0n (19 Apr 04) STEVE KEMP wrote to CINDY HAGLUND...

 SK> CH>DR> Agnostics are atheists; atheists are agnostics:
 SK> CH>DR> the two are the same.

 SK> Dave's wrong here.
 SK> I'm an Atheist, I'm NOT an agnostic.

CH> SA>      Not if you are talking about a "strong" atheist.

 SK> 'Zactlys.

CH> Would 'strong' mean 'militant' as opposed to 'leave me alone and
 SK> CH>I'll  leave you alone?"

 SK> No.

 SK> There are "Strong" or POSITIVE atheists
 SK> and there are "Weak" or NEGATIVE atheists.

 Ah. Okay.


 SK> The Positives are...well, POSITIVE that God, Gods and God-things don't
 SK> exist. And this is a VERY hard stance to support.

Okay. One can be positive about something thus strong, yet not necessarily
wanting to push it. Pushing it is what makes them militant or - as
their counterpart- Fundies. I aws thinking 'strong' in terms of push.

 SK> But it CAN be done, IMO.
 SK> And, the impossible of proving a negative isn't the test.
 SK> Knowledge of Man's nature is.

  Yup! And most theists don't want to acknowledge this because if they
  did they'd have to face up to it. this. Better, more fun! to dismiss
  all responsibility upon an imaginary being or rather a being that
  might exist but folks can only imagine it's character as such suits
  their whims.
  
 SK> Let me say it this way...weak atheists (read agnostics) DOUBT that God
 SK> exists...strong atheists DENY that God exists!

  Okay. Strong doesn't' necessarily mean militant. As in coffee. It can
  be strong Coffee but you don't HAVE to drink it.

 SK> And I deny it completely!
 SK> Gods are of human invent and in being so can be denied.

   Yup. And even if there are any, theists themselves readily admit,
"nobody really knows God's Will"... so they make one up as it suits
them!- accounting for the Hundreds of religions and dozens sub-sects
therein. and Just look at the Evangelical God Told ME! Christian some very
sorry folks had elected into Presidency.

Gee when somebody claims "god told me to do it" don't they usually end
up in the funny farm? Guess only if they're poor...
....................

 SK> Example: What if someone said that a giant and invisible, to us,
 SK> Barney the Purple Dinosaur created the Universe. Should I say "Well, I
 SK> can't
 SK> prove a negative so PERHAPS this Barney exists!" or should I look at
 SK> the myth as what it obviously is?

  :) I love this analogy. Too bad we don't have any Real Fundies in
here. We have some fun while they scream "God is not Barney!"...
and we'd laugh back, "PROVE IT! " ((Seeing how even the most Literal
Fundie admits 'nobody really knows - cuz the Bible says so!"
,.,,,,,,,,,,,

 SK> Well, I look at what it OBVIOUSLY is.
 SK> A man made deity, like all the others!

 It gets more obvious to me every single day. Why do so many refuse to
see it? Habit. Ingrained habit hammered in by their particular man
made dogma, coupled with the prime drive of our economy- the second
most common element in the Universe.
...................

 SK> I'm a positive ATHEIST, not a wimpy (I'm a-scared to commit) agnostic.
 SK> ;)

Alrighty! That settles it then. I thought strong meant militant.
I've been working on emulating the 'take it or leave it' way I find
so much more satisfying all around. We can be strong without being
stinky.

Now you know you're going to 'hear' from a resident agnostic on that last
sentence Steve. ("I'm a-scared to commit").

I once thought the same way when battling over whether I am an
agnostic or atheist- but she set me straight. I was never clear
on what being agnostic meant- to the agnostic (rather than the theist
dogma view). It's not fear of committing to belief at all Steve.
IIRC simply: agnostics do not *DENY* existence of a deity. IIRC it's
'well there may be one but I don't _believe_ in it'. Or as in not
the obviously man-made versions - 'G$D" for example.

............

 SK> In short, there is no reason to believe in any Gods...so why do it!

 That is the deciding factor between agnostic and atheism. Even if
there is one, so what? Why do it? Because 'passing the buck' is a
Universal human attribute tied in with that other one called Stupidity.

 SK> And there is no reason to doubt that there is no God or Gods...so why
 SK> be afraid of being wrong?

  Maybe some agnostics hold back out of fear. Fear is a dogma keeping
  tool after all. Sue for one, has pointed out this is not always the
  case. I suspect we'll end up battling labels now. Why bother?
  Whatever floats your boat as long as you don't tip mine... :)

 SK> Of course the wimps will argue...but I shant.
 SK> For even the SLIGHTEST doubt makes one a silly follower.

  But aren't you being judgmental? Militant rather than 'strong' w
  hen you cast a derogatory label on someone whom you disagree with?

  The so called wimp might reply in a positive way by saying:
  "that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it as I am mine."
   Or in a militant way. "go fuck yourself."

  It's like oh say differences in opinion upon favored climate.
  Cold loving folks call warmth loving folks (who HATE the cold)-
  wimps.

  "Weak" (I hate this word): the wimp just whines about hating cold.
  Positive: The 'wimp' just laughs. Each to their own.
  Militant: The 'wimp' gets mad at being called a wimp and defends
  warm weather over cold weather to the point of declaring WW3.

  I prefer the positive. Feels good. (But yes the third can be fun!)

  Cindy

... A god is only as capable as its inventor. -- Robert Curry

--- PPoint 3.01