Hey STEVE!

Aug 23 00:42 04, STEVE KEMP wrote to MAURICE KINAL:

 MK>> DR> "Agnostic" means "gutless atheist."

 MK>>Maybe in your world.  In my world it is a more honest approach to
 MK>>spiritual matters.

 SK> Sorry, Dave is right. ;)

Sorry, now you're both wrong.  ;-)

 SK> I'm a STRONG atheist because I doubt to the utmost that an invisible 
 SK> Barney doesn't circle Uranus while controlling all things and having 
 SK> been the creator thereof.

That sounds like a poor reason to call oneself an atheist seeing one would
have problems arguing that anyone honestly believes the above.  If true
then everyone would be STRONG atheists, which they're not btw.

 SK> Know what...all OTHER posited religions have just as much basis as 
 SK> that 
 SK> Barney. NONE!

They have at least a tad more then that.

 SK> TRY TO wrap your mind around THAT and then come back again saying 
 SK> that 
 SK> Strong Atheism isn't logical!

I never said it wasn't logical, I only said they (atheists) have
diddley-squat.  They can no more prove their stance then theists can prove
theirs.  At best they can only cite evidence that refutes certain religious
claims and nothing in the way of whether or not there is a creator of ALL
that is.

 SK> (And don't pull the "one can't prove a negative"...for Christians 
 SK> can't 
 SK> prove their positive! Let's start with the positers.)

I am still waiting for the evidence that proves one way or the other of how
and why ALL that is came to be.  Do you think that is possible or even
probable?

 SK> Atheists have the factual position!

Maybe some.  :-)

 SK> That FACT being that ZERO GODS have been shown to exist!
 SK> So why should anyone believe in any god(s)?

They don't as far as I can tell.  Why?  Do you know better?

 SK> If you wish to believe in fairy tales...go ahead. 
 SK> But don't call a disbeliever in Pinnochio being a real boy an idiot.

As far as I can recall I never did either of the above.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.1