[Michael]
If atheism can use the most inclusive definition of "god or gods" (the one I
insist is legitimate) when defining itself in opposition to theism, why do you
insist theism cannot? Atheism exists only by theism, so if atheism can do it,
theism *MUST* do it by default.
[Arlo]
I dont recall you asking me this. But I don't see the issue.
Ron:
Arlo, you are missing the point, His arguement rests solely on the MoQ as
atheistic or anti-theistic statement. Which does acknowledge the belief
of God if not G*D himself by virtue of denial, alas he does not
yet see that MoQ really does not take a stand on the issue, Pirsig does,
but I argue that MoQ does not. MoQ sees it as just another explaination for
expereince, end of story. Thus there really isn't any arguement.
Just Michael wanting us to all to see it his way.
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/
