[MD] Are theists irrational?

[John Carl]

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 <valkyr at att.net> 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 <valkyr at att.net> 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/
>