I'm gonna say that people that believe in evolution can still believe in God. I will not refute that.
so if you dont believe in unicorns, its hypocritical to make fun of people who do. because not believing in unicorns is a belief too. right?
You're still so confused about the difference between: a) The theory or belief that God does not exist. and b) one who is not committed to believing in the existence God One is atheism, one is agnostic. Why is this simple logic so difficult to follow?
Right because the thread was right on track from the beginning. Sorry to interrupt the bashing of those "nutjobs" that have faith or beliefs. Carry on.
You're also having trouble with basic logic. Take it up with Merriam and Webster. It comes across so silly arguing that you're right when the definition says you're wrong. Your whole argument of "strong" and "weak" is just a flaming bag, lacking logic. Somebody has a "strong" apathy in the existence of God? Or a "weak" indifference?
i believe in unicorns, those uni-horned beasts have unique horns. are there any nutjobbers out there that dont believe in unicorns?
You are free to use "negative" and "positive" atheism, if you don't like the words strong and weak. Regardless, they are both valid and well-understood, and neither one of them implies apathy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
M&W online happens to have both modern definitions with the more general listed first http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&t=1327644041 also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism in any case i'm not concerned with what webster or wiki says about definitions. what's concerning is you are going out of your way to use an unnecessarily strict definition of atheism, not subscribed to by atheists themselves, in order to enable your straw man of atheism being a belief system. also FWIW in terms of strict semantics you're using an incorrect definition of agnosticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism so someone who is indifferent or simply undecided is technically not an agnostic.
You mean wiki links that have been written by people who want to have the meaning of words changed so that it fits what they want to call themselves? You saying you're an atheist because you are indifferent about the belief in a God is like a Christian saying he doesn't believe in God or Jesus. It just doesn't make sense, except to the "nutjob" that wants an added meaning to a previously defined word and set of beliefs. Regardless, I'm with crazy Unicorn-guy. They're pretty cool.
i'm certainly not indifferent. i think the existence of god as conceptualized by most humans is highly improbable. but that doesn't mean i should be lumped with people who believe there is no possibility any god exists. that doesn't describe what i think. the trouble is people have an entire spectrum of views about the probability of any particular definition of god you specify, and locking the definitions of atheism and theism to those with absolute belief and calling everyone else an agnostic doesn't usefully describe the situation. in practice very few people who lack belief in god would claim it is a fact that no possible god exists (maybe maris). most people who lack belief in god do so because they think there is no evidence for god, or because they reject the evidence presented by theists. there is no biased systematic belief or faith involved in that. i don't recall what was said in the rest of the thread, but the nutjob comment in the OP doesn't refer to christians. it refers specifically to people who believe the earth is young, and it would be used regardless of what motivated that belief. however you define it there is no parallel whatsoever between atheism and the outright rejection of blatantly obvious empirical truth.
