Just because I don't agree with you does not make me confused.
True enough. I totally agree with this. However, in this case, I think you are confused about the topic. I think that explains your awkward definitions, your overall argument, and your inconsistency now at the very end (with regard to agreeing with jetson, but with weird restrictions).
No it did not make a difference because you are comparing a dress to atheism and I consider that a terrible analogy. Not confused about that. I firmly think it's a terrible analogy.
That would be a terrible analogy! I'm not comparing, but modifying the concept of a dress with the color blue.
Is it your position that strong atheism is completely different than atheism? Somewhat different?
What does complicate mean albeto? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/complicate
to make something more difficult to deal with or do
The OP asked velkyn why she uses the term "strong" with regard to atheism. No one suggested and no one is supporting using qualifiers like weak or strong, gnostic or agnostic every time the topic of atheism comes up. That's simply not happening here, and your continued rally against such a thing is interesting to me. Sometimes complex topics require more complex words, and qualifiers to those complex words. There's nothing wrong with using vocabulary to suit the conversation, even if that vocabulary becomes complex or detailed. This thread appears to be the exact scenario in which jetson and you agree that using qualifiers like strong would be valid. Why it has become your mission to censor the word strong from conversations with theists is confusing to me, especially as you've recently stated you would support just such a thing at a time such as this.
Why do you ignore the term anti-theism?
Please read my reply again. I didn't ignore it. I answered with a full paragraph. It was in reply to your #4.
You're not saying Yahweh/El/Allah/Zeus/Thor does not exist but ''any'' possible concept of a god within a universe where only 2% of it is known if that much.
You'll have to complete this sentence before I know what you're saying or asking.
Why would I disagree with the color of your dress? I bet you look hot in it though.
The point was in showing the qualifier doesn't change the essence of the thing it qualifies. Strong does not change atheism any more than blue changes dress. This particular example refers to some dress that went viral online last year, some saw it as blue with black trim, some saw it as white with gold. It became the topic of so many conversations, the mainstream media even picked up on it and tried to explain the phenomena [dress
You failed to mention in my response to Jetson that I think it's only useful in conversation with other atheist. Why? I did not say I agree with you I said; ''thank you for agreeing with me''. You're silly. Please go back and read the response again it might help you understand it better.
So the term strong is okay to use in your opinion only insofar as atheists only use it? Is that your position?
Would you like me to start my own thread? None has left. I'm going to. Look for How Atheist Shift the Burden of Proof. I'll post it in Chatter. I'm mostly doing it out of respect for velkyn. She shouldn't have been singled out. I honestly wish I had done this much sooner.
I think that would be good for you. I get the impression you're not sure just how to apply that concept to a logical argument. You throw this term and "moving the goal posts" around quite a bit, but I notice that only happens when a direct answer to a particular question is avoided. I suspect it's because that question is confusing to you, and so you assume the other person is throwing you off intentionally. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting from this and other conversations with you.