Hello everyone On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:33 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John and Ham, >> > > >> John: >> As dmb pointed out, the literal meaning of a-theist, is non-theist. So >> while being a literally correct term, it's fraught with anti-theistic >> connotation in my view, that are inappropriate for a truly profound >> metaphysical stance. >> >> [Mark] >> > In order to be anti or a- anything one has to experience it first (I read > realization in this post, but deleted it for nefarious purposes). I am > anti-Snoop Dog, for example. If one has experienced Theism or God, for > example, then he/she can be anti-theist. Otherwise one is just against the > symbology, which has no substance. Atheists are against people and what > they believe, not the concept, unless it is against their own concept. If > that is true, then it is a case of phantasmagoria as Ham would say. Some in > the MOQ can think that Christians are just plain stupid but that would not > be my stand in the MOQ. I don't have time for other peoples ghosts, they > can be anti-dragons for all I care. >
Dan: Anti-theism requires more than a disbelief in God or gods (atheism). It requires first, a belief that theism is harmful to society and culture and second, that theism should be controverted in order to eliminate the harm it does. It seems clear (to me) that that is what Robert Pirsig is on about in the Copleston annotations, as well as Verne Dusenberry in his doctoral thesis The Montana Cree: A Study in Religious Persistence. So, it is possible for a religious person to be anti-theistic in the sense that they realize the harm done by the superimposition of one religion over another. Dan 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
