Talk:Strong atheism

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is heady stuff, way above the usual level of our typical articles. Can you make a gentle introduction to this, for the benefit of those having a junior-high or high-school reading level? --Ed Poor Talk 21:02, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

The relevant guideline is here. Philip J. Rayment 23:20, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Been a while since high school ... how'd I do? Ungtss 09:30, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Looks good to me, but then I'm not a good judge either (it's far longer since I've been to school!). Ed? Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, this article is simply confusing. It gives an example of strong atheism which fits the definition of weak atheism.

"You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."

Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?

As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again. --Ed Poor Talk 23:24, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

In general at least, I didn't find the article confusing at all. What parts don't you understand? Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Philip, Order messaged me saying Conservative was reverting and threatening blocks for something you, he and some other user hammered out on the talk page. I was on the phone with him, and asked him to help defuse the situation...perhaps he became confused, I don't know. But it was pretty clear to me as well, and I have reverted Ed's deletion, pending his further consideration of it, as I am partially to blame, perhaps in not making clear to him what was going on. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 03:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Order would have been talking about the discussion under Uncited Garbage and "Garbage" on the Atheism talk page. Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Contents

strong and weak

Ed Poor wrote: "You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it." Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?

Interesting point. I think that in the opinion of strong atheists, the allegation that theological language contains no meaning is positive evidence for disbelief. It's stronger than saying, "You are making a meaningful claim but there's no evidence to support it;" it's saying, "You're not even making a meaningful claim at all."

As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again.

I'd greatly appreciate some help in figuring out what is not understandable. I ran it by my girlfriend first, and she helped a lot, but I honestly can't see what's unclear in order to fix it ... Ungtss 12:03, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Reword and Grammar

I hope no one minds - but for consistency I've removed the french spacing in the article, and I've also reworded the intro a bit for accuracy based off a few links I got from dictionary.com--IDuan 17:39, 4 December 2007 (EST)

What do you mean by "french spacing"? Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Children's Beliefs

I think the segment about "children repeating what their parents tell them" is, at best, poorly worded. I would posit that one's belief in a statement which they do not comprehend is, at best, weak and un-tenable, though, as the article states, it is far from a proof that the stated belief is false. A parallel can be drawn to liberal deceit in public schools; children may be indoctrinated into a system of false, liberal beliefs, based on what they've heard from their teachers. While their belief is not going to be absolutely false all of the time, the belief is, at best, misguided, as their belief is effectively based on hearsay, rather than logic and evidence. A person who grows up "believing" in the power of Jesus Christ to save, based only on the observed belief of their parents, does not have a true personal, powerful relationship with Christ, because they never really "chose" to enter into a relationship with Him. Rather, they simply accept that what they are told about His power, which leads to lazy Christianity. This is related to the "appeal to authority" fallacy, in that the words of some other entity are taken as valid, simply because of their position. If a five year-old is walking down the street and a wise-looking person says "Grapes will save your life because they are magical," and the child eats a healthy amount of grapes for the rest of their life, the belief in the magic power of grapes did not protect the child, even though the anti-oxidant properties of grapes may have prevented some harm. Unfortunately, religious beliefs, such as the acceptance of Christ as savior, do not work quite this way. Simply believing that "Jesus Saves" because someone said so will not save one's soul. One has to come to this belief themselves for it to be worthwhile.

Basically, I want to edit that part, but I wanted to post here first. JakeW

Oxymoron

I removed the second sentence which asserted that the phrase "strong atheism" was an oxymoron because there was plenty of evidence that God existed. That assertion does not make sense. There may well be plenty of evidence but that does not make the phrase an oxymoron. In order to be an oxymoron a word or phrase must contain apparent internal contradiction. --JarradD 20:41, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools