Strong atheism

From Religions Wiki

Strong atheism is the positive belief that no god exists.

Arguments for strong atheism[edit]

It is often said that one cannot prove a negative. However, this is incorrect, as whether one can prove a negative is dependent on what "type" of truth they are considering: contingent or necessary. A contingent truth is one whose validity is contingent on facts being true. Scientific truth, or as with the philosophy of David Hume, any truth about the natural world, falls in this category. A necessary truth is one whose truth is necessarily true, via typically the definitions and properties of concepts we ourselves define. For example, a "red apple" is necessarily red.

Logical contradiction[edit]

A strong atheist would argue that the idea of a god is logically contradictory and therefore cannot exist as most theists define the word. The Christian god is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent, aware being which created and was responsible for the universe. The problem of evil is one example of a logical impossibility that comes from believing that the god is also omnibenevolent, this can be avoided by relaxing the requirements on God's qualities. Here, the strong atheist will generally argue from two positions:

  • Any weak God is not worth worship, or does matter
  • Some other argument against them

Argument by absurdity[edit]

Since its inception, science has followed an empirical method, a combination of theory and observation. We construct our understanding by working from the simple to the complex. We understand atoms in terms of elementary particles and their forces, such as quarks, leptons, gluons, and photons. We understand molecules and chemistry in terms of atoms and their interactions. We understand biology in terms of the underlying chemistry and its emergent properties. We understand intelligence in terms of the complex interactions of the underlying neurological or electronic substrate.

Of all the things we know of in the universe, the most complex is intelligence. To posit an intelligence as the creator and driving force of everything else makes no sense, since it would itself require explanation in terms of simpler underlying entities. It makes no more sense than 2 + 2 = 5. It is not incumbent upon a reasonable, fair, open-minded person to remain agnostic on that point.

Argument by disagreement[edit]

If there were in fact a deity delivering the divinely inspired word of the one true religion to the human race then it would be expected that all religions would converge on the same answers, yet that is not what we see. There are so many different religions with vastly different beliefs that one should question whether there really is an intelligence behind it all. Since religions diverge rather than converge, this should count as evidence against the proposition of a Theistic deity.

Argument by modus tollens[edit]

The strong atheist begins the argument by first asking a simple question: "if I were to claim, exactly 2 days ago, when nobody was looking, I jumped 400 m, would you believe me?" The point of this question is to necessitate this line of reasoning:

  1. We have good reason to believe X, but no good reason to believe ~X (the negation of X). (Premise 1)
  2. Y implies ~X. (Premise 2)
  3. Thus, we have good reason to believe ~Y prima facie.

The last line follows from applying modus tollens (the contrapositive) to Premise 2: Premise 2 is equivalent to stating X implies ~Y. An example of this would be the 400 meter jumping example:

  1. We have good reason to believe humans cannot jump 400 meters (X), and no good reason to think otherwise (~X).
  2. The strong atheist jumping 400 ft would imply humans can jump 400 ft (~X).
  3. Hence we have good reason to actively believe the strong atheist did not jump 400 ft prima facie.

This line of argumentation is useful for two reasons: it allows the strong atheist to reject miracle Gods (or really any God worthy of worship, in their opinion), and the stronger strong atheists also to reject any such supernatural force:

  1. Something is supernatural if it violates natural laws (above the natural). (Premise 1)
  2. The universe follows the same laws (natural laws) everywhere at any point in spacetime (X). (Premise 2)
  3. Hence we have good reason to reject supernatural beings (the existence of the supernatural, Y, implies ~X).

This allows us to reject omnipresent beings as patently absurd in the same way we can reject an invisible elephant being in a room as absurd.

Arguments against strong atheism[edit]

See arguments for weak atheism.


v · d Atheism
Terminology   Etymology of the word atheist · Weak atheism · Strong atheism · Agnosticism · Atheist vs. agnostic · Tenets and dogma
Contemporary literature   The End of Faith · The God Delusion · God: The Failed Hypothesis · Letter to a Christian Nation · God Is Not Great · Irreligion · 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God
Classic literature   Why I Am Not a Christian
Atheist and secular groups   Atheist groups · Secular charities · How American Non-Atheists view Atheists
Contemporary authors   Richard Dawkins · Daniel Dennett · A. C. Grayling · Sam Harris · Guy P. Harrison · John Allen Paulos · James Randi · Victor Stenger
Internet non-believers   Reginald Vaughn Finley · PZ Myers
Writers and philosophers   David Hume · Robert Ingersoll · Friedrich Nietzsche · Bertrand Russell · Carl Sagan · Voltaire · Jean-Paul Sartre · John Stuart Mill · Karl Marx · Heraclitus