Changes

'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive atheism") is atheism in which the believer claims he can prove there is no [[God]].  It is different from [[weak atheism]], in which the believer claims only that theists cannot prove there is a God, so the atheist is justified in not believing in God.

'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive atheism") is atheism in which the believer claims he can prove there is no [[God]].  It is different from [[weak atheism]], in which the believer claims only that theists cannot prove their is a God, so the atheist is justified in not believing in God.

Strong atheists use three types of arguments:

Strong atheists use three types of arguments:

* '''Semantic apologetics''': Arguing that religious language is meaningless, and therefore beliefs based on that language are not justified;  

* '''Semantic apologetics''': Arguing that religious language is meaningless, and therefore beliefs based on that language are not justified;  

* '''Incoherency apologetics''': Arguing that religious concepts are contradictory to one another, and therefore must not be true;

* '''Incoherency apologetics''': Arguing that religious concepts are self-contradictory, and therefore cannot possibly be true;

* '''Materialist apologists''': Arguing that because religion contradicts science, it must not be true;

* '''Materialist apologists''': Arguing that because religion contradicts science, science must reject religion;

== Semantic apologetics ==

== Semantic apologetics ==

Semantic apologetics supports strong atheism with arguments that criticize as meaningless the words used to describe God.   

Semantic apologetics supports strong atheism with arguments that criticize as meaningless the words used to describe God.   

For example, a strong atheist might criticize the assertion "God transcends space and time" by asking what exactly the believer means by saying that.  If the believer is unable to explain what he means, the strong atheist might conclude that the phrase "God transcends space and time" holds no real and tangible meaning, and therefore is not true.

For example, a strong atheist might criticize the assertion "God transcends space and time" by asking what exactly the believer means by saying that.  If the believer is unable to explain what he means, the strong atheist would conclude "You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."

As strong atheist George Smith wrote:

As strong atheist George Smith wrote:

:"To say that an ‘unie’ possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature—while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man’s wisdom and that the nature of an ‘unie’ is unknowable—contributes nothing to our understanding of ‘unie’ or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an ‘unie.’ ... To say that God is ‘good’ or ‘wise’ is to say nothing more than some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way."  <ref>George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3.</ref>

:"To say that an ‘unie’ possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature—while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man’s wisdom and that the nature of an ‘unie’ is unknowable—contributes nothing to our understanding of ‘unie’ or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an ‘unie.’ ... To say that God is ‘good’ or ‘wise’ is to say nothing more then some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way."  <ref>George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3.</ref>

A theist might respond to this line of reasoning by challenging as [[non sequitur]] the argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you believe, then you should not believe in it."   

A theist might respond to this line of reasoning by challenging as [[non sequitur]] the argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it."   

For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was.  While there is solid, mathematical and scientific evidence that the Big Bang may have occurred (ex: the constant expansion of the universe), it is nothing more than a vague concept to speculate that the universe may have begun as a single point.  They can speculate about what it might have been like, but they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about.  That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept. Their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not mean that it did not occur.

For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was.  They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point.  They speculate about what it might have been like.  But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about.  That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept. It is simply one that is poorly defined.  But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not mean that it did not occur.

As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean.  That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true.  And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false.  When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his [[faith]] that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source, because humans are always right, and have always been right about the credibility of their sources (ex: George W. Bush was right about there being WMDs in Iraq).  In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it. And, of course, a child's parents have gotten their beliefs directly from God, because God frequently sits down with people and tells them the way things really are.

As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean.  That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true.  And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false.  When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his [[faith]] that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source.  In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it.

Finally, the fact that the believer did not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false, although it may call for more analysis on the part of the believer in order to strengthen his or her argument.

Finally, the fact that the believer did not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false.

Thus, while this argument stands as a warning against casually using language without assigning definite meaning to our words, it certainly does not prove that the God about whom these words are spoken does not exist.

Thus, while this argument stands as a warning against casually using language without assigning definite meaning to our words, it certainly does not prove that the God about whom these words are spoken does not exist.