It is never Ok, OP/ED

[wiploc]

Yeah, that first definition is terrible.

That definition has to be in any dictionary. It may be losing ground, but it is still the most common usage.

The second one is either misleading or redundant depending on how you interpret it.

I don't mind a little redundancy for clarity's sake. If we interpret it as redundant, it says, "Atheism is disbelieving---that is to say not believing---in gods." I don't see that as objectionable.

If we use the other interpretation, then the definition says, "Atheism includes both strong atheism (disbelieving in gods) and weak atheism (merely not believing in gods). Again, I don't see how that can be objectionable.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I guess you're right. If it covers more bases, that's not a bad thing.

It's such a subtle concept that the slightest change in wording makes all the difference. You get someone with no idea with a hammer and chisel and it won't be pretty.

[wiploc]

You get someone with no idea with a hammer and chisel and it won't be pretty.

I always have fun with it. If they say an atheist, per whichever dictionary they cite, has to deny or disbelieve, then then I look up "deny" and "disbelieve" in that same dictionary. I've never had that work out well for the other side.

[Spooky]

Most people don't really understand violence. So when they say "militant" or any variation, they should probably be ignored. Sorry for your headache op.

[jesus_wept]