien|work=Irish Times|accessdate=2011-04-09|date=7 July 2009|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110520132651/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0725/1224251303564.html|archivedate=20 May 2011|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Warner|first=Matthew|url=http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/more-faith-to-be-an-atheist-than-a-christian|title=More faith to be an atheist than a Christian|date=8 June 2012|accessdate=2013-11-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130603062347/http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/more-faith-to-be-an-atheist-than-a-christian|archive-date=3 June 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven ''[[Faith#Faith in world religions|religious]]'' propositions deserve as much disbelief as all ''other'' unproven propositions,<ref>{{harvnb|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."</ref> and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.<ref>{{harvnb|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."</ref> Australian 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 generalized [[philosophical skepticism]] which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."<ref name="stanford">{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/|title=Atheism and Agnosticism|first=J.C.C.|last=Smart|date=9 March 2004|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|accessdate=2011-04-09|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/654hYPmzk?url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/|archive-date=30 January 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> 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".{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|p=50}} ▼
▲WhileKým Martin, fornapríklad, exampletvrdí, asserts thatže [[ agnosticismagnosticizmus]] [[Logicalznamená consequence|entails]]negatívny negative atheismateizmus,<ref >Martin 2006, str. 2 : name="martin-agnosticism-entails" Ale agnosticizmus je kompatibilný s negatívnym ateizmom v tom, že agnosticizmus znamená negatívny ateizmus. Keďže agnostici neveria v Boha, sú podľa definície negatívni ateisti. to však neznamená, že negatívny ateizmus automaticky znamená agnosticizmus. Negatívny ateista môže, ale nemusí veriť v Boha.</ ref> manymnoho agnosticsagnostikov seepovažuje theirsvoj viewpohľad asza distinctodlišný fromod atheism,ateizmu.<ref name="Kenny2006">{{cite book|first=Anthony|last=Kenny|authorlink=Anthony Kenny|title=What I believe|chapter=Why I Am Not an Atheist|publisher=Continuum|isbn=978-0-8264-8971-5|quote=The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed.|year=2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/why-im-not-an-atheist-the-case-for-agnosticism_b_3345544.html|title=Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism|date=28 May 2013|publisher=Huffington Post|accessdate=2013-11-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131209105433/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/why-im-not-an-atheist-the-case-for-agnosticism_b_3345544.html|archive-date=9 December 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> whichNa theytvrdenie mayo considernedosiahnuteľnosti nopoznania morepre justifiedalebo thanproti theismexistencii orbohov requiringsa anniekedy equalhľadí conviction.<refako name="Kenny2006"na />náznak, Theže assertionateizmus of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as an indication that atheism requires apotrebuje "[[ leapskok of faithviery]] ".<ref>{{cite news|title=Many atheists I know would be certain of a high place in heaven|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0725/1224251303564.html|last=O'Brien|first=Breda|authorlink=Breda O'Brien|work=Irish Times|accessdate=2011-04-09|date=7 July 2009|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110520132651/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0725/1224251303564.html|archivedate=20 May 2011|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Warner|first=Matthew|url=http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/more-faith-to-be-an-atheist-than-a-christian|title=More faith to be an atheist than a Christian|date=8 June 2012|accessdate=2013-11-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130603062347/http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/more-faith-to-be-an-atheist-than-a-christian|archive-date=3 June 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> CommonOdpovede atheistbežného responsesateistu tona thistento argument includesú, thatže unprovennedokázané ''[[Faith#Faithnáboženské intvrdenia worldvyžadujú religions|religious]]''rovnakú propositionsúroveň deservepochybností asako muchvšetky disbeliefostatné asnedokázané all ''other'' unproven propositionstvrdenia,<ref> {{harvnb|Baggini | 2003 |pp=, strany 30–34 }}. " WhoKto seriouslyvážne claimstvrdí, weže shouldby saysme 'Imohli neitherpovedať believe'Ani norverím disbelieveani thatneverím, theže Popepápež is aje robot', oralebo ' Aspokiaľ toide whethero orto, notči eatingma thistento piecekúsok ofčokolády chocolatezmení willalebo turnnezmení mena intoslona, ansom elephantúplný I am completely agnosticagnostik' .? InV theprípade absencechýbania ofakýchkoľvek anydobrých gooddôvodov reasonspre tovieru believev thesetieto outlandishexotické claimsvyhlásenia, weich rightlypriamo disbelieve themodmietame, weneodkladáme don't just suspend judgementrozhodnutie."</ref> anda thatže thenedokázateľnosť unprovabilitybožej ofexistencie aneimplikuje god'sjej existencerovnakú doespravdepodobnosť not implyalebo equal probability of either possibilitymožnosť.<ref> {{harvnb|Baggini | 2003 |p=, str. 22 }}. " ANedostatok lackdôkazov ofnie proofje isdôvodom nona groundspozastavenie for the suspension of beliefrozhodnutia. ThisJe isto becausepreto, whenlebo weak haveaj anám lackchýba ofabsolútny absolutedôkaz, proofstále wemôžme canmať stillobrovské havemnožstvo overwhelmingdôkazov evidencealebo orjedno onevysvetlenie, explanationktoré whichje isoveľa farlepšie superiorako tojeho the alternativesalternatívy."</ref> AustralianAustrálsky philosopherfilozof [[ John Jamieson Carswell Smart|J.J.C. Smart]] evendokonca arguestvrdí, thatže " sometimesniekedy aosoba, personktorá whoje isskutočným reallyateistom, ansa atheist may describemôže herselfopisovať, evendokonca passionatelyvášnivo, asako anagnostik agnosticv becausedôsledku ofneprimerane unreasonable generalizedzovšeobecnenému [[ philosophicalFilozofický skepticismskepticizmus|filozofickému skepticizmu]] , whichktorý wouldnám precludebráni uspovedať, fromže sayingvieme that we know anything whateverčokoľvek, exceptmožno perhapss thevýnimkou truthsmatematických ofdôkazov mathematics anda formalformálnej logiclogiky."<ref name="stanford">{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/|title=Atheism and Agnosticism|first=J.C.C.|last=Smart|date=9 . Marchmarec 2004|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|accessdate= 2011-04-09|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/654hYPmzk?url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/|archive-date=30 January 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> Consequently,Preto someniektorí atheistateistickí authors suchautori, asako [[Richard Dawkins]] preferpreferujú distinguishingrozlišovanie theistteistických, agnosticagnostických anda atheistateistických positionspozícií alongv arámci [[ spectrumSpektrum ofteistickej theisticpravdepodobnosti|spektra probabilityteistickej pravdepodobnosti]] —the likelihood— thatpravdepodobnosti, eachktorú assignsdotyčný to thepriradí statementtvrdeniu " GodBoh existsexistuje". {{sfn|<ref>Dawkins |, Richard (2006 |p=50}}). ''The God Delusion''. Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0-593-05548-9</ref>
=== Definition as impossible or impermanent ===
|
