[PatrickHenry]

Your dictionary definitions are not quite adequate. There are at least two different flavors of atheism:

1. Strong atheism: Certainty that no gods exist.
2. Weak atheism: Provisional lack of belief in gods, due to a perceived lack of evidence or persuasive argument.

I think you assume that all atheists are type 1. I belive most are type 2, and could be persuaded to believe if they were presented with sufficient reasons to believe.

[bluejay]

Your dictionary definitions are not quite adequate.

These are not my dictionary definitions. These are quoted verbatim from Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm).

There are at least two different flavors of atheism:

1. Strong atheism: Certainty that no gods exist.
2. Weak atheism: Provisional lack of belief in gods, due to a perceived lack of evidence or persuasive argument.

I am not sure where you got these definitions. I was unable to find any entry under "strong atheism" or "weak atheism". The commonly accepted terms are "atheist" - which matches your definition for "strong atheism" - and "agnostic" - which matches your definition for "weak atheism".

I think you assume that all atheists are type 1. I belive most are type 2, and could be persuaded to believe if they were presented with sufficient reasons to believe.

I guess what you are saying is most people who define themselves as atheists are actually (using Merriam-Webster's definition of the term) agnostics. I am glad to hear this. Personally, I think that agnosticism (or, if you prefer, "weak atheism") is a much more intellectually defensible position then atheism ("strong atheism").