Changes

{{uncited2}}

{{uncited2}}

'''Strong atheism''' is the position that there is no [[God]] or [[other gods]], and that there is persuasive reason and/or evidence to support this conclusion.  It stands in contrast to [[weak atheism]].

'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes referred to as "positive atheism") is the position that there is no [[God]] or [[other gods]], and that there is persuasive reason and/or evidence to support this conclusion.  It stands in contrast to [[weak atheism]].

Arguments for strong atheism can be divided into the following categories:

Arguments for strong atheism can be divided into the following categories:

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 then some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way."  George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3.

:"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 mean, then you are unjustified in believing 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 another example, strong atheist Michael Martin wrote:

For another example, strong atheist Michael Martin wrote:

:"Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false."  Michael Martin, ''The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God'', New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist, Autumn 1996.

:"Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false."  <ref>Michael Martin, ''The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God'', New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist, Autumn 1996.</ref>

A theist could respond by challenging his assumption that miracles must be seen as ''violations'' of the laws of nature.  A theist might just as easily see them as ''interactions within'' the laws of nature.  Just as a human's ability to drive a car may appear miraculous to a monkey, God's ability to cause virgin births may appear miraculous to a human.  Yet in neither case was there necessarily a ''violation'' of the laws of nature.  Perhaps God simply understands the laws to such a degree that he is able to manipulate them in ways we cannot grasp.  Our knowledge of the laws of nature is far too limited for us to make the bold claim that events in the universe that defy our explanation are violations of the laws of nature.  If they occur, they are best understood as reflecting laws of nature we do not yet understand.  It would be the duty of science, then, not to exclude these miraculous events as impossible, but rather to acknowledge their occurrence, and seek to understand them.

A theist could respond by challenging his assumption that miracles must be seen as ''violations'' of the laws of nature.  A theist might just as easily see them as ''interactions within'' the laws of nature.  Just as a human's ability to drive a car may appear miraculous to a monkey, God's ability to cause virgin births may appear miraculous to a human.  Yet in neither case was there necessarily a ''violation'' of the laws of nature.  Perhaps God simply understands the laws to such a degree that he is able to manipulate them in ways we cannot grasp.  Our knowledge of the laws of nature is far too limited for us to make the bold claim that events in the universe that defy our explanation are violations of the laws of nature.  If they occur, they are best understood as reflecting laws of nature we do not yet understand.  It would be the duty of science, then, not to exclude these miraculous events as impossible, but rather to acknowledge their occurrence, and seek to understand them.