[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:37 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> OK, I've taken my meds, a comment or two below.
>
>> [Mark]
>> > Dan, I will have to respectively point out that you are talking about
>> > religion, not theism.  If you want to be anti-religion that is fine.
>>  Theism
>> > is a personal belief in a God.  If MOQ claims to be anti-religious
>> > establishment, that is fine.  However, please note that there are many
>> > religions, and those which claim a creator are also many.  So, if MOQ is
>> > anti-Hindu, or anti-Veda, or anti-American Indian, or anti-Christianity,
>> > then it should be stated.
>>
>> Hi Mark
>>
>> I have no idea where you're getting this. Have you read The Montana
>> Cree? It is all about the persistence of religion in the face of a
>> dominating culture. Please re-read my post.
>>
>
> [Mark again]
> No, I haven't read the Montana Cree.  I don't think that would make much
> difference.  I am getting at the difference between theism and the religious
> institutions that use it for power.  The religions are political for the
> most part, when they promote such things.  It is this political aspect that
> you must blame for all the harm that you say theism has done.  I don't know
> how else to explain it.  To be anti-theist would mean that you are against
> what many people believe to be true.  I understand that you believe in MOQ,
> but this does not have to mean that you are against what others believe.
>  MOQ should profess harmony, not division.  There is no superior belief,
> such things are attained through the individual's relationship with
> himself.

Dan:

I suspect that we are talking past each other, Mark. You seem to think
I am promoting my own thinking here. I am not. I am promoting tthe
thinking of Verne Dusenberry and how it relates to the thinking of
Robert Pirsig in the development of the MOQ. It is Robert Pirsig who
said the MOQ is anti-theistic, not me, although I agree with him. I
was trying to explain the differrence between atheism andf anti-theism
in that regard. I think there is a great deal of value in comparing
Dusenberry's work to the evolution of the MOQ.

>
>>
>> >
>> > If you are intent on blaming Theism for the ills of humanity, then you
>> are
>> > somewhat misguided.  You should be directing your anger at politics.
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> What anger?
>>
>> >  Hopefully MOQ is apolitical, but this stance you profess against
>> religion
>> > does not support such a notion.   In addition if you believe that Quality
>> > has no personal relationship with you, as is thought in theism, then you
>> > have missed the point of Quality.  Quality is a monistic guide, if you
>> can't
>> > consider that in a personal way, then you will always be dealing with
>> > Quality at arms length, as some kind of philosophical premise rather than
>> a
>> > reality.  If you somehow feel separated from Quality then you need to
>> think
>> > about it some more.
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> I have no idea what you trying to say, Mark. You seem upset. Perhaps
>> you need to check your meds.
>>
>
> [Mark again]
> Yes, perhaps.  I find it annoying when people talk about things that they
> know nothing about and then rally against them mindlessly.  If you have
> experienced theism, what do you find wrong with it?  You cannot be against
> something that you have no knowledge about, in my opinion.  To be
> anti-theistic seems like a political position more than anything from the
> MOQ.  Does this make sense to you?

Dan:

Again, it is not my thinking... it is the thinking of Robert Pirsig we
are discussing here. You don''t seem to understand that simple fact.
And Mark, I have read The Montana Cree. So who is talking mindlessly
about things they know nothing about?

And no, you make no sense at all.

Dan