Greetings,
The common definition of God , the associated connotations, the dogmas, all the
stories, the history and etc., make it an unacceptable word/concept/pattern for
me. I agree with the MoQ's atheistic/anti-theistic attitude because I find god
or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and
legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful, in other words:
low value.
In this Tom Robbins quote I find high value:
I believe in nothing,
Everything is sacred.
I believe in everything,
Nothing is sacred.
(Even Cowgirls Get the Blues)
Marsha
On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:48 PM, markhsmit wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
> I think we have a difference in the definition of God, same
> with Arlo. I was never brought up with a God, so I could
> create my own without any baggage, so to speak.
>
> Is Quality as posed by MoQ a man-made construct? If
> so, this would make it not meaningful. Perhaps in
> a thousand years, it will also become a myth or legend.
> Everything that we think could be considered to be man-
> made.
>
> So, the definition you propose for atheist does not work
> for me. If you are against certain gods as proposed by
> other people, that would make more sense. In this case
> you would be suggesting that other peoples thoughts
> are not meaningful. I do not think that kind of attitude
> is of high quality at all.
>
> We find meaning in many things such as a sunset or
> a book of fiction. What is it that makes these things
> meaningful?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> 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/
