Ha! Gullible newts!
I have been told recently by some that my tertiary submission disagreed with their world view and that if I just accept the thinking of the theist, I would understand. Bah! Fie!
Bree: "It's all just theories. There's a lack of proof any way you look at it. I'm reserving judgment until I collect enough data points to tip the scales."
It is not my assertion that there is a god or gods or unicorns, it is against the assertion that I write. There is not only a complete void of facts to support the existence of god(s), but there are remarkable theories that the god(s) as represented are in fact our own creation and further, that the world view that follows a belief in god (in history, politics, sociology, science) is patently false and flawed.
Please remember that the theory is not as the creationist would say, some conjecture or unsubstantiated version of what could happen. A theory is a firm base of thought that explains the evidence around us. If observed data contradicts the theory, the theory has failed. "The distinguishing feature of scientific theories is that they are capable of being tested by experience."
So, with out the "you can't say you don't believe because you don't have a relationship with HIM" or the " I have faith " where is the existence of the proof of god?
I am not blind to evidence. If I were to be faced with observable or demonstrable data that invalidated not only my non belief in the supernatural or magic (thus would further nullify the majority of the intellectual and scientific foundations of culture, life and physics as we know it) I would be willing to concede to the theists that there is a supernatural.
It would remain to be seen what the supernatural was. Mithras maybe, or an omnipotent invisible spirit beaver of unquenchable power . We shall see (I say we shan't)