At 12:45 PM 11/27/02 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >We don't need that combination *for me*. Anybody who doesn't *care* >if a being with the characteristics asserted for the Great Sky Father >exists is -- well, a long way from me, anyway. Given the vast array of religions in the world, it shouldn't be too surprising that atheists and agnostics come in flavors, also. There's active, passive, and apathetic atheists, for instance. The active ones proselytize on the topic, and build arguments attempting to do something intensely silly, that is, to prove a negative. (Don't go there. It hurts when you go there.) "Passive" atheists may also proselytize, but they concentrate on knocking down arguments attempting to prove that God exists, they don't try to find His non-existence in the universe. Intellectually honest ones would acknowledge a God, should someone ever manage to present them with proof of same. The apathetic ones don't care, but their world-view is largely informed by the assumption that there's no god. Agnostics are a little different, I guess. I'm an active agnostic. I don't know, and you don't either. In fact, the nature of the problem is such that no answer can ever be found. Or perhaps I should say, no answer can be proved or verified. I know what I know, but I can't share that experiential knowledge with you. Passive agnostics don't know, and are content to not know. Apathetic ones really just don't care, but don't mind going to church every now and again, just to hedge their bets. Ok, this isn't a complete, or even accurate taxonomy of atheists and agnostics. However, I'm getting awfully tired of being told what I believe. As much as a Presbyterian might get tired of being told that only those fully immersed at baptism were sure to be saved. Lydia Nickerson lydy at demesne.com Dulciculi Aliquorum