[MD] The MoQ can't be atheistic

[X Acto]

Ham:

Acquiring a personal philosophy is more than tacitly accepting an author's worldview and adapting the tenets he's constructed to justify it.  It has to be a concept of reality that you've examined independently and that has the confidence of your convictions.  A philosophy serves no purpose unless it is accepted as a belief system you can live by.  Since it has "belief" in common with religion, there is no such thing as a nihilistic philosophy (or philosopher, for that matter).  And while one may claim to reject theism or spiritualism, or profess agnosticism, it is improbable that anyone can deny his own beliefs.

Ron:
Right, How the term Nihlist is usually used is in a perjorative manner, which is a value
in itself, thus one may claim they do not value theism, spiritualism or value agnosticism
without denying it has value for others and as such they are indeed NOT deying their
own beliefs.

Ham:
You have correctly identified pantheism as the belief system that equates God or divinity with "the whole of nature."  The pantheist is clearly not an atheist.  But by the same token, existentialists and objectivists equate Reality with "being", yet many are considered atheists specifically because they reject a deity.  This may be a non-theistic belief system (i.e., philosophical nihilism), but is it really atheism?

Ron:
Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. a deity is in
the broadest sense, a supernatural entity seperate and distinct from the believer
and are typically thought of anthropomorphicly. you make some fairly broad
generalizations with some pretty particular goals in mind.

Ham:
If you remove the word "god" or "gods" from the standard dictionary definition of Theism, it reads like this: "the belief in a creative source of man and the world which transcends yet is immanent to the world." Doesn't this "creative source" describe the function of Quality in the MoQ, Essence in essentialism, and Being in existentialism?  If so, then these philosophical persuasions are no less "theistic" than pantheism (which is also regarded as a religion).

Ron:
Answer this, is an understanding about how human beings derrive meaning from experience
a belief? or is it an understanding? The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition). A position most Pirsigians do not subscribe to.
If Pirsigians were to use the term god, it would refer to an intimate understanding of their
own nature of values. Not a seperate and distinct source of that value for the Pirsigian
they are the source of value.

Ham:
In the last analysis the value of any philosophical doctrine lies in the satisfaction and self-fulfillment it offers the believer.  In many ways the life-experience is a continuing search for Knowledge, Wisdom, and Truth.  We all have access to knowledge, we can aspire to wisdom, and we can even define truth as "what works" or gives meaning to our experience.  But what we're really seeking in this life is to identify ourselves with the "uncreated source" of fulfillment from which we are estranged as human beings.  We sense this source as a desire for "value", although we know it is something far greater and more powerful than human experience can ever reveal.

Ron:
You speak of value as an entity seperate and distinct from the valuer. Each of us is
the uncreated source, so in essence each of our own human experiences is our own god.

 
Ham:
At least that is my understanding of what drives mankind in his quest for philosophical meaning.

Ron:
And that is my understanding as to why it keeps from being understood.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _