Changes

* '''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;

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

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

== Semantic apologetics ==

== Semantic apologetics ==

Semantic apologetics regarding strong atheism criticize as meaningless the words used to describe God.

Semantic apologetics supports strong atheism by criticizing 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 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."

== Incoherency apologetics ==

== Incoherency apologetics ==

Incoherency apologetics involving strong atheism claim that the concepts and attributes surrounding theism are logically incoherent and/or contradictory.

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.