Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Ateizm" in Turkish language version.
Ateist, evrenin kişileştirilmiş, aşkın bir yaratıcısının varlığını reddeden kişidir; basitçe böyle bir varlığı hesaba katmadan yaşayan kişi değildir. Teist ise böyle bir yaratıcının varoluşunu savunan kişidir. Dolayısıyla, her türden ateizm tartışması aynı zamanda bir teizm tartışmasıdır.
The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed.
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
Birinci Bölüm: Tanrı'nın yokluğunda insanın sefilliği.
atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.
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.
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.
Çocukluk dönemindeki bu baba imajı ergenlik ve yetişkinlik döneminde tamamen ortadan kalkar. Bu defa kişi hayatın birtakım tehlike ve sıkıntıları karşısında sığınacak bir yer aramaya koyulur, bunun üzerine hayalinde uydurduğu bir tanrı baba imajına inanır ve ona sığınır. Böylece kişide bir din inancı, anlayışı ve hayat tarzı oluşur. Öyleyse Freud'a göre, insanlar kendi hayallerinde uydurdukları bir tanrıya inanmak suretiyle bir yanılgı veya yanılsama içindedirler. Temeli böyle bir yanılgıya dayanan bir din inancı ve yaşayışı da bir yanılgı ve bir nevrozdur.
İnsanın neden daima hayal gücünün yardımı ile bir Tanrı ve bir tanrısal alan yarattığının cevabını da Feuerbach şu şekilde veriyor: Tanrı inancını ortaya çıkaran şey, insanın arzu ve talepleri, istek ve ihtiyaçları, sahip olduğu kudret ve güçleridir. Din, temelde Feuerbach’a göre, insanın kendisini koruma iç güdüsünün ve insani egoizmin bir ürünüdür. Bu insani egoizmin ve kendini koruma iç güdüsünün kendisini en açık olarak ortaya çıkardığı duygu biçimi ise, bağımlılık duygusudur.
Engels, düşünce gelişimini ifade ederken, Feuerbach’ın da çok önemli bir yere sahip olduğunu belirtmektedir. Özellikle Hıristiyanlığın Özü adlı kitabın hem kendisi hem de Marx üzerinde önemli bir tesir bıraktığı üzerinde durmakta ve Feuerbach’ın bu kitapta ortaya koyduğu “Yansıtma Teorisi”nden etkilendiklerini belirtmektedir.
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.
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.
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.
Besides, do you say that God finds joy [prīyate] in seeing the creatures [prajā] which he has created in the prey of all the distress of existence, including the tortures of the hells [naraka]? Homage to this kind of God! The profane stanza expresses it well: 'One calls him Rudra because he burns [nirdahati], because he is sharp [tīkṣṇa], fierce [ugra], redoubtable [pratāpavant], an eater of flesh, blood and marrow [māmsaśoṇitamajjād].'
All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
Tanrıtanımazlık [Alm. Atheismus] [Fr. atheisme] [İng. atheism] [Yun. atheos] [es. t. İlhat]: Tanrının varoluşunu yadsıyan öğreti. // Bu öğretiye felsefe açısından şu anlayışlar temel olabilir: a. Gerçeğin özü özdekse, evrende Tanrının yeri yoktur (özdekçilik). b. Tanrı olursa insanın özgürlüğü ortadan kalkar (idealizm). c. Yalın kuşkuculuk.
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.
atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.
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.
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.
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.
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.
Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.
All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Besides, do you say that God finds joy [prīyate] in seeing the creatures [prajā] which he has created in the prey of all the distress of existence, including the tortures of the hells [naraka]? Homage to this kind of God! The profane stanza expresses it well: 'One calls him Rudra because he burns [nirdahati], because he is sharp [tīkṣṇa], fierce [ugra], redoubtable [pratāpavant], an eater of flesh, blood and marrow [māmsaśoṇitamajjād].'
Çocukluk dönemindeki bu baba imajı ergenlik ve yetişkinlik döneminde tamamen ortadan kalkar. Bu defa kişi hayatın birtakım tehlike ve sıkıntıları karşısında sığınacak bir yer aramaya koyulur, bunun üzerine hayalinde uydurduğu bir tanrı baba imajına inanır ve ona sığınır. Böylece kişide bir din inancı, anlayışı ve hayat tarzı oluşur. Öyleyse Freud'a göre, insanlar kendi hayallerinde uydurdukları bir tanrıya inanmak suretiyle bir yanılgı veya yanılsama içindedirler. Temeli böyle bir yanılgıya dayanan bir din inancı ve yaşayışı da bir yanılgı ve bir nevrozdur.
İnsanın neden daima hayal gücünün yardımı ile bir Tanrı ve bir tanrısal alan yarattığının cevabını da Feuerbach şu şekilde veriyor: Tanrı inancını ortaya çıkaran şey, insanın arzu ve talepleri, istek ve ihtiyaçları, sahip olduğu kudret ve güçleridir. Din, temelde Feuerbach’a göre, insanın kendisini koruma iç güdüsünün ve insani egoizmin bir ürünüdür. Bu insani egoizmin ve kendini koruma iç güdüsünün kendisini en açık olarak ortaya çıkardığı duygu biçimi ise, bağımlılık duygusudur.
Birinci Bölüm: Tanrı'nın yokluğunda insanın sefilliği.
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.
