mplltt

I wanted to read your post, administrator, to make sure that I am on track with my posts. Aparantly the view of agnosticism, hopefully, I can justify with the posts that I have previously made. I thought the term agnostic is to question because an agnostic does not know if a God or Goddess exists. You are right to say that pending evidence would permit a person to respond with rhetoric in so doing give the justification of a theist a selection of her/his own choice of a higher power. I would like to question other things, redemptory of myself, I believe that the questioning can be a powerful distiction. Instead of making a person a charleton by questioning themselves (this is the crux of the statement) a person would have to go and look their answer up. I believe that referencing material would allow for a person to not have to reign of terror. Phraseology in a manner of speaking has rhetorical effects in soothing mistrust hence the moot point is answered with a question; a question is formulated with rhetoric first and then make it transitive. Questions are easy to make if you want to say something, say it, then put a "question word" at the beginning of the sentance(ie, why is, how do, what are, where have, is the, etc.). But please, don't sit here and identify how you see it, or why you see it, or what you would do. This is annoying. It forces people to be very hurt. The establishment wants to assert itself on other people through establishing that, thats right, don't be confused with the hurt. This is what makes them so powerful: They stay in third person. You want to fight the establishment? Then be in third person, questions with book references. This makes them angry because the establishment thinks it just has to read a few books to keep them happy and they know everything. This is where they go wrong and this is why I am having trouble with the church as well, read post: http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...schools-5.html

In essense, to lambast, retort, intercede, to make your point about you not hurting anyone, stick to the concept. You are agnostic. In so doing, the definition is correct, neither I nor the church has convincingly succeeded at their task. I believe that referencing material is all that is needed to succeed at a task (SCHS learned). Then we shall have the liberty to ask ourselves, now. How much work do I want to do? How lazy do I feel, darnit. So a task is at hand. The establishment done only read a novel or two! My mother (Who will go unnamed) is a reference librarian, she had achieved here masters, suma cum laude, has read literally 1200 novels! She is a genious. Nuf Said, she knows the establishment, so does my Dad. I am sure that my mother will agree, she lives in California with my Dad (also a master's grad in Business, also unnamed) so communication is hard from Arizona. But anyway, a novel will discuss how to approach the earth. The establishment then only knows how to approach the earth as a whole. So if you want my opinion, refer back to my post, what I think the answer to the establishment's problems are: http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...schools-5.html

__________________
Thank you, I am impressed that you are forgiving enough to approach this line of reasoning.