RE: MD is god real?

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 03:05:59 BST

  • Next message: Richard Loggins: "Re: MD On Faith and coincidences"

    A teenaged Palestinian girl is standing in front of a full length mirror at
    the mall when, worried, she turns to her friend and asks, "Does this bomb
    make me look fat?"

    David Morey said:
    Generally, I find that anti-god talk folk have experienced low-quality
    thinking on these subjects, whilst the pro-god-talk camp are either more
    familiar with high-quality god talk or are in the low-quality god talk
    camp and are pretty ignorant.

    dmb says:
    Um, this sentence makes me wonder if its author knows anything about
    high-quality. You've simply asserted that you're a deep thinker and those
    who disagree are ignorant, bad thinkers. Its not an argument or a case so
    much as a self-congratulatory assertion, a naked assertion without any
    apparent basis.

    MOrey said:
    My own path has been from a pure atheist back ground, obsession with science
    and philosophy, discovery of the problems and low-quality aspects of atheist
    and secular thinking, to discovery of high-quality god talk that actually
    engages with issues that secular and atheist thinking dogmatically refuse to


    dmb says:
    Like what? Are you saying faith is better than nihilism? As I understand the
    MOQ, neither of these are options. In any case, without something specific I
    can only guess what you're talking about.

    Morey said:
    Most secular thinking fails to get as deep as Pirsig does, and let's face it

    when he gets deep he starts to open his thinking up to what is still
    religion, but of the eastern variety.

    dmb says:
    Not just Eastern religion, but Native American mysticism too. Its a less
    cluttered and more familiar form of mysticism. One of the reasons LILA opens
    with the teepee scene and all that. I realize you're only sharing your path
    with us so we know where you're coming from, but I have to say that the MOQ
    does not present shallow secular thinking nor theistic religion as options
    and more or less rejects them both. Can we please agree on that, at least?

    Morey said:
    I guess my position is pro-deep thinking, and my suggestion is that unless
    you avoid deep thinking, you are going to have to start talking about stuff
    that often provoke the use of the god-word. Do you really imagine that we
    would talk about god for thousands of years only to find that god is a
    fiction. How strange would that make us.

    dmb says:
    Not at all. There was a point where we stopped worshipping animal spirits,
    why not God too? Its called evolution, man. Get with the program. Today the
    serious (deep) questions are not about the reality of God, but the meaning
    and purpose of myth. We can look at religion with different eyes now, and
    there really is no going back even if we wanted to. When we talk about God
    in the anthropomorphic sense, we're talking about a conception that is
    entirely inappropriate within modern consciousness, one that is entirely
    intellectually indefensible. (This is where faith comes galloping to the

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 24 2004 - 03:26:00 BST