പേജുകള്‍‌

Hedonism


Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.  In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).
Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them. It is also the idea that every person's pleasure should far surpass their amount of pain. Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by a student of Socrates,Aristippus of Cyrene. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good. 
Etymology
The name derives from the Greek word for "delight" (ἡδονισμός hēdonismos from ἡδονή hēdonē "pleasure", cognate with English sweet + suffix -ισμός -ismos "ism").
History of development


Ancient Egypt
Scenes of a harper entertaining guests at a feast was common in ancient Egyptian tombs (see Harper's Songs), and sometimes contained hedonistic elements, calling guests to submit to pleasure because they cannot be sure that they will be rewarded for good with a blissful afterlife. The following is a song attributed to the reign of one of the Intef kings before or after the 12th dynasty, and the text was used in the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. 
Let thy desire flourish,
In order to let thy heart forget the beatifications for thee.
Follow thy desire, as long as thou shalt live.
Put myrrh upon thy head and clothing of fine linen upon thee,
Being anointed with genuine marvels of the god's property.
Set an increase to thy good things;
Let not thy heart flag.
Follow thy desire and thy good.
Fulfill thy needs upon earth, after the command of thy heart,
Until there come for thee that day of mourning.
Classic schools of antiquity
Democritus seems to be the earliest philosopher on record to have categorically embraced a hedonistic philosophy; he called the supreme goal of life "contentment" or "cheerfulness", claiming that "joy and sorrow are the distinguishing mark of things beneficial and harmful" (DK 68 B 188). 
Cārvāka

         Cārvāka was an Indian hedonist school of thought that arose approximately 600 BCE, and died out in the 14th century CE. The Cārvākas maintained that the Hindu scriptures are false, that the priests are liars, and that there is no afterlife, and that pleasure should be the aim of living. Unlike other Indian schools of philosophy, the Cārvākas argued that there is nothing wrong with sensual indulgence. They held a naturalistic worldview.
Epicureanism
             The Cyrenaics were an ultra-hedonist Greek school of philosophy founded in the 4th century BCE, supposedly by Aristippus of Cyrene, although many of the principles of the school are believed to have been formalized by his grandson of the same name, Aristippus the Younger. The school was so called after Cyrene, the birthplace of Aristippus. It was one of the earliest Socratic schools. The Cyrenaics taught that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, which meant not just the absence of pain, but positively enjoyable sensations. Of these, momentary pleasures, especially physical ones, are stronger than those of anticipation or memory. They did, however, recognize the value of social obligation, and that pleasure could be gained fromaltruism Theodorus the Atheist was a latter exponent of hedonism who was a disciple of younger Aristippus,  while becoming well known for exposing atheism. The school died out within a century, and was replaced by Epicureanism. 

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomicmaterialist, following in the steps of Democritus and Leucippus. His materialism led him to a general stance against superstition or the idea of divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.

In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social ethics that has survived.
Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, though later it became the main opponent of Stoicism. Epicurus and his followers shunned politics. After the death of Epicurus, his school was headed by Hermarchus; later many Epicurean societies flourished in the Late Hellenistic era and during the Roman era (such as those in AntiochiaAlexandriaRhodes and Ercolano). The poet Lucretius is its most known Roman proponent. By the end of the Roman Empire, having undergone Christian attack and repression, Epicureanism had all but died out, and would be resurrected in the 17th century by the atomist Pierre Gassendi, who adapted it to the Christian doctrine.
Some writings by Epicurus have survived. Some scholars consider the epic poem On the Nature of Things by Lucretius to present in one unified work the core arguments and theories of Epicureanism. Many of the papyrus scrolls unearthed at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum are Epicurean texts. At least some are thought to have belonged to the Epicurean Philodemus.
Within Christianity
Christian hedonism is a controversial Christian doctrine current in some evangelical circles, particularly those of the Reformed tradition. The term was coined by Reformed Baptist pastor John Piper in his 1986 book Desiring God. Piper summarizes this philosophy of the Christian life as "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." Christian Hedonism may describe the theology of Jonathan Edwards } In the 17th century the atomist Pierre Gassendi, adapted Epicureanism to the Christian doctrine.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism addresses problems with moral motivation neglected by Kantianism by giving a central role to happiness. It is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the society.  It is thus one form of a consequential meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
Mohism
Mohism was a philosophical school of thought founded by Mozi in the 5th century BCE. It paralleled the utilitarianism later developed by English thinkers. As Confucianism became the preferred philosophy of later Chinese dynasties, starting from the Emperor Wu of Han, Mohism and other non-Confucian philosophical schools of thought were suppressed. 
Modern utilitarianism
The 18th and 19th-century British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill defended the ethical theory of utilitarianism, according to which we should perform whichever action maximizes the aggregate good. Conjoining hedonism, as a view as to what is good for people, to utilitarianism has the result that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest total amount of happiness (Hedonic Calculus). Though consistent in their pursuit of happiness, Bentham and Mill’s versions of hedonism differ. There are two somewhat basic schools of thought on hedonism: 
  • One school, grouped around Jeremy Bentham, defends a quantitative approach. Bentham believed that the value of a pleasure could be quantitatively understood. Essentially, he believed the value of pleasure to be its intensity multiplied by its duration - so it was not just the number of pleasures, but their intensity and how long they lasted that must be taken into account.
  • Other proponents, like John Stuart Mill, argue a qualitative approach. Mill believed that there can be different levels of pleasure - higher quality pleasure is better than lower quality pleasure. Mill also argues that simpler beings (he often refers to pigs) have an easier access to the simpler pleasures; since they do not see other aspects of life, they can simply indulge in their lower pleasures. The more elaborate beings tend to spend more thought on other matters and hence lessen the time for simple pleasure. It is therefore more difficult for them to indulge in such "simple pleasures" in the same manner.
Contemporary approaches
A modern proponent of hedonism with an ethical touch is the Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö. 

Michel Onfray
Onfray's works "have explored the philosophical resonances and components of (and challenges to) science, painting, gastronomy, sex and sensuality, bioethics, wine, and writing. His most ambitious project is his projected six-volume Counter-history of Philosophy,"  of which three have been published. For him "In opposition to the ascetic ideal advocated by the dominant school of thought, hedonism suggests identifying the highest good with your own pleasure and that of others; the one must never be indulged at the expense of sacrificing the other. Obtaining this balance – my pleasure at the same time as the pleasure of others – presumes that we approach the subject from different angles – political, ethical, aesthetic, erotic, bioethical, pedagogical, historiographical…."
A dedicated contemporary hedonist philosopher and on the history of hedonistic thought is the French Michel Onfray. He defines hedonism "as an introspective attitude to life based on taking pleasure yourself and pleasuring others, without harming yourself or anyone else. Onfray's philosophical project is to define an ethical hedonism, a joyous utilitarianism, and a generalized aesthetic of sensual materialism that explores how to use the brain's and the body's capacities to their fullest extent -- while restoring philosophy to a useful role in art, politics, and everyday life and decisions. 
For this he has "written books on each of these facets of the same world view.  His philosophy aims "for "micro-revolutions, " or revolutions of the individual and small groups of like-minded people who live by his hedonistic, libertarian values. 
Abolitionism
             The Abolitionist Society is a transhumanist group calling for the abolition of suffering in all sentient life through the use of advanced biotechnology. Their core philosophy is negative utilitarianism. Criticisms
Hedonism has been criticized by a number of modern authors and philosophers. G.E. Moore argued that hedonists commit the naturalistic fallacy.  There is a critical point where the value of hedonistic properties is affected by actual age and the depreciation schedule turns upward.
It is argued that if social constructionism is going to come to grips with morality and agency it must abandon explanations that invoke the necessary causation of metaphysical abstractions such as hedonism. 
Hedonism lies at the core of many social constructionist accounts of human interaction, and to illustrate how it precludes an adequate understanding of agency, morality, and intimacy.

Āstika and nāstika


Āstika (Sanskritआस्तिक āstika; "it exists") and Nāstika (नास्तिकnāstika; "it doesn't exist") are technical terms in Hinduism used to classifyphilosophical schools and persons, according to whether they accept the authority of the Vedas as supreme revealed scriptures, or not, respectively. By this definition, NyāyáVaiśeṣikaSāṃkhyaYogaMimāṃsā and Vedānta are classified as āstika schools; and some schools like CārvākaĀjīvika,Jainism and Buddhism are considered nāstika.  The distinction is similar to the orthodox/heterodox distinction in the West.
In non-technical usage, the term āstika is sometimes loosely translated as "theist", while nāstika is translated as "atheist".  However, this interpretation is distinct from the use of the term in Hindu philosophy. Notably even among the āstika schools, Sāṃkhya is an atheistic philosophy. 
The different usages of these terms are explained by Chatterjee and Datta as follows:
In modern Indian languages, "āstika" and "nāstika" generally mean "theist" and "atheist", respectively. But in Sanskrit philosophical literature, "āstika" means "one who believes in the authority of the Vedas" or "one who believes in life after death". ("nāstika" means the opposite of these). The word is used here in the first sense. In the second sense, even the Jaina and Buddha schools are "āstika", as they believe in life after death. The six orthodox schools are "āstika", and the Cārvāka is "nāstika" in both the senses.

 Classification of schools
Āstika
Several Indian intellectual traditions were codified during the medieval period into a standard list of six orthodox systems or ṣaḍdarśanas, all of which cite Vedic authority as their source. NyayaVaisheshikaSamkhyaYogaMimāṃsā and Vedanta are classified as āstika schools:
  1. Nyāyá, the school of justice
  2. Vaiśeṣika, the atomist school
  3. Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school
  4. Yoga, the school of Patañjali (which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya)
  5. Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis
  6. Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.
These are often coupled into three groups for both historical and conceptual reasons: Nyāyá-Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya-Yoga, and Mimāṃsā-Vedanta.
Nāstika
The three main schools of Indian philosophy that do not base their beliefs on the Vedas were regarded as heterodox by Brahmins:
  1. Buddhism
  2. Jainism
  3. Cārvāka
The use of the term nāstika to describe Buddhism and Jainism in India is explained by Gavin Flood as follows:
At an early period, during the formation of the Upaniṣads and the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, we must envisage a common heritage of meditation and mental discipline practiced by renouncers with varying affiliations to non-orthodox (Veda-rejecting) and orthodox (Veda-accepting) traditions.... These schools [such as Buddhism and Jainism] are understandably regarded as heterodox (nāstika) by orthodox (āstika) Brahmanism.
 
Tantric traditions in Hinduism have both āstika and nāstika lines; as Banerji writes in "Tantra in Bengal":
Tantras are ... also divided as āstika or Vedic and nāstika or non-Vedic. In accordance with the predominance of the deity the āstika works are again divided as Śākta, Śaiva, Saura, Gāṇapatya and Vaiṣṇava.
 
Buddhist Usage
Although Buddhists have been branded by orthodox or mainstream Hinduism as Nastika, the Buddhists themselves have branded only the Cārvākas as Nastika. For example Nagarjuna wrote in his Ratnavali , that nastikya (nihilism) leads to hell while astikya (affirmation) leads to heaven. Further, the Madhyamika philosopher Chandrakirti, who was accused of being a Nastik, wrote in his Prasannapada that emptiness is a method of affirming neither being nor non-being and that nihilists are actually naive realists because they assume that things of this world have self-existent natures , whereas Madhyamikas view all things as arising dependently within the context of casual conditions.

Atheism in Hinduism


Atheism  ( "statement of no Lord", "doctrine of godlessness") or disbelief in God or gods has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many of the orthodox and heterodox streams of Hindu philosophies.  Generally, atheism is valid in Hinduism, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality. 
Atheism in Hinduism can be traced to the hymns of the Rig Veda and the early Upanishads. Among the various schools of Hindu philosophy,MimamsaSamkhyaCārvāka, and Ājīvika evolved atheistic traditions. While Samkhya rejected the idea of eternal, self-caused, creator God; Mimamsa argued that Vedas could not have been authored by a deity.
Hindu atheists accept Hinduism more as a "way of life" than a religion. They are unlike other Hindus in their religious outlook, but they share the same cultural and moral values.
Etymology

The Sanskrit term Āstika ("pious, orthodox") refers to the systems of thought which admit the validity of the Vedas.  Sanskrit asti means "there is", andĀstika (per Pāṇini 4.2.60) derives from the verb, meaning "one who says 'asti'". Technically, in Hindu philosophy the term Āstika refers only to acceptance of authority of Vedas, not belief in the existence of God. However, though not accepted universally; Āstika is sometimes translated as "theist" and Nāstika as "atheist", assuming the rejection of Vedas to be synonymous to the rejection of God. In Indian philosophy, three schools of thought are commonly referred to as nastika for rejecting the doctrine of Vedas: JainismBuddhism and Cārvāka. In this usage, nastika refers to the non-belief of Vedas rather than non-belief of God.  However, all these schools also rejected a notion of a creationist god and so the word nastika became strongly associated with them.
Historical development
The Rig Veda, the oldest of the Vedas, deals with a lot of skepticism when dealing with the fundamental question of a creator God and the creation of the universe. It does not, at many instances, categorically accept the existence of a creator God. Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda states: 
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
The BrihadaranyakaIshaMundaka (in which Brahman is everything and "no-thing") and especially Chandogya Upanishads have also been interpreted as atheistic because of their stress on the subjective self. 
Mimamsa was a realistic, pluralistic school of philosophy which was concerned with the exegesis of the Vedas.  The core text of the school was thePurva Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini (c. 200 BCE–200 CE). Mimamsa philosophers believed that the revelation of the Vedas was sacred, authorless (apaurusheyatva) and infallible, and that it was essential to preserve the sanctity of the Vedic ritual to maintain dharma (cosmic order). As a consequence of the belief in sanctity of the ritual, Mimamsas rejected the notion of God in any form.  Later commentators of the Mimamsa sutras such as Prabhākara (c. 7th century CE) advanced arguments against idea of God. The early Mimamsa not only did not accept God but said that human action itself was enough to create the necessary circumstances for the enjoyment of its fruits. 
Samkhya is an atheistic  and strongly dualistic  orthodox (Astika) school of Indian philosophy. The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya philosophy is the Samkhyakarika (c. 350–450 CE) of Iśvarakṛṣṇa.   The Samkhyakarika accepts the notion of higher selves or perfected beings but rejects the notion of God. 
Cārvāka, a materialistic and atheistic school of Indian philosophy, had developed a systematic philosophy by 6th century CE. Cārvākas rejected metaphysical concepts like reincarnationafterlife, extracorporeal soul, efficacy of religious rites, other world (heaven and hell), fate, and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions. Cārvākas also refused to ascribe supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. Cārvāka philosophy appears to have died out some time after 1200 CE. 
Ājīvikas (a movement extinct from at least the 13th century CE), whose founder, Makkhali Gosala, was a contemporary of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha (the central figures of Jainism and Buddhism, respectively). Gosala and his followers also denied the existence of a creator god. 

Arguments against God
Mimamsas argued that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals.  They further thought that the Gods named in the Vedas had no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. In this regard, the power of the mantras was what was seen as the power of Gods.  Mimamsas reasoned that an incorporeal God could not author the Vedas, for he would not have the organs of speech to utter words. An embodied God could not author the Vedas either because such a God would be subject to the natural limitations of sensory knowledge and therefore, would not be able to produce supernatural revelations like the Vedas. 
Samkhya gave the following arguments against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God: 
  • If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of God as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary. For, if God enforces the consequences of actions then he can do so without karma. If however, he is assumed to be within the law of karma, then karma itself would be the giver of consequences and there would be no need of a God.
  • Even if karma is denied, God still cannot be the enforcer of consequences. Because the motives of an enforcer God would be either egoistic or altruistic. Now, God's motives cannot be assumed to be altruistic because an altruistic God would not create a world so full of suffering. If his motives are assumed to be egoistic, then God must be thought to have desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of desire. However, assuming that God has desire would contradict God's eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in actions. Moreover, desire, according to Samkhya, is an attribute of prakriti and cannot be thought to grow in God. The testimony of the Vedas, according to Samkhya, also confirms this notion.
  • Despite arguments to the contrary, if God is still assumed to contain unfulfilled desires, this would cause him to suffer pain and other similar human experiences. Such a worldly God would be no better than Samkhya's notion of higher self.
  • Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of God. He is not the object of perception, there exists no general proposition that can prove him by inference and the testimony of the Vedas speak of prakriti as the origin of the world, not God.
Therefore, Samkhya maintained that the various cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments could not prove God.
Hindu atheists in recent times
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, father of the Hindu nationalist ideology Hindutva, was a self–proclaimed atheist. The Indian Nobel Prize-winner Amartya Sen, in an interview with Pranab Bardhan for the California Magazine published in the July–August 2006 edition by the University of California, Berkeley states: 
In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact thatSanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than what exists in any other classical language. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" – a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism.
According to Markandey Katju, Chairman of the Press Council of India and former judge of the Supreme Court of India, eight out of the nine systems of Hindu Philosophy are atheistic, as they do not have a place for God in them. Only one of the nine systems, Uttar Mimansa, which is also called Vedanta, has a place for God in it. 
Prominent Hindu atheists
  • Brahmananda Swami Sivayogi was an atheist and rationalist who founded the organization Ananda Mahasabha. 
  • Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the president of Hindu Mahasabha, described himself as a Hindu atheist. 
  • Shreela Flather, Baroness Flather of Windsor and Maidenhead (1934– ), the first Hindu woman in British politics. She has described herself as a "Hindu atheist". Broadly, she is an atheist with affinity to secular aspects of Hindu culture such as dress and diet. 
  • Kamalahaasan - A well known Tamil Actor and film maker who make films with atheist ideals and has a popular dialog in his film Dasavathaaram, "I don't say that God doesn't exist, I just say it would be good if he existed".
  • Amartya Sen - The Nobel laureate is a self-proclaimed agnostic and associates it with the idea of Hinduism as a political entity.

Adevism

Adevism 
            (from the Sanskrit term deva, on the analogy of atheism) is a term introduced by Friedrich Max Müller to imply the denial of gods, in particular, the legendary gods of Hinduism. Müller used it in the Gifford Lectures in connection with the Vedanta philosophy, for the correlative of ignorance or nescience. In modern contexts it is rarely found, though it is sometimes used to represent a disbelief in any gods, contrasted with a specific disbelief in the Judaeo-Christian deity (God).



Atheism 
      is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.  Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism,  which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. 
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject thegods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethoughtskeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century. 
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,  the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief.  Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,  there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.  Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism. 
Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including JainismBuddhismHinduismRaelismNeopagan movements  such as Wicca,  and nontheistic religionsJainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,  whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality. 
Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is difficult. According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious.  According to another, rates of self-reported atheism are among the highest in Western nations, again to varying degrees: United States (4%), Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%). A global 2012 poll conducted by WIN/GIA reported that 13% of the participants say they are atheists.  According to a 2009 report by the American Religious Identification Survey, people claiming to adhere to "no religion" made up 15% of the population in the U.S.  A 2012 study by thePew Forum on Religion & Public Life reported that one-fifth of the U.S. public are religiously unaffiliated. 



Definitions and distinctions


Range

Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,  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 withagnosticism, and has also been contrasted with it.  A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.
Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deityand 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. 
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 BuddhismHinduismJainism and Taoism. 

Implicit vs. explicit

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." 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."  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". 

Positive vs. negative

Philosophers such as Antony Flew and Michael Martin 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 weakand 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 and in Catholic apologetics.  Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism, most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism  which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.  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.  Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,  and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.  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."  Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along aspectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".