[MD] a-theism and atheism

Sun Nov 14 08:26:17 PST 2010

John Carl.
I believe I have peace of mind, at last.  I was thinking last night that
while I can't see the MoQ as either atheistic anti-theistic, I do think it
is and should be, non-theistic.  For one thing, as a tool, it'd be
completely useless if it couldn't ask, "what good is your god?" For another,
It's chief value and purpose to those with theistic orientations and
conceptualization, is to remind them always that their conceptualizations
are choices,  that even if  there was  such thing as an objectively real
God, outside of your conceptualization, it wouldn't matter.  You are still
and always stuck with that fact that any God that could be, or is,  is "only
in your head".

The trouble as I see with labeling the MoQ plainly atheist, is as I told
Dan, the MoQ is no more anti-theistic than it is anti-theory-of-gravity.
People come up with ideas to deal with their world.  The MoQ says they do
this as a function of Quality.  What the MoQ is against, is assigning
objectivity to subjective ideas about reality.  Or reification, in simpler
term.  And what usually goes by the name "atheist" does this just as much as
any theism you can name.  Which is why I have no peace of mind with the
therm "atheist".  It's a 'connotation"  thing.  I'm sure y'all understand.

But non-theist, I can live with, even though technically speaking "a-theist"
means exactly the same thing.  Atheists in the flesh, however, usually
aren't simply non-theists, they are usually actually strident anti-theists.
They think religion should be abolished in the name of scientific
rationality.  The MoQ sees through that silliness - "scientific rationality"
as just another thing that's only in your head.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adrie,..
I agree on most of this,it seems to be honest, open-minded and covering
several fields of importance.
Probably written in the light of previous conversations, as a furthering
along the path.Most of this is of value and importance, John.I agree that
such matters
need attention.
I will strongly disagree when religion is used however to distort a work of
science, art, or anything else,..a book, investigation, progress.
Reversed however, i will disagree if science is used to distort religion,The
goal
of science is not this, science is science, not a widget to deny a pattern
that arises within any culture.Merging the bible with The Origin Of Species
is an impossibility, reversing this mechanism, however , will generate the
same
impossibility.

That's why i always keep my position as an agnosticus, I want to maintain my
position without distortions.
Agnostisism is not about refusing to answer the "Creator's"possibility.
Good and true agnostisism, is to refuse asking the question in the first
place.
This is why Hawking is always covering his ass by not violating the antropic
principle. I will never be an atheist or a theist.

----------------------------------------------
John Carl.
it wouldn't matter.  You are still
and always stuck with that fact that any God that could be, or is,  is "only
in your head".

------------------------------------------------
Adrie.
Try to reconsider this outside the som-reasoning, try to recognise the
pattern
that is braking away from its restrictions, the conceptualisation.
The pattern itself is not a concept.
------------------------------------------------

John Carl.

They think religion should be abolished in the name of scientific
rationality.  The MoQ sees through that silliness - "scientific rationality"
as just another thing that's only in your head.
----------------------------------------------------
Adrie.
I disagree on this sentence.I don't think silliness is well chosen.
I think there is no reason to call scientific rationality wrong, or calling
religion irrational.They do not blend well.

I really hope you have peace of mind,things can only improve if you have.
I don't judge a man on one sentence, or on one conversation, my snapshots
are long-term visions, a long term vision works better than a short term
optic.

Reading Ian's response, hmm , good, i agree on most of it, strangely i
really do

quote it back , worth reading.
Ian
A-theistic / atheism is, like scientism, as dogmatic as any theism.
Agnostic is too disinterested to be any use to me, I need as you
suggest, need to know where questions and answers about god fit - MoQ
provides that. Agnosticism can only ever be an incomplete or temporary
state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adrie,
Good, this is thinking in a sharp pattern,the observations are solid.
Allow me to clarify the reflection of your endsentence on my position

Incomplete or temporary, so true , Ian. Dynamic quality cannot halt to
reach completeness,if it's halting it will reach only Static quality, never
completeness,never definable as temporary, it will run to Dynamic Quality
ever again.

"Here and now , boys, here and now." ( Huxley, island)
The bird is always repeating himself. He repeats the mechanism.
agnostisism is not conflicting quality as Dynamical event.

But this is to clarify my personal position.

Greetz, Adrie

2010/11/13 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>

> I believe I have peace of mind, at last.  I was thinking last night that
> while I can't see the MoQ as either atheistic anti-theistic, I do think it
> is and should be, non-theistic.  For one thing, as a tool, it'd be
> completely useless if it couldn't ask, "what good is your god?" For
> another,
> It's chief value and purpose to those with theistic orientations and
> conceptualization, is to remind them always that their conceptualizations
> are choices,  that even if  there was  such thing as an objectively real
> God, outside of your conceptualization, it wouldn't matter.  You are still
> and always stuck with that fact that any God that could be, or is,  is
> "only
> in your head".
>
> The trouble as I see with labeling the MoQ plainly atheist, is as I told
> Dan, the MoQ is no more anti-theistic than it is anti-theory-of-gravity.
> People come up with ideas to deal with their world.  The MoQ says they do
> this as a function of Quality.  What the MoQ is against, is assigning
> objectivity to subjective ideas about reality.  Or reification, in simpler
> term.  And what usually goes by the name "atheist" does this just as much
> as
> any theism you can name.  Which is why I have no peace of mind with the
> therm "atheist".  It's a 'connotation"  thing.  I'm sure y'all understand.
>
> But non-theist, I can live with, even though technically speaking
> "a-theist"
> means exactly the same thing.  Atheists in the flesh, however, usually
> aren't simply non-theists, they are usually actually strident anti-theists.
> They think religion should be abolished in the name of scientific
> rationality.  The MoQ sees through that silliness - "scientific
> rationality"
> as just another thing that's only in your head.
>
> Now I realize there are many, if not most, on this list who will
> strenuously
> disagree with me.  And this is for the very good reason that they truly are
> antitheistic, and wish to force that view upon the whole.  They don't have
> any patience for varieties of religious experience, because they've got an
> axe to grind, an anger to assuage or a social group to conform to.  Thus
> psychological dependencies that won't withstand question or inquiry, as dmb
> so helpfully projected from within his own soul.  But how can he help it?
> When I'm talking about the common connotations of "atheist", I'm talking
> about the academic community: chief enforcers of an anti-theistic view
> based
> upon a long, long pattern of community - formation through enemy
> scapegoating and a social mechanism that is easy to explain with an
> analogy.
>
>
> Take a cage full of monkeys, with a room inside the cage.  Put shock
> collars
> around all the monkeys, and a banana in the cage.  Now, every time any
> monkey approaches the room and the banana, shock all the other monkeys.
> Very soon, anytime any monkey approaches the cage the other monkeys beat
> the
> shit out of him.  Obviously.  After a while replace a monkey or two with
> new
> ones.  Ignorant of the social rules, they go for the banana and get set
> upon
> immediately.  No shock treatment necessary.  Keep replacing monkeys, till
> all the original ones are gone, all memory of shocking punishment
> forgotten,
> but a persistent pattern of persecuting any individual that goes for the
> forbidden banana.   The evolution of social patterns, the fear of ghosts.
> 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
>

-- 
parser