Topic of discussion from a friends blog: There are two kinds of atheists: strong atheists and weak atheists.

The strong atheist makes the absolute claim There are no gods. Since this statement cannot be proven, it is similar to a religious belief. Poolie: This comment is as good a farm-fed line of bullshit as you will ever hear. "The strong atheist makes the absolute claim There are no gods. Since this statement cannot be proven, it is similar to a religious belief." The strong atheist is able to make that true statement simply for the reason that there IS NO proof of gods. I could make a similar statement above about non-believers of the Easter Bunny. Does this mean some folk actually give the existence of the Easter bunny a certain amount of credence? RevRichie: I find it very interesting how people of God or so called believers can preach their beliefs but when opposing views are presented, they feel pressured to change. Could it be that their beliefs are that fragile? Seems to me that if they were strong believer and had the truth, they would not feel threaten when opposing views are presented. Bob: What constitutes "proof"? RevRichie: In my opinion, the only proof or evidences is SELF-EVIDENCE. There is not physical evidences that would stand up in a court of law. Poolie: Something physical. Something to see, feel, hear, or smell. You know the kind of thing... "hey gang, there's a hippo in the front garden!" "Yeah right" "True. It just trashed your Honda!" "Oh shit!" Bob: The next question would logically be "What constitutes 'God'?" ... Is it - he - or she or some nebulous immaterial nothing ... or is "IT" an embodiment of physical proportions? Is "It" (God) to be construed in the Classical Orthodox Christian perception - a Supreme Being existing in other spheres or dimensions - the big guy in the sky with his tally sheet counting my fuck ups, OR is "It" something completely miss-construed by religion, even to being evidenced to in the fact that we do think and reason? ... But we construe these rational processes as purely the by product of evolution ... and that is not discounting evolution or raising us as the "crown of creation" (which may or may not be true), but in fact establishes our existence in an intimacy with ALL that is real - animal, vegetable or mineral, ad infinitum. But religion ...fucks the whole thing up .... What is "God"? How can anyone argue the existence of anything that IS NOT clearly defined ... What is "God"? .... And as that is defined .... What makes that definition absolute? .... Even an atheist declaring "God does not exist" ... has to have a conception of what does not exist ... And I'm sure as is defined by most religion - I would be considered an atheist - by their definition of "God" ... But that does not mean I am closed to concepts of spirituality that are gaining recognition through non-religious scientific investigations. What makes any of us so sure that the limits of our own experience, and teaching, thinking and logic, are the limits of human and dare I say *innate" divine potential? And

as far as real hard evidence - that being the life lived and manifested in those who understand this potential. I am not trying to convince any one of the "reality" of God. The one thing I'm sure of is that most would not have a clue what I believe concerning God as I might use the word. "God" as a description of what may be "divine" has lost it's meaning having been perverted by religion. But if we are to consider the existence or non-existence of a thing - what is the definition of that thing - and in this case - 'God"?