Marsha, I ask because I'm curious. I ask because I'm taking a poll of those that see a distinction between atheist and anti-theist and I ask because definitions of terms are socially agreed upon.
I answer because I'm too polite to say "FUCK your question; your question makes me out to be whatever you want to see." I don't mind being whatever it is you need me to be. John the agreeable . On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:06 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > John, > > My definition? Why should I have such a definition? It's from the > Copleston annotations. An online dictionary states the definition > as: A disbeliever in the existence of God. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti+theist > > Why do you ask? > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:28 AM, John Carl wrote: > > > Marsha, > > > > What's your definition of an anti-theist? > > > > > > John > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:08 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Mark (Bruce mentioned), > >> > >> > >> It seems for you, Mark, that the loss of God is low value, although I > might > >> question how much discomfort is 'some discomfort'. My definition of an > >> atheist is: Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other > >> supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or > >> who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. I do not find the > >> disappointment that Bruce suggested was mandatory for atheists. > >> > >> > >> Marsha > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:35 PM, markhsmit wrote: > >> > >>> For me Quality equals God, so I can't drop the term without some > >> discomfort. > >>> > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> "The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is completely > >> dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and > Dynamic > >> freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is > anti-theistic." > >>> (Pirsig, Copleston Annotations) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Bruce Underwood wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello all, I hope that you don't mind me jumping in on this thread, > but > >> here it goes. > >>>> > >>>> Science: Science, in my opinion, ask a separate question than > religion. > >> Science asks,"how" and religion asks "why". However,one thing that folks > >> want to do is to make science into a belief. IMO, science in merely a > method > >> devised at the intellectual level to ask "how" things are made, work, > >> operate, etc. Science is not something to believe in, but a set of tool > to > >> explore. That said,it has become the "church of science",as Pirsig puts > it, > >> and has become something that people worship. > >>>> > >>>> Religion: Religion, on the other hand, firstly, attempts to look > beyond > >> the now into unknown world of "why", but where its rudderless obsessions > of > >> control, combined with ignorance, along with the thought "that man can > know > >> the mind of God" has placed it in categories of distrust and hypocrisy. > >> Regardless of the fairy tales that have been created over the > millennium, > >> there exists the unknown that moves and organize things against the laws > of > >> nature. In MoQ we call it Dynamic Quality. The thing is, MoQ, at least, > >> provides the possibilty, with argument, for "God" to exist by whatever > name > >> you want to give it. The purpose of religion should be to move life > forward > >> and to give man hope. Where faith comes in is in the hope that there is > more > >> to life than existance; I believe MoQ does that. > >>>> > >>>> The section below is from chapter 11 of Lila. > >>>> > >>>> "Thermodynamics states that all energy systems "run down" like a clock > >> and > >>>> never rewind themselves. But life not only "runs up," converting low > >>>> energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it > keeps > >>>> multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep "running up" > >>>> faster and faster. > >>>> Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of > carbon, > >>>> hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to > organize > >>>> themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?... > >>>> > >>>> The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on > >> earth > >>>> causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's > >>>> energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something > >>>> else. What is it?... Dynamic Quality" > >>>> > >>>> Theist, Agnostic, Atheist: IMO, the only person without faith is the > >> agnostic that does not search for the "truth". However, the one who > searches > >> for truth will always be disappointed as a theist or atheist unless he > >> accepts the lies in either camp. The truth is somewhere in the middle > and is > >> found in the journey itself. MoQ is the closet thing that points to the > >> truth that I have found. > >>>> > >>>> My graphical representation of this found on slide 20 of the ppt deck > >> that I provided a couple of weeks back. Here is the link: > >>>> http://www.thinnerself.com/files/MoQ/lila-6a.ppt > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Bruce > >>>> > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... > > > > > > > > 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/ > 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/
