Huh? I don't get it. Competing stances?
I can't see how they are in compation, what do you mean? On Apr 25, 7:17 am, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems to me that of the three main competing stances, theism, > atheism > and agnostisism, that the first two must be based on faith because to > know > whether or not there is a god is such. Agnosticism is simply a > statement of what we all know and hence irrelevent and not at all > useful. > > It seems that theists and atheists spend a lot of time disputing the > autheticity of their equally untenable positions. > > Would it not be more useful to make rational comparisons > between theist gangs and secular gangs and then choose to join those > which are deemed to be the least damaging. This, of course, would > need to be a carefully defined study but perhaps worthwhile in that > it > would enable us to establish what is a useful or relevant gang and > whether or not it is likely to be > kept useful or relevant. You see, I am not sure how to keep democratic > gangs > useful. I LEAVE YOU TO DEFINE USEFUL OR RELEVANT. > > Happy Easter to you all. Here in New Zealand this Easter Monday > coincides with ANZAC day. > > Kind regards all.
