From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 19:51:43 BST
Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 at 5:15, platootje@netscape.net wrote:
Scott Quotes:
" The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is completely
dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and
Dynamic freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It
is anti-theistic. "
Reinier:
In my opinion "God" should be seen here as a social value-pattern. It
gets confusing this way. The repressing religious institutes where
social patterns. The scientific community rejects these social
patterns but also introduced "God" as an intellectual pattern, of
which they say 'it does not exist' or 'it can not be proven'.
ERIN: Well 'it does not exist' is different from saying 'it can not be proven'.......... People who go out of their ways to promote religous intolerance (i.e. my religion is the true religion) seems to me to be very similar to this anti-theistic approach seen here.....just one is saying God does exist and one is saying God doesn't exist. I just don't get the certainty of an idea like God......or the certainty that we should drop the idea as Pirsig supposedly suggests. It just seems to me asking people to evolve their concept of God to be more aligned with the concept of Quality is better than asking a person to drop the idea (don't really even understand how you "drop" a concept).
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 14 2005 - 21:31:12 BST