[DerbyX]

Thanos Thanos:

$1:

OTOH several Libs on this forum have stated that any formal coalition with the NDP will cause them to rip up their card. That doesn't make them party hacks though just exposes your ignorance.

That makes them awesome people who know where to draw the line on how far they want their party to go to regain power. And it's nice to see enough Libs saying a resounding 'no' to merging with the left kook fringe. I thought I'd never ever say this but better a majority Liberal government again someday, warts and all, than some misbegotten two-headed monster where Jack Layton has any say in policy. Might as well shut the economy down altogether if that ever happens. Like the wise man once said:

The middle of the road is all the usable surface. The extremes of left and right are in the gutters. - Dwight David Eisenhower

Well the problem here is that the NDP are far from a fringe left kook party. That might be the Canadian Action Party but not a party that is polling between 15% and 20% and getting 2.5 million votes. Even the Greens aren't really a fringe group but rather a very issue focused party.

Its ironic I'm called a party hack when I routinely defend the NDP and Green parties. If I were I'd never consider any type of coalition/merger for my Libs. Ah well.

In addition, I think Jack Layton is far from the 2 headed monster you think. In fact he is polling better then Iggy at the moment and at least 1 poll asking what kind of support a Lib-NDP merger would get saw a Lib-NDP party led by Layton trouncing the CPC to a large minority government.

Recall the Reform party and subsequent Alliance were if anything at least equal to the NDP as a fringe party only right wing. The same arguments happened during that merger just as they would over this possible one.

[Lemmy]

Annihilator Annihilator:

Well, a religion has to include some kind of theism.

So you would say Buddism and Wiccans are not religions?

Annihilator Annihilator:

I think that AGW would be called a secular dogma. After all, AGW is politics, not science.

Only if "AGW" is something different than run-of-the-mill global warming.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Annihilator Annihilator:

Well, a religion has to include some kind of theism.

So you would say Buddism and Wiccans are not religions?

Annihilator Annihilator:

I think that AGW would be called a secular dogma. After all, AGW is politics, not science.

Only if "AGW" is something different than run-of-the-mill global warming.

Wiccans are polytheistic, which is a form of theism.

[Lemmy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Wiccans are polytheistic, which is a form of theism.

There's so many varieties of "mother-earth" worship. I don't know if I agree that it's theism though.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Wiccans are polytheistic, which is a form of theism.

There's so many varieties of "mother-earth" worship. I don't know if I agree that it's theism though.

Well, for those that follow a polytheistic path, I would argue it's a form of theism.

$1:

Polytheism
Main article: Polytheism
While a specific definition of theism may exclude polytheism, it is included by the most general definition. Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one deity.[6] In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities.

Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties:

Hard polytheism views the gods as being distinct and separate beings; an example of this would be the Egyptian and Greek Religions; along with certain schools of Hinduism.
Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole. Some forms of Hinduism such as Smartism/Advaita Vedanta serve as examples of soft polytheism.
Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded:

Henotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but worship of only one of them.
Kathenotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity is worshipped at a time or ever, and another may be worthy of worship at another time or place. If they are worshipped one at a time, then each is supreme in turn.
Monolatrism: The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshipped. Most of the modern monotheistic religions may have begun as monolatric ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

[Lemmy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Well, for those that follow a polytheistic path, I would argue it's a form of theism.

Sure, I'll agree with that. But I think a lot of "mother-earthers" don't regard mother-earth as a deity. They just accpet the world as "the way it is". I tend to think of most Wiccan-types as very like science-believers, except they haven't learned the science. They just prefer to call it "nature".

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole.

Which is what Jews and most Muslims refer to Trinitarianism as being.

[angler57]

Still not convinced. Will keep my religion.

[andyt]

I'll take pantheism for 100, Alex. The only theism that doesn't seem to lead to strife over who has the better God, nor can it claim that God told his followers to kill others in his name. It's also a good model for living in harmony with the planet.

[Annihilator]

PostFactum PostFactum:

Annihilator Annihilator:

CharlieHammer CharlieHammer:

And what are facts but an ever-growing tower of knowledge rising into the universe? Our ancestors made a leap of faith ages ago, and now science looks to bridge that gap. Both seek one thing: the ultimate truth.

Religion is but a theory yet to be proven a law.

Science is knowledge, indeed, and like religion, it seeks the truth. However, science has proven to do it much better, because it relies on evidence rather than faith.

About religion being a theory, that's not true. A theory has to be supported by evidence, religion is not.

So why do religion is not a knowlage? in asian world they say that religion is only "life rules" so why knowladge of this rules is not "religion knowladge". And anyway in the last day when the humanity will be destroyed, everyone will call to mind religion first, not science. Tertullian have said a good quote "I belive because it's absurd".

Because it is based on NOTHING, simply.

[HyperionTheEvil]

Proculation Proculation:

racists

i Agree, many if not most religions have a racist undercurrent.

[angler57]

Still at it.
Gosh, you folks are still proving a million ways to disprove religions? Will ask again? Only recieved a couple answers last time. What makes so many, so desperate to crush the personal beliefs of others.
Please don't use that OLD conspiracy saw. It doesn't wash.
WHAT DO YOU FOLKS FEAR????????? Courage now. Please tell us.

[Mustang1]

angler57 angler57:

Still at it.
Gosh, you folks are still proving a million ways to disprove religions? Will ask again? Only recieved a couple answers last time. What makes so many, so desperate to crush the personal beliefs of others.
Please don't use that OLD conspiracy saw. It doesn't wash.
WHAT DO YOU FOLKS FEAR????????? Courage now. Please tell us.

What do you assume it's "fear"? Projection? People are entitled to their beliefs - but that doesn't mean they are true. History is full of religions...full of belief systems...and full of subjective worldviews that have lasted significantly long times (only to be subjected to a rather Hegelian process), but that doesn't mean they're correct. In fact, if history is any indication, most faiths don't last. Please tell us why.

[HyperionTheEvil]

angler57 angler57:

Still at it.
Gosh, you folks are still proving a million ways to disprove religions? Will ask again? Only recieved a couple answers last time. What makes so many, so desperate to crush the personal beliefs of others.
Please don't use that OLD conspiracy saw. It doesn't wash.
WHAT DO YOU FOLKS FEAR????????? Courage now. Please tell us.

It's because the burden of proof of so-called deity requires independent, scientific, repeatable proof if the religious types want to force other people to live and believe as they do.

Many religious types base their hated of homo-homosexual's on the bible because it is the 'word of god'. Well considering that no such evidence exists - or amounts to no ore than "We say so", that has been discovered according to the above method of critical thinking that if the religious believers think they hold a moral high ground it's on their shoulders that the case must be definitively proved "Our god does exist and his law are the law of mankind"

Go ahead and believe what you want to believe, but two things

Keep it out of public policy , but if you do decide to bring your irrational thinking into open debate expect to be asked hard question which require answers as to the proof of existence of a god

[angler57]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

angler57 angler57:

Still at it.
Gosh, you folks are still proving a million ways to disprove religions? Will ask again? Only recieved a couple answers last time. What makes so many, so desperate to crush the personal beliefs of others.
Please don't use that OLD conspiracy saw. It doesn't wash.
WHAT DO YOU FOLKS FEAR????????? Courage now. Please tell us.

What do you assume it's "fear"? Projection? People are entitled to their beliefs - but that doesn't mean they are true. History is full of religions...full of belief systems...and full of subjective worldviews that have lasted significantly long times (only to be subjected to a rather Hegelian process), but that doesn't mean they're correct. In fact, if history is any indication, most faiths don't last. Please tell us why.

Reply
Christian, Jewish, muslim, many from the east and orient. Have been around a VErrrrrrrrrry long time. They are still here. One fact runs thru history.
The more mens beliefs are questioned, the more strongly they are held.
Plainnn that?