有「現代物理學之父」之譽的愛因斯坦在其作品《我的世界觀（英語：The World as I See It (book)）》中是這樣否定上帝： 「我無法想象存在這樣一個上帝，它會對自己的創造物加以賞罰……我不能也不願去想象一個人在肉體死亡以後還會繼續活着。」但事實上，愛因斯坦形容自己為不可知論者，並不同意專業無神論者般的十字軍精神；更仔細解釋，由於人類對於大自然與自己本身的了解可能有缺失，因此應該採取謹慎謙卑的態度。美國猶太領袖拉比赫伯特·高德斯坦（英語：Herbert S. Goldstein）曾經問他是否相信神？他回答說：「我相信斯賓諾莎的神，一個通過存在事物的和諧有序體現自己的神，而不是一個關心人類命運和行為的神。」換句話說，愛因斯坦認為，從宇宙世界的存在，可以感覺到神的偉大工作，但神並不會干預人們的日常生活，神是非人格化的神[26]:389-390。愛因斯坦曾經在書信裏表示：「我不相信人格化的神，我從未否認這一點，而且表達得很清楚。如果在我的內心裏有什麼能被稱之為宗教，那就是，對於我們的科學所能夠揭示的世界結構，對於這世界結構的無垠的敬仰。」[27]:43[28]
由於對無神論的定義各不相同，因此很難準確估計目前無神論者的人數[34]。根據溫—蓋洛普國際（英語：WIN/GIA）在全球範圍內的研究顯示，2012年有13%的受訪者是「堅定的無神論者」[35]，2015年有11%是「堅定的無神論者」[36]，2017年有9%是「堅定的無神論者」[37]。其他研究人員建議謹慎對待溫—蓋洛普國際的統計數字，因為幾十年來使用相同統計方法且樣本量更大的其他調查得出的數字一直偏低[38]。英國廣播公司2004年進行的一個調查顯示，無神論者為全世界人口的8％[39]。其他較早的估計表明，無神論者占世界人口的2%，而無宗教者占12%[40]。這些民調顯示歐洲和東亞是無神論佔比最高的地區。2015年，中國有61%的人報告稱他們是無神論者（英語：Irreligion in China）[41]。2010年歐洲聯盟的歐洲晴雨表調查數字顯示，20%的歐盟人口聲稱不相信「任何種類的靈魂、神或生命力」的存在，其中法國（40%）和瑞典（34%）占比最高[42]。
跨國研究結果表明教育程度和不相信上帝有正相關性[43][44]，事實上無神論在科學家中所占地比例更高這一趨勢在20世紀初就比較明顯，而到20世紀末成為科學家中的多數。美國心理學家詹姆士·柳巴（英語：James H. Leuba）1914年隨機調查1000位美國自然科學家，其中58％「不相信或懷疑神的存在」。同一調查在1996年重複了一次(《自然》雜誌1998年刊登的文章)[45]，得出60.7％的類似結果, 而且美國科學院院士中這一比例高達93％。肯定回答不相信神的比例從52％升高至72％。調查顯示美國國家科學院院士之中相信人格神或來世的人數處於歷史低點，相信人格神的只占7%，遠低於美國人口的85%比例。
哲學家安東尼·弗魯[77]，邁克爾·馬丁（Michael Martin）[63]，以及威廉·L·羅伊（William L. Rowe）[78]等人將無神論分為強（積極）與弱（消極）兩類。強無神論清楚地宣稱神不存在，弱無神論則包含了所有形式的非有神論。根據此分類，所有的非有神論者都必然是強或弱無神論者[79]，而絕大多數不可知論者都是弱無神論者。與積極和消極相比，強和弱兩詞用以形容無神論則相對較晚，但至少在1813年[80][81]就已經出現在了各類（雖然用法略有不同）哲學著作[77]與天主教的辯惑[82]之中。
當馬丁等哲學家把不可知論歸類為弱無神論的時候[70]，絕大多數的不可知論者並不認為自己是無神論者，在他們看來無神論並不比有神論更加合理[83]。支持或否定神存在的知識的不可獲得性有時被看作無神論必須經歷「信仰飛躍（Leap of Faith）」的標示[84]。一般無神論者對這一論證的反駁包括：未經證實的宗教命題應和其他的未證實命題受到同樣多的懷疑[85]，以及神存在與否的不可證明性並不代表兩種可能的概率相等[86]。蘇格蘭哲學家J. J. C.斯馬特甚至說道：「因為一種過於籠統的哲學懷疑論，有時一個真正的無神論者可能會，甚至是強烈地，表達自己為一個不可知論者，這種過分的懷疑論將阻礙我們肯定自己對或許除數學或邏輯定理以外的任何知識的理解。」[87]因此，一些知名的無神論作家如理查德·道金斯更傾向於依據「有多大程度相信神存在」的光譜來區分有神論者，不可知論者與無神論者。[88]
邏輯實證主義與科學主義為隨後的新實證主義、分析哲學、結構主義以及自然主義鋪平了道路。新實證主義和分析哲學拋棄了古典理性主義與形而上學，轉向嚴格的經驗主義與認識論的唯名論。支持者諸如伯特蘭·羅素等斷然地拒絕信仰神。路德維希·維特根斯坦在他的早期工作中曾試圖將形而上學與超自然的語言從理性論述中分離開來。A.J.艾耶爾斷言宗教陳述具有不可證明性與無意義性，援引了自己對經驗科學的堅定信仰。列維-斯特勞斯的應用結構主義否定了宗教語言的玄奧意味，認為它們都源自於人類的潛意識。J. N.芬德利和J. J. C.斯馬特論證稱神的存在在邏輯上是非必然的。自然主義者與唯物主義一元論者如約翰·杜威認為自然世界是萬物的基礎，否認了神與不朽的存在[87][150]。
跨國研究結果表明教育程度和不相信上帝有正相關性[43]，歐盟的調查顯示輟學和相信上帝有正相關性[42]。無神論在科學家中所占比例更高這一趨勢在20世紀初比較明顯，到20世紀末成為科學家中的多數。美國心理學家詹姆士·柳巴（英語：James H. Leuba）1914年隨機調查1000位美國自然科學家，其中58％「不相信或懷疑神的存在」。同一調查在1996年重複了一次，得出60.7％的類似結果。美國科學院院士中這一比例高達93％。肯定回答不相信神的比例從52％升高至72％[170]。《自然》雜誌1998年刊登的文章指出，調查顯示美國國家科學院院士之中相信人格神或來世的人數處於歷史低點，相信人格神的只占7%，遠低於美國人口的85%比例[171]。《芝加哥大學紀事報》的文章則指出，76%的醫生相信上帝，比例高於科學家的7%，但仍比一般人口的85%為低[172]。同年，麻省理工學院的弗蘭克·薩洛韋和加利福尼亞大學的邁克爾·舍默進行研究顯示，高學歷的美國成年人（調查樣本中12%持有博士學位，62%是大學畢業生）之中有64%相信上帝，而宗教信念與教育水平有負相關性[173]。門薩國際出版的雜誌的文章指出，1927年至2002年之間進行的39個研究顯示，對宗教的虔誠和智力有負相關性[174]。這些研究結果與牛津大學教授邁克爾·阿蓋爾進行的元分析結果近似，他分析了7個研究美國學生對宗教的態度和智力商數的關係。雖然發現負相關性，該分析沒有提出兩者之間存在因果關係，並指出家庭環境、社會階級等因素的影響[175]。
同時期的英國政治哲學家馬丁·科恩（Martin Cohen）給出了許多聖經中的支持酷刑和奴隸的訓諭的例子，作為宗教訓諭是隨着政治和社會發展而不是相反情況的佐證，同時指出了這一趨勢對看似冷靜客觀的哲學發展也是適用的[201]。科恩在其著作《政治哲學：從柏拉圖到毛澤東》（Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao）以《古蘭經》為例詳述了這一觀點，他認為《古蘭經》在歷史上起了一個保護中世紀的社會準則不受時代變化影響的不良作用[202]。
威廉·L·羅（William L. Rowe），「無神論」（Atheism），《Routledge哲學百科全書》（Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy），1998年：「無神論的立場是認為神不存在，即明確的不相信，而不是信仰缺失。」註： 缺失在漢語中含義是：缺陷;缺點和失誤, 有貶低無神論的含義.
Simon Blackburn (編). atheism. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy 2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008 [2013-11-21]. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-12）. Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.
Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism" （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）) first list one of the more narrow definitions.
Runes, Dagobert D.(editor). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. 1942 [2011-04-09]. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-13）. (a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought – entry by Vergilius Ferm
Nielsen 2013: "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
Edwards 2005: "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."
Smart, J. J. C. Zalta, Edward N. , 編. Atheism and Agnosticism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition). [2016-05-30]. （原始內容存檔於2013-12-02）.
Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007，第35頁 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFlynn2007 (help): "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since the absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
Stenger 2007，第17–18頁 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStenger2007 (help), citing Parsons, Keith M. God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytical Defense of Theism. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. 1989. ISBN 978-0-87975-551-5.
阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦，我的世界观（The World as I See It (book)）. [2021-03-04]. （原始內容存檔於2020-08-15）. 我無法想象存在這樣一個上帝，它會對自己的創造物加以賞罰，會具有我們在自己身上所體驗到的那種意志。我不能也不願去想象一個人在肉體死亡以後還會繼續活着；讓那些脆弱的靈魂，由於恐懼或者由於可笑的唯我論，去拿這種思想當寶貝吧！
Steven Weinberg, A Designer Universe?, PhysLink.com. [2021-03-08]. （原始內容存檔於2019-04-14）. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.
Keysar, Ariela; Navarro-Rivera, Juhem. 36. A World of Atheism: Global Demographics. Bullivant, Stephen; Ruse, Michael (編). The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press. 2017. ISBN 978-0-19-964465-0.
2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).
11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.
Larson, Edward J.; Larry Witham. Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject God. Nature. 1998, 394 (6691): 313–4. PMID 9690462. doi:10.1038/28478. 引文使用過時參數coauthors (幫助) Available at StephenJayGould.org網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2014-03-01., Stephen Jay Gould archive. Retrieved on 2006-12-17
Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Crossway Books, March 01, 2004, 447 Pages, ISBN1-58134-561-5
John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, Westminster John Knox Press, December 31, 2007, 156 pages, ISBN978-0-664-23304-4, page 45
Edis, Taner. Atheism and the Rise of Science. Bullivant, Stephen; Ruse, Michael (編). The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press. 2013. ISBN 978-0198745075.
Atheism and Science. Investigating Atheism project - Cambridge and Oxford. （原始內容存檔於2013-10-30）. Atheists have appealed to science in defence of their atheism since the first avowedly atheistic manuscripts of the mid seventeenth century. However, as the German expert on atheism Winfried Schroeder has shown, the relationship between early modern atheism and science tended to embarrass rather than strengthen the fledgling atheism's case.[1]"; "The renowned Denis Diderot, atheist and deist in turns, could still say in 1746 that science posed a greater threat to atheism than metaphysics.[3] Well into the eighteenth century it could be argued that it was atheism and not theism which required a sacrifice of the intellect. As Schroeder has pointed out, atheists were scientifically retrograde until at least the mid eighteenth century, and suffered from their reputation as scientifically unserious.[4]"; "As John Hedley Brooke has pointed out, for every nineteenth century person considering these issues who followed figures such as Thomas Henry Huxley or Francis Galton in regarding evolution as devastating for religious belief, there were others, such as the Oxford theologian Aubrey Moore, who regarded Darwin's evolutionary theory as an opportunity for religion.[7]At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar:..
Schroeder, Winfried. Ursprunge des Atheismus: Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik- und Religionskritik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Tubingen: Frommann- Holzboog, 1998. Pg 79-80, 291, 297-302
The word αθεοι—in any of its forms—appears nowhere else in the Septuagint or the New Testament. Robertson, A.T. Ephesians: Chapter 2. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Broadman Press. 1960 [1932] [2007-04-12]. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-12）. Old Greek word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the original sense of being without God and also in the sense of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See Paul's words in Ro 1:18–32.
Drachmann, A. B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. 1977（"an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition"）. ISBN 0-89005-201-8. 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 atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos 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.請檢查|date=中的日期值 (幫助)
Rendered as Athisme: Golding, Arthur; Philip Sidney. Mornay's Woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists, and other infidels. London. 1587: xx. 310. Athisme, that is to say, vtter godlesnes.引文使用過時參數coauthors (幫助) Translation of De la verite de la religion chrestienne（1581）。
Rendered as Atheistes: Golding, Arthur. The Psalmes of David and others, with J. Calvin's commentaries. 1571: Ep. Ded. 3. The Atheistes which say..there is no God. Translated from French.
Hanmer, Meredith. The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of the first six hundred years after Christ, written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius. London. 1577: 63. OCLC 55193813. The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men.
Martin, Edward. Five Letters. His opinion concerning the difference between the Church of England and Geneva [etc.]. London. 1662: 45. To have said my office..twice a day..among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason, Puritanes [etc.].
"Secondly, that nothing out of nothing, in the sense of the atheistic objectors, viz. that nothing, which once was not, could by any power whatsoever be brought into being, is absolutely false; and that, if it were true, it would make no more against theism than it does against atheism.." Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Chapter V Section II p.73
Dryden, John. Religio laici, or A laymans faith, a poem. London. 1682: Preface. OCLC 11081103. …namely, that Deism, or the principles of natural worship, are only the faint remnants or dying flames of revealed religion in the posterity of Noah…
The Oxford English Dictionary also records an earlier, irregular formation, atheonism, dated from about 1534. The later and now obsolete words athean and atheal are dated to 1611 and 1612 respectively. prep. by J. A. Simpson ... The Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition. Oxford University Press, USA. 1989. ISBN 0-19-861186-2. 引文格式1維護：冗餘文本 (link)
In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely drawn in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term adevism was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in plural deities. Britannica. Atheonism. Encyclopædia Britannica 11th Edition. 1911. 引文格式1維護：冗餘文本 (link)
Flew, Antony. "The Presumption of Atheism". The Presumption of Atheism and other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1976. pp 14ff.
Kenny, Anthony. Why I Am Not an Atheist. What I believe. Continuum. 2006. ISBN 0-8264-8971-0. The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism…a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed.
Baggini 2003，第30–34頁. "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."
Baggini 2003，第22頁. "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."
Cudworth, Ralph. The true intellectual system of the universe. 1678. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Bantam Books: 2006, p. 50.（ISBN 978-0-618-68000-9）
Translation of Latin text from "Summa impietas （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）"（1552）, Picta poesis, by Barthélemy Aneau. Glasgow University Emblem Website. Retrieved on 2007-03-26.
V.A. Gunasekara, The Buddhist Attitude to God.. （原始內容存檔於2008-01-02）. In the Bhuridatta Jataka, "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."
觀瀾索源:先秦兩漢思想史新探. Taiwan Resource Center for Chinese Studies at UW-EAL. Wan juan lou tu shu gu fen you xian gong si. 2018: 329-331 [2023-06-25]. ISBN 978-986-478-209-3. （原始內容存檔於2023-06-25） （中文）.
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy.（Princeton University Press: 1957, Twelfth Princeton Paperback printing 1989）pp. 227–249. ISBN 978-0-691-01958-1.
Baggini 2003，第73–74頁. "Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment."
...nullos esse omnino Diagoras et Theodorus Cirenaicus... Cicero, Marcus Tullius: De natura deorum. Comments and English text by Richard D. McKirahan. Thomas Library, Bryn Mawr College, 1997, page 3. ISBN 978-0-929524-89-4
Fragments of Euhemerus' work in Ennius' Latin translation have been preserved in Patristic writings（e.g. by Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea）, which all rely on earlier fragments in Diodorus 5,41–46 & 6.1. Testimonies, especially in the context of polemical criticism, are found e.g. in Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus 8.
愷撒（100–44 BCE）, who leaned considerably toward Epicureanism, also rejected the idea of an afterlife, which e.g. lead to his plea against the death sentence during the trial against Catiline, where he spoke out against the StoicistCato（cf. Sallust, The War With Catiline, Caesar's speech: 51.29 & Cato's reply: 52.13）。
Larson, Edward J.; Larry Witham. Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject God. Nature. 1998, 394 (6691): 313–4. PMID 9690462. doi:10.1038/28478. 引文使用過時參數coauthors (幫助) Available at StephenJayGould.org網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2014-03-01., Stephen Jay Gould archive. Retrieved on 2006-12-17
Survey on physicians’ religious beliefs shows majority faithful. The University of Chicago. [2007-10-18]. （原始內容存檔於2011-04-26）. The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally compared to 81 percent of all adults.
Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Crossway Books, March 01, 2004, 447 Pages, ISBN1-58134-561-5
John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, Westminster John Knox Press, December 31, 2007, 156 pages, ISBN978-0-664-23304-4, page 45
Murphy, Peter. Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance. World Union of Deists. [2 October 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2013-11-28）. The repeated arguments presented by atheists using science as evidence against the existence of God is erroneous -- and can be demonstrated such." and "This essay from this point will refer to active atheists as dogmatic atheists to better reflect their true mindset.
Smith 1979，第275頁. "Among the many myths associated with religion, none is more widespread -or more disastrous in its effects -than the myth that moral values cannot be divorced from the belief in a god."
In Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov（Book Eleven: Brother Ivan Fyodorovich, Chapter 4）there is the famous argument that If there is no God, all things are permitted.: "'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?'"
For Kant, the presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams..."（Critique of Pure Reason, A811）。
101 Ethical Dilemmas, 2nd edition, by Cohen, M., Routledge 2007, pp184-5.（Cohen notes particularly that Plato and Aristotle produced arguments in favour of slavery.）
Harris, Sam. An Atheist Manifesto. Truthdig. 2005 [2006-10-29]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-16）. In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree.
American Atheists, <Ethics Without Gods>. [2021-03-01]. （原始內容存檔於2020-11-24）. Ethical behavior – regardless of who the practitioner may be – results always from the same causes and is regulated by the same forces, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of religious belief. The nature of these causes and forces is the subject of this essay.
Mona Chalabi， Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists?， MAR. 12, 2015. [2021-03-01]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-27）. I recently read an article that said most of the prison population is religious while there are very few atheists in prison....Most importantly though, Caroline, you appear to be right about religiosity in prison. Overall, almost 1 in every 1,000 prisoners will identify as atheist compared to 1 in every 100 Americans.
In 2021, atheists made up only 0.1% of the federal prison population. [2023-06-22]. （原始內容存檔於2023-06-22）. When finding an openly nonreligious inmate in prison is like finding a needle in a haystack, it’s harder for Christian apologists and pastors to argue that faith is necessary to keep people on a righteous path.
ADRIAN BARDON. The Truth About Denial Bias and Self- Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion. Oxford University Press. 2020: Section 4.1. 使用|accessdate=需要含有|url= (幫助)
大衛·本特利·哈特. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies. Yale University Press. 2009: 12–13. 「一些人因為他們的信仰命令他們去殺戮」，「另外一些人因為沒有信仰而認為任何行為都是被允許的。多神論者、一神論者和無神論者均殺戮，如果以20世紀為例，最後一幫人殺得最多「
Interview with Richard Dawkins conducted by Stephen Sackur for BBC News 24's HardTalk programme, July 24th 2007. Archived copy. [December 23, 2015]. （原始內容存檔於February 29, 2008）.
Edwards, Paul. Atheism. Donald M. Borchert (編). The Encyclopedia of PhilosophyVol. 1 2nd. MacMillan Reference USA (Gale): 359. 2005 [1967]. ISBN 978-0-02-865780-6.
.jpg)
.jpg)
