Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms

[L Gilbert]

I gave up on religions and politics being sensible. I hardly think what the pope says will make much difference in the current activites of Africans anyway.

 

[Spade]

The Pope's "Nos" is not respected?

 

[talloola]

I gave up on religions and politics being sensible. I hardly think what the pope says will make much difference in the current activites of Africans anyway.

many of the men might use the excuse that because of what the pope said, they
should not use a condom, just because they don't want to use one.
Many africans might just hang on every rule of the catholic church, especially the women, just so they
can be considered 'good' in the eyes of their god, , but if
the pope relaxed that law, the women could insist on the use of a condom, knowing it is OK in the eyes of the church.

 

[L Gilbert]

The Pope's "Nos" is not respected?

*guffaws*

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is not logical to make a statement and ask somebody else to "disprove" it. Making a statement is not "evidence". Provide the evidence to back up your statement and then you have a point.

I am a atheist agnostic but I don't have to prove or disprove "God". To me "God" is irrelevant until you convince me otherwise. Ok, so convince me;-)

Quite right, I totally agree. I have always maintained that the burden of proof is upon those who claim God exists, not upon those who say that God doesn’t exist.

 

[earth_as_one]

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.

Sorry, earth_as_one, you are wrong, at least in my case. I am not certain that God doesn’t exist, I am almost certain, there is a big difference.

I have looked at it carefully and I see no evidence of existence of God. Does that mean God doesn’t exist? It doesn’t follow with 100% certainty. As I said before, logically it is impossible to prove a negative.

So lack of evidence for existence of God is not the same as evidence for non-existence of God. However, since I see no evidence for God’s existence, that tells me that there is an overwhelming probability that God doesn’t exist.

But of course I can’t be sure. The only way one can be sure about something like this is to die and see where one ends up. So I cannot say with 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist. But I think the possibility of God’s existence is so remote as to be negligible. However, I am open to persuasion. If I can see evidence for God, I will change my views, though I think that is extremely unlikely.

This is in contrast with the religious person, who is certain that God exists (I agree with you here). A religious person is certain because he takes it as a matter of faith. I am not 100% certain because I look at the evidence and I don’t see any for existence of God. There is a big difference.

You are an agnostic who leans towards atheism. Only if you were 100% certain there is no God would you be truly an atheist.

Check out this article which compares agnostic with theism and atheism:
Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?

 

[L Gilbert]

Nuts. Then there is no such thing as an atheist because no-one could be 100% certain there aren't gods.

From Merriam Webster:
Atheism
Have a discussion about religion. Create your own profile & join in.
Wondercafe.ca



Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Certainty is irrelevant.

From Princeton U.:

someone who denies the existence of god(s)

From Wikipedia:

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

I didn't see anything in the article EA! posted about atheists having such an absolute attitude as a certainty towards deities.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are an agnostic who leans towards atheism. Only if you were 100% certain there is no God would you be truly an atheist.

I disagree. Anybody who claims to ‘know’ that God does not exist is deluded or is a moron. There is no way to prove the existence or non existence of God.

I consider myself very much an Atheist.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Certainty is irrelevant.

Gilbert, I agree certainty is irrelevant. In my opinion the possibility of God existing is so negligible that I can safely say that I deny the existence of God.

So I have no problem with the definitions you have given. I deny that God exists. But am I 100% sure? No. But the probability of existence of God is so minuscule that I am ‘practically’ 100% sure.

 

[gerryh]

Then that is your OPINION, not a fact.You tell me I am wrong and then you expect people to just accept that I am? roflmao Such arrogance is understandable. It stems from a human interpretation of a book that is arrogant enough to make claims without evidence.

lmao
Unable to find proof? I am not looking for proof of deities' existences. If some comes my way, I'd be happy to look at it. But, until then I will go with the probabilities.

No..I have the proof I need, that is not an opinion. I said you are wrong in saying that no one can prove the existence of God.....It's been proven to me, therefore, you are wrong. Maybe if you had said that no one has been able to prove it to YOU, then you would be right, but not in what you said.

Then that is YOUR problem if you are not activley looking for proof. I looked, and found it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Earth_as_one, I have no problem with the link you have given, it sounds sensible to me. In fact, it says the following:

in the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists

That really is consistent with what I have said, that the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is a matter of degree, not a matter of kind.

I remember on the canada.com forum I explained the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic with the help of an example. It may be useful to state that here.

Did you have bacon and eggs for breakfast today? I don’t know, but it is certainly possible. I am not sure what you had for breakfast. However, I think it is quite possible that you had bacon and eggs (or you had something else). On this subject, I am an Agnostic.

However, did you have tar sands and gasoline for breakfast today? Again, I don’t know, I wasn’t there when you had your breakfast. For all I know, you may be in a hospital ward right now, being treated for having ingested tar sands and gasoline.

However, the probability of you having tar sands and gasoline for breakfast is so small, so negligible that I can safely say that you did NOT have tar sands and gasoline for breakfast. Even though I am not 100% sure, I can say with perfect confidence that you did not have tar sands and gasoline for breakfast. On this subject, I am an Atheist.

It is the same with God. While I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, the probability of God existing is so minute, so negligible that I can say with perfect confidence that God does NOT exist.

 

[gerryh]

With all do respect...

I don't give a rats ass about who believes what or doesn't. What is reprehensible here is the Churches adherence to an archaic principal. In the face of an epidemic reaching, pardon the pun, biblical proportions.

Africa has what? 67% of the global AIDS cases?

It's time the Church weighed the difference between principal and mortality...

especially since I'm sure most of them eat shrimp rings...right Gh?

Here's the problem with your argument Bear....IF the people were to follow Church teachings concerning sex, then condoms would NOT be needed for the prevention of the spread of AIDS, or any other sexualy transmited disease. No premarital sex, and after marriage, sex ONLY with your spouse. Based on this, why should the Church change it's stance? Changing it's stance on contraceptives would be the same as the Church giving it's members the freedom to HAVE pre-marital sex....etc...... The Catholic Chrch has been steadfast in it's interpratation of the Scriptures. It can not very well change it's stance now without admitting that it has had it all wrong.

 

[earth_as_one]

Quite right, I totally agree. I have always maintained that the burden of proof is upon those who claim God exists, not upon those who say that God doesn’t exist.

Normally the burden of proof is on proving existence since its logically impossible to prove non-existance. (Unless you are the President of the US demanding Iraq prove the non-existance of WMD stockpiles.)

 

[Said1]

How many of us Catholics were 'at' our parents wedding.....as in 'in the oven'.

 

[earth_as_one]

SJP, its a matter of degree I suppose.

I view the existance of the universe as evidence which suggests but doesn't prove the existance of greater intelligence.

 

[Said1]

Oops/. my comment was directed a Gerryh. Someone slipped one in firsT!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP, its a matter of degree I suppose.

I view the existance of the universe as evidence which suggests but doesn't prove the existance of greater intelligence.

Finally we are in agreement. I of course come to a different conclusion from you. I don't see any evidence of greater intelligence.

 

[gerryh]

How many of us Catholics were 'at' our parents wedding.....as in 'in the oven'.

Oops/. my comment was directed a Gerryh. Someone slipped one in firsT!

Ok..... but that little "fact" has nothing to do with Church policy. Members of the Church do not decide policy. We, as individuals, can decide that the Church's interpretations of scripture are worng or flawed. If we, as individuals, decide that the Churches interpretations are so far out in left field, we can choose to leave the Church and either find one that is closer to our own interpretations and beliefs or go it alone. Remember, Christ did tell us that the man that pray's honestly in a closet at home by himself has a better chance of entering Heaven than a man that goes to Church all the time just to be able to say "see how piuos a man I am".

 

[Said1]

Ok..... but that little "fact" has nothing to do with Church policy. Members of the Church do not decide policy. We, as individuals, can decide that the Church's interpretations of scripture are worng or flawed. If we, as individuals, decide that the Churches interpretations are so far out in left field, we can choose to leave the Church and either find one that is closer to our own interpretations and beliefs or go it alone. Remember, Christ did tell us that the man that pray's honestly in a closet at home by himself has a better chance of entering Heaven than a man that goes to Church all the time just to be able to say "see how piuos a man I am".

Get off your soap box. Now your rationalizing. You're preaching about not having premarital sex and following church policy in one thread, now your saying it has nothing to do with church policy and we can 'decide' what is flawed and what isn't, like cherry picking. :lol:

 

[karrie]

lol I thought moral superiority and supreme knowledge were the domain of the supernatural critters.

Then you don't read the atheists of this forum nearly thoroughly enough. LOL.