TheERK said:
That's your opinion. The distinction is necessary if you're having an intelligent conversation about atheism, which this thread is supposed to be about.
Indeed it is and I'm entitled to it. You expect an intelligent conversation with a thread title like that? No don't answer, it's a
strongly rhetorical question.
TheERK said:
You're ignorantly claiming that a philosophical distinction is stupid, when in fact, this is a forum for the discussion of religion and philosophy. Any philosopher knows that clear definitions of terms is essential to a coherent philosophical conversation.
More fluff,
ignorantly claiming? You're just trying to enforce your point by adding ignorantly and it doesn't garner you any respect and it does not help you make your point, probably you like the smug feeling. Obviously I have an issue with the "definitions of terms", precisely the point of my first post in this thread.
TheERK said:
Also, I'm not one to point out basic spelling mistakes but saying "your the fool" is quite ironic.
Wow. But you are one. Just a single spelling mistake on the forum of dyslexics and you take issue with it. Get a life.
TheERK said:
Don't be ridiculous and don't try to turn that on me. I pointed out that you made a mistake in your outright dismissal of an adjective. Instead of pretending I claimed infallibility like a child, you could instead be mature and justify your original position.
Don't try, after it's already been done? I can dismiss it, like with your use of the word ignorantly, it does not add to the argument. As I mentioned above it's all a matter of perception. I've already stated the reasons for my view.
TheERK said:
First of all, the definition you quoted is simply wrong.
Here we go again
Simply wrong? What about
strenuously wrong?
Vehemently wrong?
Ignorantly wrong?
Abundantly wrong?
Strongly wrong?
Weakly wrong?
Intricately wrong? And my favourite,
wrongly wrong?
TheERK said:
This has been discussed multiple times on the forums before--perhaps if you actually knew about the distinction between strong and weak atheism (or, positive/negative), you'd realize that this dictionary definition only describes strong atheism. In reality, most atheists are of the weak variety.
The subject has been "done to the death" around here. I know all about the distinction between "strong" and "weak", what it makes me realise is it's pointless, which is my opinion and perception and I can state it all I want regardless of your position on the issue.
TheERK said:
Also, if you're unsure, you're probably still an atheist. But hey, I suppose I can't expect you to actually educate yourself about the subject at hand before posting. And I can tell you really don't have a clue based on your above usage of "strong" and "weak"--it's not about how "strongly or weakly" you feel about it.
Also, if you're unsure you're probably not an atheist! But hey, I suppose I can't expect you to actually read and comprehend someone elses point of view. And I can tell that you really don't have a clue, it is how "strongly" or "weakly" you feel about it. Otherwise a "strong" atheist doesn't actually feel "strongly" about it and could therefore easily become a "weak" theist(?) (Yes, I did follow your wording somewhat just to annoy you
)
So confident of your point you couldn't fathom how this could go on and on and on. I hope I can keep you posting here every day until Xmas