[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[MarshaV]

Greetings,

My panties in a bunch?  I don't think so.  I just posted what I thought to be
the MoQ's point-of-view on theism, and what I perceived to be a problem 
arguing theism as the same as religion.  I'm all in favor of a variety of 
religious experiences, but non attributed to any type of other supernatural 
being/s. 

Mixed with some cocoa beans, I bet hot, spicy Jalapeno peppers in 
ice cream would be wonderful.  I'd try it.  


Marsha






On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM, John Carl wrote:

> I hear ya, Marsha.  Jalapeno Ice Cream isn't your taste but you won't knock
> the spoon outta somebody else's mouth.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> I'm only slightly curious why a system which extolls "Varieties" of
> Religious Experience would get its panties all in a twist in the first
> place, but hey.  That's just me and my Jalapeno flavored world view.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> John
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> JC,
>> 
>> I disagree with you, but I'm not trying to change your mind.  I think the
>> concept
>> chocked full of harmful vibes, but by all means go for it.  Let the show
>> begin.
>> I'll wander through the stadium getting rich selling moon pie.
>> 
>> Love you,
>>    Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:49 AM, John Carl wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And I think the use of the term "god" much more degrading because of the
>>>> commonly acknowledged definitions, connotations and history.  I think
>> RMP
>>>> chose the most appropriate label.  Stripping the word "god" of all the
>>>> garbage
>>>> would be near impossible, imho.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> I dunno Marsha.  It has been tried before.  There seems to me to be a
>>> central problem in human history that when you throw out "God", you throw
>>> out values.  That's the way it's been.  The Russian experiment (remember
>> the
>>> "godless commies?") didn't work out so well and historically, the use of
>> the
>>> term has served the evolution of society so that evidently those
>> societies
>>> that use the term do better than the societies that don't.  I feel rather
>>> than tossing it out, the MoQ should analyze.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's not the same thing as true atheism.  Which is more along the
>> lines
>>>>> Krimel advocated with the world and all that is being the product of
>>>> random
>>>>> chance, with no positive force behind any of it.  No matter what you
>> call
>>>>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> Here's the definition of atheism I use:  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.  If
>> Krimel
>>>> has
>>>> a more esoteric, sophisticated definition that's fine but it would seem
>> to
>>>> narrow
>>>> the discussion to only those individuals who share his definition.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Ok Marsha.  Let's look at this carefully.  "man-made constructs" - what
>>> isn't?  Even to use the term implies a supernatural entity, otherwise
>> "man"
>>> - made is meaningless.
>>> 
>>> Unless you meant gender-wise and you prefer "woman-made constructs".
>>> 
>>> It's like gav pointed out about "Freedom" is also a man-made construct,
>> but
>>> in the MoQ, even subjective patterns have meaning AS patterns of value.
>>> Since people have gone to war repeatedly over such intellectual
>> constructs,
>>> I fail to see how defining them as "meaningless" is helpful in analyzing
>>> them properly.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> I agree that one does not need faith to perceive Quality, whereas it
>> does
>>>>> take a sort of faith to perceive God.  Just one more way that Quality
>> and
>>>>> God are differing concepts.  I guess the purest way I can make the
>>>>> distinction is that you can ask if God is any good, but you can't
>> really
>>>> ask
>>>>> if Quality is any good.  God is measured by Quality, not the other way
>>>>> around.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does that make sense?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Perfect sense.  So what is benefit of holding on to the concept of God?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Communication with 95% of US Population, for one.  Discourse with most of
>>> written history, for another.  Those two alone hold enough benefit to
>> tempt
>>> me to go all, "duh!" on you.
>>> 
>>> But I won't because I'm too respectful.
>>> 
>>> Quality doesn't obviate God.  Quality tames "God".  The comparison with
>> SOM
>>> is exactly apt  - Quality doesn't obviate S/O.  Quality tames S/O.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> John the lion-tamer,
>>> 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


 
___