Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atheists & Agnostics

daaron

(763 posts)

23. Hm. My understanding was -->

Reply to laconicsax (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:39 AM

Jun 2012

that 'strong' VS 'weak' was dependent on the presence or absence of a positive assertion regarding the non-existence of a supernatural deity, rather than any one particular god concept.

Just shows to go ya that even these more common terms aren't globally accepted by atheists... so I guess it's 'good luck' to the article's author getting atheists to go along with 'positive' and 'negative'.

How about 'angry' VS 'appeasing' atheists? Heheh. Surely there's a wedge laying around here somewhere!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No Religion? 7 Types of Non-Believers [View all] Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 OP

I'm most of those things OriginalGeek Jun 2012 #1

I wish I could Like this, it gave me the smile I so greatly needed today.nt amyrose2712 Jun 2012 #10

The software may not count it OriginalGeek Jun 2012 #12

Needless subdivision that is either false or irrelevant dmallind Jun 2012 #2

+1 laconicsax Jun 2012 #3

You know that. I know that... BiggJawn Jun 2012 #4

Yep. Crap article. PassingFair Jun 2012 #8

Well, I never go there. Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 #14

I didn't think you had "motives"! PassingFair Jun 2012 #15

Well, you could say the same thing about Christians to ShadowLiberal Jun 2012 #16

True, but few people think Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists etc are not all Christians dmallind Jun 2012 #26

The need to minimize people into neat, divided catagories lindysalsagal Jun 2012 #5

Well, I thought it was pretty interesting, since I've never examined the nature of my beliefs Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 #6

This article is just silly. For instance, Unitarians run the gamut of beliefs. PassingFair Jun 2012 #9

Insulting or disturbing? Not really. dmallind Jun 2012 #11

A little bit of all... I guess mostly weenie-agnostic-humanist-skeptic. wyldwolf Jun 2012 #7

I’m an atheist. I have frogmarch Jun 2012 #13

God is imaginary. lindysalsagal Jun 2012 #21

Self-identification suffers from lack of verifiability. daaron Jun 2012 #17

Welcome to awake. lindysalsagal Jun 2012 #20

Minor point: laconicsax Jun 2012 #22

Hm. My understanding was --> daaron Jun 2012 #23

That wedge has been tried already. laconicsax Jun 2012 #25

but strong and weak atheism are broader definitions IMO dmallind Jun 2012 #24

All of those religions listed are atheistic too... urgk Jun 2012 #18

I understand the appeal of this thinking, echoed in the article, but I disagree with it dmallind Jun 2012 #19