Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
2,550 bytes added ,  23:11, February 19, 2023
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 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.
    
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 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;
 
* '''[[Materialist]] apologetics''': Arguing that because religion contradicts science, science must reject religion;
 +
 +
== 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 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.
 +
*Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966).
 +
*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. (23 June 2007). [https://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational "Atheism is more rational?"].  See [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Jonathan Sarfati]].
 +
*Day, Donn R. (2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140906135211/http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism - etymology"].
 +
*[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.
 +
</ref>  [[Paul Edwards (philosopher)|Paul Edwards]], who was a prominent atheist and editor of the ''[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', defined an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God."<ref name="CRI">[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html Putting the Atheist on the Defensive] by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.</ref>
    
== Semantic apologetics ==
 
== Semantic apologetics ==
Line 47: Line 58:  
== Criticism ==
 
== 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>[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]]).
 
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 55: Line 66:  
Jacques Maritain wrote:
 
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>
 
:"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==
 
==See also==
  
SkipCaptcha
812

edits

Navigation menu