God has manifest Him self in everyone, some people choose to beleive and some don’t.

Do you every stop to wonder how all this came about, are you one of those who beleive that things just happen and there is nothing behind our creation.

My friend there is a creator, things didn’t just happen, there is someone behind all of this. I rather live and beleive that there is a God, than die, then find out that there is.

If you don’t beleive in God you better make sure that you are right because if you are not ,then you better be ready to feel the wrath of God

it will reveal to you sooner are later

Jesus christ is real, He’s not dead He’s still alive.

Peace be with you
God bless you all.

Did you ever hear the story about about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?

He stayed up all night when he couldn’t sleep contemplating the existence of DOG!

Nothing can be and not be at the same time in the same respect

which is a tried and tested philosophy (I don’t think it’s be disproved), would you not by “rejecting” this truth claim as false be affirming the opposite: “Flying Spaghetti Monsters do not exist”?
Would you not instead have to reject the presupposition that truth claims can even be made?

McCarthy-era anti-communist

That could definitely be a cause for it.

Of course - I would guess almost exclusively because of the McCarthy-era anti-communist (and by extension anti-atheist) propaganda. And probably why there’s a such a difference either side of the pond.

“Strong” and “Weak” were introduced for the sake of clarity in the 90s (previously “positive” and “negative”, respectively), but that doesn’t mean that before that it only meant “Strong Atheism”.

Indeed, some philosophers deny that “strong” atheists even exist. G. W. Foote, an atheist, challenged a critic to refer him to a strong atheist (i.e., somebody who denied the existence of god).

In philosophy, especially the older stuff, there is a lot of usage which indicates the author was simply not believing in god.

But since the 60’s, from the time I was around, most folks I know used the word to refer to people who denied the existence of god.

There I completely agree.

See, and who says that nobody can reach an agreement on the Internet?

I think perhaps we can both agree that if we’re arguing over meanings of words (when it sounds like our beliefs are very similar, if not identical), then the words are the problem.

Precisely, the words here have lost their usefulness due to meaning pollution.

That is the point I set out to make, but feel I may have not done so effectively.

Anyhow, we do seem to be in agreement.

I think I may not be communicating as effectively as I had hoped.

There is a huge difference, in my opinion. Sure, effectively neither believe in a god. But how they reached that position is vastly different.

One reached the position by choice. The other is “atheist” by sheer virtue of not knowing of the question of god’s existence.

Let’s draw some analogies.

Bob is against the war in Iraq. He’s a pacifist. His two year old is also not for the war in Iraq, by virtue of he doesn’t know what war is, and doesn’t know what Iraq is.

If we allowed pacifists to redefine “pacifism” to be “anybody who is not pro-war”, then it would include one hell of a lot of people.

It would render the word “pacifism” meaningless, and it makes a mockery of a concept that we hold dear - an individual’s right to make a decision and define oneself.

If somebody wants to self identify as an atheist, fine. I’m all for it. But expanding the meaning to include people who have not made any decision on the matter and have not self-identified with it, is hardly fair.