bleeding heart

I think there are two pretty distinct types of agnosticism: One, and that is commonly held (but isn't, or isn't necessarily, actual agnosticism) is that which states, explicitly or implicitly, that "the core Christian belief system (ie Jesus and His Divinity) may be true, but I'm not convinced." (Substitute Christianity for whatever is the dominant religion of a particular region or culture.) This is an "agnosticism" that nods towards a single religion, but tends to automatically eschew all others. Why? Well, we can only ask these self-professed agnostics, but in my experience they refuse to answer, being less inclined than the truly devout to honestly discuss such matters. The other agnosticism is of the type I mentioned earlier: that I can't speak with absolute, scientific certainty that Christianity is false, but that Christianity holds precisely the same position as all other religions....which rather opens the door wide for true scepticism (to which the culturally-specific "agnosticism" does not really belong)...and to atheism. In short, I'm technically an agnostic; but for all intents and purposes, I am an atheist. Sounds slightly contradictory, and it is, but only in the sense that I'm "agnostic" (and, technically, I am) about the Loch Ness Monster or the faeries of Ireland. I'm not being coy here; I'm serious. That is, I can accept, happily, the term "agnostic" if it does not require some specious sense of "balance," in which belief in a deity must (for unspoken reasons) acquire equal weight to a lack of belief. Such unwarranted balance is in effect a type of "faith," determined by a wrongheaded sense of equivalence.

So, it's a win-win, for both you and the "suckers."

And I'm sure Ontario will consider you sorely missed.....

I see the word "Hooligans" cropping up a lot--evidence that several here are eagerly repeating the talking points handed to them by the pundits. (Unless there's some sort of Jungian mass-consciousness on display, though surely that's anathema to the those cradling the childish myth of "rugged individualism," as if they are not really the social animal called "primates," but rather a Divine Creation....though that, too, should be problematic for the Randians among us. ) However, it's moot, in a way, because most of the Occupy movement agrees that a small band of destruction-minded folk are trying to ruin it for everybody. So...some agreement at last!

Both. And in fact (the example of my acquaintance notwithstanding) Buddhism has, and has always had, plenty of genuine religious fanaticism accompanying it. If you believe this, then you also believe that atheists--since their view is "faith-based"--know that the faithful are wrong. I don't think there is a science world view that categorically states that it knows Heaven does not exist. At any rate, any atheist worth his or her salt is simultaneously an agnostic, in the Bertrand Russell formulation of atheist = agnostic. In my opinion. That is, I can't know that the Catholic Trinity is not perfectly real and categorically true...hence, agnosticism. But by the same token (and I mean precisely, unequivocally the same token) I can't know that competing faiths, say the Homeric gods, aren't actually the truth, the objective reality. That's where atheism instantly sneaks its way into the agnosticism. Atheists no more believe that "life is miserable" than do the faithful; and arguably less so. And again, it's not about "nothingness"...it's about not knowing, a humility that Christ's followers, at least, should appreciate, humility being a type of philosophical genius, and which speaks quite well for Christianity as an important agent of achievement of thought. Well, labour issues are real enough, whether you wish we'd stop talking about them or not. And the Catholic view of heaven--with all due respect--is far, far from a fresh and original conversation. Labour issues are brand spanking new in comparison. Or for perhaps a more relevant comparison, technological marvels that will save mankind and solve our problems are also a far older and at least somewhat discredited notion, dating back to H.G. Wells perfectly, but no doubt much farther than that in some respects.

I knew a Buddhist who had a framed photograph of "His Holiness" above a little shrine in his livingroom. No one knows whether Heaven would be fun or not. The dead sure aren't telling. I'm not belittling the idea of the faithful enjoying themselves. You're the one who doubts that atheists can be really enjoying themselves. Since you don't (cannot possibly) believe that these discussions are over, are you suggesting that they should be? Alvin Toffler is, like, so....1970s!!!!

So....Mulcair is more Stalinist than....Stalin! No one could possibly think so, while remaining serious. That's how we know you're joking!

No. Religion is always a faith-based worldview, and atheism often is. And that's an enormous difference. Speaking strictly for myself, I have viewed the world as more fun (and beautifully mysterious) since abandoning religion. I'm not sure I understand.

I forgot the link! http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/03/10/atheist-alain-de-botton-challenges-hitchens-assertion-that-religion-poisons-everything/

A pretty decent demolition of the usual "don't tax the rich" arguments; and while he's speaking specifically of the US, his arguments extrapolate quite naturally. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

“Religions are too good to be abandoned to people who actually believe in them,” he said. At any rate, I don't know how much of this I agree with--or even if I've entirely gleaned his point from this short piece--but I think it's fodder for some fascinating discussions. I think he's a great believer in the excellent effects of tradition, of humility in the face of Mysteries, and of the salutary effects of religion on art...art as a living conversation about the big questions of human existence.

As I already said (making your remark about disingenuity re others' posts pretty amusing), you are more concerned with cheats and frauds throughout the lower-income, weaker aspects of society, and less concerned with it at the top. I'm not saying you're ignoring them; only that, like elitists generally, your class warfare is aimed decidedly downwards in most cases. Ah.....Peeves-y old boy, we had this discussion earlier, remember? Where you played the victim card along these lines about ad hominems and insults...until I quoted your own, very regular and usual, adherence to insults and ad hominems. Why hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

But you have no degree in political science, are not designated in any way, and do not work in the field of politics...and yet you are convinced of your expertise on such matters. If you really believe that some sort of accredited designations are required for you to speak on any subject...you wouldn't be making fun of "dippers," now, would you? You'd remain, as a matter of principle, a total agnostic, and allow your educated betters to debate without your input. Or is it that only the world of finance and economics are of a Holy nature, sacraments to be discussed only by the trained Priesthood, where every other subject is fair game? (Aside from Shakespeare and Aristotle, that is, the two subjects you've deemed beyond your ken.)

No. It was the opposite of the truth, as has already been firmly demonstrated in this very thread.

If an adult asks you for a Tylenol, and you comply with his request, you are not going to be the victim of a successful lawsuit.

Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences to your words, as AW pointed out. I mean, it's not as if the Nuge got in trouble...just a cancellation, no doubt not the first to occur for such has-been old rockers.

del

+1 for Waldo.

Pretty interesting stuff.

I guess "alarmist" and "brainwashed" are non-judgemental, objective descriptors, then.

There is no doubt plenty of cheating. But you use this fact to vilify the very notion of social programs, even as you willingly concede that cheats, frauds, and systemic failures stretch through every organization, every policy, every socioeconomic grouping, straight to the top. But only the social programs designed for those having real financial difficulty are the ones you favour targeting with closure or increased austerity. If, as you say, cheating is inherent to all strata of society--and it is, up to and including corporations and socialized profit-making enterprises such as the military--why target only the weakest of society? It's this top-down class warfare, this bald elitism, with which many are taking issue.

I dunno, but I take your point. Oh, sure; I wasn't actually making any objective claims about the matter, so much as I was thinking that if affirmative action was blocking more merit-based students from admissions, then the (higher) number of legacy admissions must be doing the same, but moreso. Talking out of my behind, yes, but a (shall we say) educated bit of talking out of my behind.

I get what you mean. But it appears to me that the debates in other countries--with more restrictions on abortion--is at least as common as here, and at least equally divisive.

Yes...but you can throw together any discussion you want, to try make "the left" look bad. "Feminists," and"Canadian women" generally, are not having abortions based on gender. And if "you can definitely see it happening"...show us. And such is not the point...neither for those of us who support or oppose the freedom to choose. For example, you know what's wrong with conservatives? Well, the Taliban are conservatives....so...there you go! (You see how unreasonable this line of argument is?)

Any examples?