greeney2 wrote:Yes it clears it up, and I went back and looked at your link. It states what I concluded, neither strong or weak has proof,
Nope...that's not what it says. This is what it says:
Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism.
The proof is that modern human remains have been found to be around 50,000 years old. The Bible states that humans began with Adam & Eve 6,000 years ago. If the Bible is blatantly false about the beginning of "God's" creation of humans, it completely invalidates the rest of the alleged divinely inspired text.
Remember..."God" is supposed to be communicating with the Biblical authors, telling them what to write down. How can an "all-knowing/all-powerful" being goof up something so simple?...which is supposed to be the most important event for mankind?
that the "Biblical God" does not exist.
greeney2 wrote:the strong atheist has basically additonal assertions, and it even states in your link what I said, that all atheists are weak atheists.
Yes, it does say that, but it also says this:
Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods.
greeney2 wrote:The idea of strong or weak would mean something if you were an atheist, but to a believer, its a moot point, it doesn't matter to someone who believes in one God.
That's your prerogative. But this is what it states:
So is there any value at all in the terms? Yes -- which label a person uses will tell you something about their general inclination when it comes to debates about gods.
greeney2 wrote:Whatever you terms "absolute knowledge" and "solid proof" means to your logic, who knows.
It means exactly what the dictionary says the words mean.