The point is this: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
I'm merely pointing out the theist/athiest dichotomy from a scientific approach. There's nothing convenient or biased about it. Believe me, there wouldn't be half as many curmudgeon scientists around if this rule were not true...
I think Kylejack is right. Although, I must admit, when my life came to a point where I decided where I was on this dubious spectrum of deities, rather than what I was indoctrinated in to, I didn't like the idea of a label being put on me at all and resisted whenever someone tried to place one...
I don't know if this has been clarified yet, but some of you seem to be confused.
An agnostic says "There is no proof for or against X religion, therefore I do not know."
The atheist says "I absolutely know that X religion is not true."
The atheist must take a "leap of faith", if you will...
If Ron Paul himself asked me to join in any type of event for the campaign I would do it in a heartbeat.
I felt odd reading that. I hadn't realized, before now, how I would feel about Dr. Paul personally asking his supporters to carry out a task for the campaign - I'd wager that others feel...