[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

John, (and Ham)
oops,
Tim

> >
> > [Ham] Last, but not least, Tim declares himself an "ignostic".  (Might he have
> > meant "Agnostic"?)
> >
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> Nah,  he was very pointedly  making his own creative term there.

[Tim]
too much credit thrown my way!  I actually bit off that term when I ran
across it ... not too too long ago.  IT does mesh nicely with my 'I'
focused talk though!  anyway, you can find 'ignostic' on wikipedia,
though the part about 'falsifiable' I don't recall having intended to
'bite off' when I started using the word.


> [John]   But
> he's
> come up with some nice terms.  I like "faithful -I" a lot.  I've been
> saying
> it to myself.  I hope he doesn't mind if other people appropriate his
> terminology, but I'm wicked that way.  Voraciously wolfing down what
> appeals
> to me and throwing up stuff later if it doesn't meet digestive standards.
>  I
> might even start thinking of myself as Ignostic, if the faithful-I is the
> center of that formulation.  For one thing, it ryhmes quite nicely with
> "I
> and I" of my rastafarian leanings.

[Tim]
I think the faithful-I being the center of my ignosticism is proper:
hope you don't mind if I use that, John!


I just submitted a 19k reply to Ham so I won't make this long

but Also:

> 
> John:
> 
> But Ham?  What about "value must be realized by a valuing agent to be
> real?"  Is not the creator just as dependent upon his creation  for his
> being, as his creation is dependent upon Him?  Without a created
> realizer,
> all this essence is just sitting around and contemplating nothing, being
> realized by nothing.  Is nothing, in other words.  Thus, I'd challenge
> your
> "absolute dependency" and change it to "absolute co-dependency".
> 

[Tim]
I reach a similar conclusion and I thought this was really worth
highlighting.

all the best,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service