How to be a strong atheist in a rather straightforward way

[Purple Rabbit]

That the mystical is necessarily mystical.

That there are things we can't literally know one way or anther, so we have faith and belief.

It reminds me of the "god wouldn't make a world so cold" argument. All the cold world, and the assumption of god presupposes is that it is necessary, part of the system. Not that it is impossible, but the we don't know why it is the way it is.

I struggle with why the supernatural can't be fully comprehended, but it doesn't make me discount it's reality as a conclusion. The mystery being mysterious may be a necessity that we don't understand yet...

That's my take on that quote.

My take would be that it is not possible to give sufficient meaning to the word "god" and the sentence "god exists". The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration.

I'll summarize some of the related points I've brought into the discussion here on AF:

1) About the agnostic label I argued to "be aware that you might be claiming something absolute" since agnostic can be interpreted in an absolute manner, i.e. that someone can make an absolute claim of fundamental unknowability about the existence of god. Being agnostic about god (we cannot know) simply does not mean that you have to be skeptic about the possibility of absolute knowledge.

2) There is a difference between possible positions regarding the existence of god(s) and valid positions. There is no Atheist Police around as of yet, and I personally feel no need for such a controlling institute, that prescribes valid use of certified terminology. Arguing that a position is not valid is irrelevant for the possibility of the position being taken.

3) Definitions of agnosticism and atheism abound differ considerably across (even renowned) sources. This makes their interpretation not unambiguous. Referring to original intended meaning of agnosticism by its proposer, Thomas Henry Huxley, does not clear this up, since Huxley was not clear on several points regarding its definition also. Furthermore two persons can both claim agnosticism on different grounds, i.e. there is no conclusive evidence for it and there is and will never be evidence for it.

4) Strong (or if you will gnostic) atheism is not necessarily a logically invalid position even if you are skeptical about human fallibility regarding knowledge or regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge. One can argue (as theological noncognitivists do) that the sentence "god exists" does not express a proposition since the word god has no meaningful attributes and hence that nothing named 'god' exists. The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration.

NB: Indeed some theological noncognitivists argue they are not adhering to some specific brand of atheism or agnosticism but form a league of its own, because atheists and agnostics alike generally regard the sentence "god exists" as a proposition that can be validated and therefore are cognitivistic regarding that sentence.