Changes

'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive [[atheism]]"), an type of [[atheism]], is the absolute doctrine that almighty [[God]] does not exist.<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm</ref> It is different from [[Weak Atheism|weak atheism]], in which the atheist claims only that evidence against the existence of God is stronger than evidence for His existence.

'''Strong atheism''' (sometimes called "positive [[atheism]]"), an type of [[atheism]], is the absolute doctrine that [[God]] does not exist.<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm</ref> It is different from [[Weak Atheism|weak atheism]], in which the atheist claims only that evidence against the existence of God is stronger than evidence for His existence.

Strong atheists use three types of arguments:

Strong atheists use three types of arguments:

== Semantic apologetics ==

== Semantic apologetics ==

Semantic apologetics supports strong atheism by criticizing the words employed to describe god as "meaningless". This is a technique utilised by almost all strong atheists.

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 are an idiot; 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:

As strong [[atheist]] George Smith wrote:

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 example, [[atheists]] cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was, unless they are highly educated in theoretical physics. They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point. They speculate about what it might have been like. But they vainly 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 necessarily 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 necessarily 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, like a little child, he does so based on his [[faith]] that the statement is true, based on the infallible credibility of his source. In other words, if god in all His righteous 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.

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.

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.