Talk:Strong atheism

From Conservapedia

This is heady stuff, way above the usual level of our typical articles. Can you make a gentle introduction to this, for the benefit of those having a junior-high or high-school reading level? --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:02, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

The relevant guideline is here. Philip J. Rayment 23:20, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Been a while since high school ... how'd I do? Ungtss 09:30, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Looks good to me, but then I'm not a good judge either (it's far longer since I've been to school!). Ed? Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, this article is simply confusing. It gives an example of strong atheism which fits the definition of weak atheism.

"You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."

Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?

As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again. --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:24, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

In general at least, I didn't find the article confusing at all. What parts don't you understand? Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Philip, Order messaged me saying Conservative was reverting and threatening blocks for something you, he and some other user hammered out on the talk page. I was on the phone with him, and asked him to help defuse the situation...perhaps he became confused, I don't know. But it was pretty clear to me as well, and I have reverted Ed's deletion, pending his further consideration of it, as I am partially to blame, perhaps in not making clear to him what was going on. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 03:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Order would have been talking about the discussion under Uncited Garbage and "Garbage" on the Atheism talk page. Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

strong and weak

Ed Poor wrote: "You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it." Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?

Interesting point. I think that in the opinion of strong atheists, the allegation that theological language contains no meaning is positive evidence for disbelief. It's stronger than saying, "You are making a meaningful claim but there's no evidence to support it;" it's saying, "You're not even making a meaningful claim at all."

As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again.

I'd greatly appreciate some help in figuring out what is not understandable. I ran it by my girlfriend first, and she helped a lot, but I honestly can't see what's unclear in order to fix it ... Ungtss 12:03, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Reword and Grammar

I hope no one minds - but for consistency I've removed the french spacing in the article, and I've also reworded the intro a bit for accuracy based off a few links I got from dictionary.com--IDuan 17:39, 4 December 2007 (EST)

What do you mean by "french spacing"? Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 5 December 2007 (EST)