Resend of shorter version (<10Kb as requested by moderator)
> Hi dmb, > I am curious, if you don't mind me asking, why do you find it of value to > divide into camps of theist and non-theist? Notice I am not saying > anti-theist which is simply pointing to the struggle between. Is there some > deep psychological basis that has yet to be brought to surface? What is the > purpose of the knife you are using? Is it meant to be illuminating, because > I do not see any such thing? Perhaps I am not operating under the same > psychological influences as you. As such, I need some clarification, based > on rationality. > > If both theism and what ever else you want to create camps of, are all > parts of philosophy then we must understand the distinctions you are > pointing to, and the value associated with each. Certainly Theism has been > dealt with and supported by many great philosophers as you know from reading > history. As such it is a brach of philosophy, even a branch of metaphysics > since it attempts to describe reality. > > What is meant by being "beyond" theism. Beyond in what way? If age is a > measure, is sophism something which we are beyond? Certainly the creation > of an ultimate unifying reality as is MOQ, was done way back by Parmenides. > Does this make such an approach antiquated? I am simply looking for > consistency so that I can understand your discussion. What makes something > antiquated, what are the properties associated? > > Invoking a notion of evolution could also be described as antiquated. How > old does something need to be to be an antique? Things built in the late > eighteen hundreds are sold as antiques in this country. How can someone be > on the wrong side of evolution since the boundaries are created by those who > support evolution. Where is the wrong side to such a thing?. It is like > saying one is on the wrong side of a fence. How is such a side decided to > be wrong? Is there greener grass on one side? Are you talking about an > outside? The outside is much larger than the inside, it includes many > opinions, evolution is just one of those. And.... the wrong side of > history? What does that concept mean? If Hitler had won, would we be on > the wrong side of history? > > I believe you are stating that MOQ is not based on a set of beliefs. What > would you consider the premises that are used in MOQ, such as the existence > of Quality? If you state this is the rational conclusions as a result of > the appearance of things in your mind, you still must start with some > premise or another to base such rationality on. If you believe in nothing, > then why are you supporting MOQ? > > You bring up the notion of God-fearing. This sounds like old testament > stuff, not the new. Are you debating against Moses? > > Just some questions, I am patient. I simply seek some rational > clarification. If you want to bring quotes in, fine, just discuss them > afterwards in your own words, I can read quotes as well as you, but perhaps > I interpret them differently. > > > > Thanks, > Mark > > >> 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
