Martian

If you're going to make the distinction between a weak and strong atheist, you should probably make the distinction between a weak and a strong agnostic.

I think the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is often misunderstood. A weak atheist may allow room for doubt without being an agnostic; it's all about approach. Those of us who have decided to sit on the fence have a habit of acknowledging all belief systems (including atheism) as equally valid.

The difference between a strong agnostic and a weak agnostic could be likened to the difference between weak and strong atheists. A weak agnostic says 'I don't know, but I may some day find out.' A strong agnostic says 'I am incapable of knowing.' This is a position that is separate and distinct from that of an athiest, who says 'I know that there is no God.'

The flaw in the Epicurus argument is that it assumes that a higher power thinks of right and wrong in the same way we do. I understand that this is supported (created man in His own image and all that), but the problem is that if God truly is omniscient than he has access to knowledge that we never will. This is why the 'we aren't meant to understand' argument does have merit; it's a gentler way of saying 'we are ignorant peons.'

Asaris' point as highlighted by Baraka_Guru is also significant. If God doesn't allow for evil or suffering, free will is effectively negated.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame