(May 5, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: According to your definition of moderate, I would have to say that there are no "real" moderates in religion. If people considered the possibility that their religion may be wrong, did some critical research of their religion and all others, and gave it some serious scrutiny, there wouldn't be people in these religions. In other words, that moderate definition could mean open-minded, which everyone, including myself, needs to try to be aware of at all times. I gave my religion a very serious look, at the same time, considered the legitimacy of many others, and fell out of it immediately.
Point well taken. Another point is that if someone tells me they are a "moderate Libertarian" to use a non-religious (?) example, it tells me nothing of what they even tentatively believe. Such a person might be fine with social security or medicare. They might think that some government oversight of business production might be a good thing, just not too much, whatever qualifies as excessive in their minds. Maybe they think some social safety net is a good thing? Who knows? Until I hear more from that person, there's no telling what they believe.
If someone tells me they are a "hard core libertarian", that tells me a great deal more.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
