Sorry for interrupting, but equating theism and religion is a mistake, and you did say mistakes would be challenged. - m
On Mar 8, 2010, at 4:36 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > > > Sweet, sweet, John, > > You've switched terms. Theism and religion are not equivalent terms. The > MoQ supports an atheistic religious point-of-view, Buddhism for instance, but > RMP has stated clearly that the MoQ is not just atheistic with regards to the > term 'God', but is anti-theistic. In the Copleston Annotations, RMP has gone > so far as to state: "The MOQ is an atheistic religious outlook that solves > rather > than bypasses religious problems." > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2010, at 1:26 AM, John Carl wrote: > >> David, >> >> >>> dmb replies sarcastically: >>> >>> Oh, yea. I know exactly what you mean. When people only vaguely recall a >>> story that I love, it's just devastating. Sometimes I mope around for days >>> when people don't recall the details about the things I love. And this >>> memory lapse reveals their true nature of course, as a person who doesn't >>> believe in good, as a person who doesn't "get it". Sigh. What's wrong with >>> people? Why can't they obsessively cling to the things I love? I mean, if I >>> love it and they don't, well obviously that means there is something wrong >>> with them. >>> >>> For example, people who choose vanilla when they could've had chocolate >>> ought to be shot. How dare they! >>> >>> And the nonsense just keeps gets deeper, doesn't it? Good advice for guys >>> stuck in holes: Stop digging. >>> >>> >> I agree completely. Please clarify for me before I address your implied >> concerns whether this is a confession or an accusation. >> >> I don't want to make THAT mistake again. >> >> But seriously, I honestly feel that every time I get in a debate with you, >> you come to a certain point and then close down. There's no resolution to >> scores of arguments I've proposed and there's no continuation to completion >> any dialogue we've had. >> >> It's discouraging to me, and even you must admit there must be something >> wrong. >> >> I understand you are under time pressures and other pressures and it's sorta >> facile for me to judge, laying back in my broken down shack with all the >> time in the world to be annoying. I admit, it's hardly fair. But I don't >> spend hours thinking up stuff to say, or figuring out the correctness of my >> position, I just state my case as logically as I can in the moment, and >> invite you to do the same. No need to overthink, if either one of us makes >> a mistake there's only a bazillion sharp-eyed critics constantly watching >> over our shoulders, keen to offer correction. >> >> Just take a deep breath, and I'll carefully explicate my position as of this >> moment - >> >> Your own James admits the value of variety of religious experiences. The >> fact that I've found value for myself personally, in a juxtapositioned >> meta-christianity and the MoQ, why is that bad? >> >> To my mind, all religions evolve for the needs of men. Pirsig offers an >> argument for a pre-existing good which is creative of these differing >> analogies, and understanding the metaphysical existence of this good, does >> not trap us in any particular religion. Nay, it sets us free to enter into >> religious play. >> >> The idea of religious play within a context of a Quality metaphysics, seems >> so offensive to you that you can't be objective. It seems you take your own >> religious views of atheism so fundamentally, that you don't allow any other >> game. >> >> That's projection on my part. How accurate, you'd have to tell me. But the >> primary essense of my assertion, that the MoQ is a unification of science >> AND religion, and that both are EQUALLY patterns of value, then why can't a >> theist also be an MoQist? >> >> >> Explain this rationally to me please. >> >> if you're so busy earning the right to be a philosopher, that you can't >> philosophize, then that IS a pathetic spectacle. >> >> And it saddens me we had to see it, on the air. Tonight. >> >> John from his deepening, deepening whole >> 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
