(October 6, 2008 at 12:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Me tooand by the way Dawkins in the God delusion does state what you said Ace....
But basically what I'm saying I don't like the definiton that Gnostic Strong Atheism which 'knows' there are no Gods or atleast 'knows' some of them don't exist....
Because I think that is in fact weaker than your atheism and my atheism....I think de-facto atheism leaning towards gnostic atheism but never reaching it is much stronger than that.
So what I mean is if you and me are strong atheists...that IS strong...but the definition of a Gnostic strong atheist in 'important information for theists' on this site.....is weaker than our less gnostic atheism....so why is that definition called strong and ours called weak?
Totaly agree.
"so why is that definition called strong and ours called weak?"
Not really sure about that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
