In a deposition submitted under oath, Bob Eyer said:
 BE> And all of my Holysmoke critics maintained that Atheism referred
 BE> simply to the lack of any belief in the existence of gods.
 BE> Rice was one of those critics.
 BE> The Holysmoke theory of atheism, in fact, is the thing which
 BE> permits them to argue that we are all born atheists.  (Obviously,
 BE> newborns don't have any beliefs; a fortiori, they don't have any
 BE> belief in the existence of gods.)
    Then my observations about Rice, et al, are proved correct.  He is
 confused.  What he calls atheism is really agnosticism.  All babies are
 born without knowledge of God, and that is agnosticism, not atheism.
 BE> This, I believe, is the whole trick to understanding what has been
 BE> going on over there in Holysmoke.
    And no one here gives a flying f*ck what goes on over in Holypoke.
 BE> however, is that you will experience GREAT DIFFICULTY convincing
 BE> Rice, or any of the other regulars in Holysmoke, on that point.
    But we're not *in* Holystroke, we're in Philosophy.  Rice and his
 Merry Yes-Men experience great difficulty doing anything other than
 making asses out of themselves with their adolescent name calling and
 paradoxical fundamentalist approach to anti-fundamentalism /
 anti-Christian crap.
... Stultum facit Fortuna quem vult perdere.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------