Strong atheism - Revision history

MacTavish: /* Strong atheism is the position taken by leading encyclopedias of philosophy */

2023-02-19T23:11:16Z

Strong atheism is the position taken by leading encyclopedias of philosophy

United States: rewording!

2020-12-04T21:12:41Z

rewording!

Conservative at 16:13, August 14, 2019

2019-08-14T16:13:25Z

Conservative: /* Semantic apologetics */

2019-08-14T16:12:15Z

Semantic apologetics

Conservative: /* Criticism */

2019-08-10T20:18:57Z

Criticism

DavidB4-bot: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.icr.org → https://www.icr.org, http://creation.com → https://creation.com

2019-04-09T22:05:46Z

HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.icr.org → https://www.icr.org, http://creation.com → https://creation.com

Conservative at 04:54, March 2, 2017

2017-03-02T04:54:33Z

Conservative: /* See also */

2016-09-20T15:19:34Z

DavidB4-bot: /* References */clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T19:49:12Z

References: clean up & uniformity

DavidB4-bot: /* Incoherency apologetics */Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup, typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore,

2016-06-29T16:30:06Z

Incoherency apologetics: Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup, typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore,

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 == Strong atheism is the position taken by leading encyclopedias of philosophy ==
-Atheism, as defined by the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>Multiple references:
+Atheism, as defined by the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial that [[God]] exists.<ref>Multiple references:
 *Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism "Atheism and agnosticism"]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
 *[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism "{{sc|atheism}}"] (n.d.). ''Merriam-Webster Dictionary'' [online]. "Definition of {{sc|atheism}} '''1 a''': a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods '''b''': a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [example sentences omitted] Origin and Etymology of {{sc|atheism}} Middle French ''athéisme'', from ''athée'' atheist, from Greek ''atheos'' godless, from ''a-'' + ''theos'' god"; [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god "{{sc|god}}"] (n.d.). ''Merriam-Webster Dictionary'' [online]. "Definition of {{sc|god}} '''1''' ''capitalized'': the supreme or ultimate reality: such as '''a''': the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" [definitions 2 and 3 omitted.] Retrieved on April 22, 2018.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, December 4, 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg\|right\|200px\|thumb\|[[Joseph Stalin]] was a [[militant atheism\|militant atheist]] who ~~maintained that God did not exist~~.<ref>[https://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Stalin's brutal faith] by Paul G. Humber, M.S.</ref>]]	+	[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg\|right\|200px\|thumb\|[[Joseph Stalin]] was a [[militant atheism\|militant atheist]] who oppressed non-atheists.<ref>[https://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Stalin's brutal faith] by Paul G. Humber, M.S.</ref>]]
	'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive [[atheism]]" by its adherents), is a type of [[atheism]] that asserts the absolute doctrine that there are no gods. It is different from [[Weak Atheism\|weak atheism]], in which the atheist claims only that there is insufficient evidence that any god exists.		'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive [[atheism]]" by its adherents), is a type of [[atheism]] that asserts the absolute doctrine that there are no gods. It is different from [[Weak Atheism\|weak atheism]], in which the atheist claims only that there is insufficient evidence that any god exists.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 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;
-* '''Incoherency apologetics''': Arguing that religious concepts are self-contradictory, and therefore cannot possibly be true;
+* '''Incoherency apologetics''': Arguing that religious concepts are self-contradictory, and therefore cannot possibly be true (see also: [[Atheism and incoherency]]);
 * '''[[Materialist]] apologetics''': Arguing that because religion contradicts science, science must reject religion;

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 * '''Incoherency apologetics''': Arguing that religious concepts are self-contradictory, and therefore cannot possibly be true;
 * '''[[Materialist]] apologetics''': Arguing that because religion contradicts science, science must reject religion;
 == Semantic apologetics ==

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 == Criticism ==
-''See also:'' [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]
+''See also:'' [[Atheism, dogmatism and strong atheism]] and [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]
 [[Inductive reasoning]] does not lead to atheism as there is no proof and evidence that God does not exist (see also: [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]). On the other hand, even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[https://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and critical thinking]]
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 Jacques Maritain wrote:
 :"By positive atheism I mean an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God -- that is to say, anti-theism rather than [[atheism]] -- and at the same time a desperate, I would say heroic, effort to recast and reconstruct the whole human universe of thought and the whole human scale of values according to that state of war against God. Such positive atheism was the tragic, solitary [[atheism]] of Nietzsche; such is today the academic, fashionable atheism of existentialism; such is the revolutionary atheism of dialectical materialism. The latter is of special interest to us, because it has succeeded in getting a considerable number of men to accept wholeheartedly this new kind of faith, and to give themselves sincerely and unquestionably to it."<ref>Jacques Maritain, ''On the Meaning of Contemporary [[Atheism]]'', The Review of Politics, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 267-280, July, 1949.</ref>
 ==See also==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] was a [[militant atheism|militant atheist]] who maintained that God did not exist.<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Stalin's brutal faith] by  Paul G. Humber, M.S.</ref>]]
+[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] was a [[militant atheism|militant atheist]] who maintained that God did not exist.<ref>[https://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Stalin's brutal faith] by  Paul G. Humber, M.S.</ref>]]
 '''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive [[atheism]]" by its adherents), is a type of [[atheism]] that asserts the absolute doctrine that there are no gods. It is different from [[Weak Atheism|weak atheism]], in which the atheist claims only that there is insufficient evidence that any god exists.
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 ''See also:'' [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]
-[[Inductive reasoning]] does not lead to atheism as there is no proof and evidence that God does not exist (see also: [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]). On the other hand, even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and critical thinking]]
+[[Inductive reasoning]] does not lead to atheism as there is no proof and evidence that God does not exist (see also: [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]). On the other hand, even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[https://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and critical thinking]]
 In addition, there are many compelling arguments for the existence of God and the veracity of Christianity (see: [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]] and [[Arguments for the existence of God]] and [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]]).

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Semantic apologetics supports strong atheism by criticizing the words employed to describe God as "meaningless".
-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."
+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:

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 *[[Implicit and explicit atheism]]
 *[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
 *[[Atheist factions]]
 *[[Atheism]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, July 13, 2016
Line 68:		Line 68:

	==References ==		==References ==
−	~~<small><references/></small>~~	+	{{Reflist}}

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Incoherency apologetics claims that the concepts and attributes surrounding theism are logically incoherent and/or contradictory.
-The most common brand of incoherency apologetics is the [[problem of evil]]. The argument states that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there should be no evil in the world, because God knows of the evil, could stop it, and would want to. Therefore either God does not have one or more of the alleged attributes, or does not exist at all. Either way, the God does not exist as believed.
+The most common brand of incoherency apologetics is the [[problem of evil]]. The argument states that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there should be no evil in the world, because God knows of the evil, could stop it, and would want to. Therefore, either God does not have one or more of the alleged attributes, or does not exist at all. Either way, the God does not exist as believed.
 There are two theistic responses to this argument: [[theodicy]] and [[open theism]]. Theodicy is the effort to reconcile the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence with the existence of evil in the world. For example, the idea that what we perceive as evil is actually part of God's greater plan that we just don't understand. Open theism is the belief that while God exists, he is not omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnibenevolent.