Bible not from god?

[DannyM]

Whatever you want to think of it, just curious. I see your point about the "agnostic atheists" and was curious if you felt the same about Dawkins list and the views of other atheists that believe there are "Strong" and "weak" Atheists.

I think instead of Dawkins’ style of giving opinion and pseudo statistics, it would be simpler to say there are atheists who disbelieve in God and assert they will always disbelieve in God and there are atheists who disbelieve in God but say that evidence might come some day to cause them to rethink their belief. If you want to call one strong and the other weak then that seems quite plausible given the above. But the fact remains that in both cases the people are atheists. Unfortunately the definition for atheism doesn’t delve into these semantics. And if it did it would not alter the fact that the ‘strong’ atheists and the ‘weak’ atheists are still atheist. Nothing has weakened the definition of atheism. The definition of atheism remains the definition of atheism no matter who tries to gerrymander its meaning. That's what I think then.

[PaulSacramento]

I see, understood and agree with you.

[DannyM]

I see, understood and agree with you.

Always good to have agreement with a fellow Christian

[Murray]

I see, understood and agree with you.

[SnowDrops]

What a load of garbage. Dawkins. Wikipedia. Strong. Weak.

Unbelievable.

Oh. That would be funny if it was a joke. I thought it was.
Outside of the context though I would agree.