???
6 of one and a half dozen of the other are the same thing. There are places on this planet where 1 person would be an overpopulation.
Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
6 of one and a half dozen of the other are the same thing. There are places on this planet where 1 person would be an overpopulation.
The Vatican's? Or the individual churches?
Because to sit down and talk to a priest about the issue, I get the same answer I get on most issues....
The church has ideals for how a healthy family unit functions. A devoted mother/father unit, begetting kids and living according to Catholic doctrine. But, that is merely the ideal, and much comes into play outside of the ideal. Health problems necessitate medication and interventions, money issues necessitate people putting a cap on their family size. Outside of the ideal, the church expects us to also make choices within our conscience, to keep ourselves and our families healthy. And to not judge the actions others take to achieve the same for their families.
Sounds ridiculously simple doesn't it?
To hear some agnostics tell it, the difference is that they don't claim the supreme knowledge and moral superiority that an atheist claims.
But, that's just one view I suppose. :lol:
The difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is one of degree, and not one of kind. A religious person ‘knows’ that God exists, he is of a different kind.
An Agnostic doesn’t know if God exists, but he thinks that there is some possibility that she may exist.
Atheist doesn’t know if God exists either (how can anybody know such a thing with certainty?). An Atheist also thinks that there is some possibility that God exists. However, according to an Atheist, the possibility that God exists is so small as to be negligible.
lol I thought moral superiority and supreme knowledge were the domain of the supernatural critters.
A religious person does NOT know gods exist any more than atheists know they don't. Agnostics can't make up their minds.
It is a matter of perspective, I agree. But I prefer to make that differentiation (too many people as opposed to too little food).
If Africa can solve its problems, it tribal warfare, mutual hatreds, (in some cases) Islamic Fundamentalism etc. and devote her attention to feeding her population, Africa can comfortably support a much bigger population than at present.
The same cannot be said of Asia. Asia has so many people that it cannot feed too many more, it is close to reaching its limit. Africa is nowhere near its limit.
I know that, Gilbert. That is why I put the word ‘knows’ in quotation marks. A religious person does not know that God exists, but he claims to know that God exists.
Look at out friend, eanassir. He ‘knows’ that God of Islam is the true God, and that the punishments meted out by countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia (cutting hands of a thief, stoning a woman to death for adultery, killing of homosexuals, honour killings etc.) are prescribed by Allah.
A religious extremist is so sure of his faith, that he ‘knows’ his God is the true God, anybody who disagrees with him is a Disciple of the Devil and is headed straight for Hell.
An Atheist or an Agnostic on the other hand, cannot be sure. As an Atheist I think God doesn’t exist, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty. As I said before, how can anybody know that? However, a religious person ‘knows’ with 100% certainty that his God is the true God.
lol There are large areas of Asia that are largely unpopulated (Siberia comes to mind). If people can make a city thrive in the middle of a relatively barren desert (Las Vegas), they can certainly make a go of it in nicer places.
Oh, I see. Well to me that isn't so much knowing there is a god or gods as having faith that there are. And for all practical intents and purposes, I am positive there isn't.
No. it does not sound "ridiculously simple" it sounds "nuanced." I agree that you are correct in outlining the Canadian Catholic Church's official position on artificial birth control. If you read an earlier post of mine, I said the same thing. However, is this liberal perspective being taught from pulpit and Catholic press to parishioners? I went on line to find out...
In the Western Catholic Reporter which goes to every Catholic family on the Prairies, the lead article for the week of March 16, 2009, dealing with "Church teaching brings new life" contains the paragraph:
"They first studied Humanae Vitae, the papal encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968 that affirmed the Church's teaching on married love and condemned artificial contraception as morally wrong." No nuance here.
Later in the same issue, the letter to the editor which received prominence (highlighted) over all others rails against birth control and a priest who dared present the "nuanced" position in an earlier edition.
Yes, for all practical intents and purposes, but are you 100% sure? I am not. But I consider that whatever the probability of God’s existence, .01%, .001% etc. small enough to be negligible.
But a religious person is 100% sure. Atheist may be almost 100% sure, while Agnostic is not sure at all. That is why the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is one of degree, while that between an Atheist and a religious person is one of kind.
Last edited:
Spade, that has been my understanding all along, I was surprised by karrie’s ‘nuanced’ position.
My understanding has always been that Catholic Church is opposed to contraception, period. No if, and or buts. Contraception is the product of the Devil and that is all there is to it. It is not permitted under any circumstances.
Thanks for clearing that up. So what karrie is describing is her own position, and not that of the Church.
Obviously not since you made the following statement.
and how do you know this? Do YOU have "supreme knowledge"?
Religious people are certain God exists, even though they can't prove it. Therefore they make a leap of faith and choose to believe in God.
Atheists are certain God (or Gods) don't exist even though they have no proof. Atheists must make a leap of faith to be certain and choose not to believe in God.
Both viewpoints are still leaps of faith unsupported by proof.
If you are uncertain whether God exists or not, then you aren't an atheist. That makes you agnostic. Agnostics make no such leap of faith like the religious or atheists. We are undecided until proof exists one way or the other. I suppose you can call it fence sitting if you like. I don't see it that way.
Some things I don't know:
Does God exist? I don't know.
Here are some things I do know:
Does HIV exist? Yes.
Does using a condomn during sex reduce the chances of contracting HIV? Yes.
Knowledge based on faith is iffy.
lol Belief and disbelief are different things. I have no faith that gods don't exist. I simply disbelieve they do. What I have faith in is that I am right. Religious sorts have faith that there are such critters. There's a difference. I disbelieve in faeries, too. Perhaps you are unsure whether they exist and perhaps some people have faith they exist. To me, there is little or no difference between gods, faeries, Santa Claus, Easter bunnies, etc.
Sorry, but you are wrong at least in my case.
*shrugs*
No-one does.
I agree
