[SA]
Good work Arlo. Ham made assertions. They were HIS. Now, as you
say, if he only could be able to answer some questions about HIS
assertions this "would have ended back then".
[Arlo]
Ham and Platt both want to be theists without being known as theists.
Well, maybe Ham is a little less concerned about being recognized as
such, since he did say "consciousness is a gift from on high". And
when I asked him how it came to be that successive generations of
primates ended up with a "more evolved consciousness", why did "on
high" bestow an inferior consciousness on early primates, Ham snapped
"ask him! [meaning "God"]".
So Ham is just funny to see flail around pretending to be
"metaphysical" when his thesis is simple theism (as I said, he
replaced "Yahweh" with "Essence" and made the Bible far less
readable). And the humor is that its a poorly constructed theism at
that. He can't even answer simple questions about his own claims. But
as funny as that is, it really doesn't concern me (other than its
dishonesty) since Ham admits upfront to be "not the MOQ".
Platt's theistic revision of the MOQ is far worse, since in
pretending he is not a theist he is trying to turn the MOQ into a
theist account "through the backdoor". Even when Ham tells Platt that
his theistic views have no place in the MOQ (Ham is smart enough to
see this), Platt denies it. Why Platt refuses to be honest about his
"Qualigod" and just embrace it outright, I don't know. You know, if I
asked my same two questions ("what changed?" and "how does
consciousness evolve?") to my local priest, he would be adamant and
vocal about his theistic views. Platt prefers mocking others ("oops")
but then hiding his theistic account ("Abracadabra! Poof!") behind a
veil of evasion and dishonesty.
When Ham accuses me of just being too dumb to understand his
brilliant thesis, I just laugh. Its deceptive rhetoric, but I just
don't care. Platt, though, shames us all when he, as someone who
claims to support the MOQ, engages in blatant and willful dishonesty.
How can someone who claims to be so interested in "values" so
shameless engage in blatant dishonesty here? I wish to "God" he'd
reflect on that, but that appears to be wishful thinking.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
