From: Michael Mathews (desperado1977@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 09:00:00 GMT
I also agree with Steve quite a bit. I wrote the last response before
reading this one...I get lazy sometimes. Athiest is a pretty strong word.
Bringing the Buddhists into perspective they may not belive in one god and I
am confused by different readings on whether or not they believe in any gods
at all. I do know that Sidhartha said it was pointless to ask for the
purpose of existence or how we got here and he justifies it by saying that
not even any of the gods hold such knowledge. I have to say I agree. Could
their system not be considered a god?
So many times when I talk of god to people the first reaction is that
"sitting on a throne looking down, judging us all". When I talk about "god"
though for me it's more of a system (not too uncommon of a belief it's seems
these days). Yet I still get the idea that most people look at god as a
thinking, plotting, being (Which I don't completly discount I just feel it's
stretching things pretty far). So if I disagree with this perspective many
different religions (or people of the religions) would mark me an athiest. I
guess for me it's better to have faith that somethings out there then to
not, it just seems kind of ignorant to discount as a whole either religion
or science. Anyways, I try not to think about it too much mainly because it
takes time away from thinking about things that are pertinant to the here
and now. One way or another there are two possible outcomes, either you die
and that's it or something else happens, of which I don't think any of us
really have a clue so there's not much of a point in wasting time on
questions that can't be answered (Wondering and imagining is always nice
though). What can I say I follow Pascal's wager. You've got nothing to
lose by believing in something as long as you take action in you life rather
than reliying on your beliefs to the point that you take no responsibility
for your actions or lack there of. If that makes any sense.
Michael
>From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD quality religion
>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:55:27 -0600
>
>Steve,
>
>I like your little dialogue. It pretty well matches my thoughts on the
>typical a/theistic debates. I just have no real interest in them anymore,
>and most of the traditional answers don't do very well in capturing what I
>think. Speaking with the vulgar, I may say I'm an atheist, but I say it
>with grave misgivings.
>
>And when one says that the MoQ is atheistic, I think there is an important
>kernel of truth there, but the difficulty in using those traditional
>categories arises when you ponder Pirsig's assimilation of mysticism. I
>think it may be the same discomfort Buddhists have when they are described
>as atheists:
>
>"I guess so...."
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 Mar 25 2004 - 09:01:40 GMT