Quote:
Originally Posted by blindman
Have to be one or another there is no fluid in this matter.
|
I refuse to be drawn into discussion of any matter that does not have reasonable evidence readily available in reality such that the taking of a position is in anyway warranted or required and knowing that the expression of the determined position will from that point of determination be used by others as a label or qualification with which will carry predetermined baggage upon which I will have no agreed input upon such that opinions views and attitudes will be attached simply because once labled assumptions are used that are constructed from generalisations rather than any personal analysis of my particular view.
As it is clear that the majority of gods, if not all gods, are of human invention and all, invented or not, are presented with no evidence, certainly without evidence as would be required in either a civil or criminal court in this country, indeed most countries, one must wonder why there exists two words that seek to establish there be any need to classify folk into a belief or non belief of entities that remain unestablished using evidence that would be required by at least any court in this land so forgive me if I refuse to be qualified by words presumably invented by those who would seek to assert their unestablished entity requires a recognition such that one must choose a position
..I chose neither position and will hold such a position until at least one of the presented entities are established via evidence such that a court would employ to establish guilt or inoccence or accept a presented fact as likely or unlikely.
The current position is the theist says "there is" no evidence " do you believe or not so I can call you theist or athiest".
Not with me you dont.
Further I am not agnostic either.
And as all this is written tounge in cheek I trust those who enjoyed the opening joke will apply their broad humour to this post also.
Alex
.....you rock girl...!!
