Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
That and we AREN'T secular by any means. Our charter rights are guaranteed under god (singular too, sorry Hindu's) and our head of state is still the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
We never became a secular state, we just kinda drifted this way and assume we are because most people want it to be.
We never became a secular state, we just kinda drifted this way and assume we are because most people want it to be.
8) When Maria and me wuz goin together I used a condom when we had sex. The condom broke. She got pregnant. She had an abortion.
Both usin the condom and havin the abortion was against God's holy word according to the pope:, But, hey:
He no playa the game, he no maka the rules.
Put that in your Popemobile and sit on it.
:wink:
Both usin the condom and havin the abortion was against God's holy word according to the pope:, But, hey:
He no playa the game, he no maka the rules.
Put that in your Popemobile and sit on it.
:wink:
Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion
Queenie is only a titular head of state. I could make a pun cause she has a big titulars, but I won't. We are about as secular as we gonna get. No church tells shithead Harper how to rule..........well maybe not........I dunno.
Any tie between church and state is a holdover from days gone by. As you say, we just drifted here; but, if some twit like Bush started spouting God bless Canada we would be up in arms.................... 8O ......Didn't Harper say God bless Canada.???
Did I just make a point?
:?
Zzarchov said:
Queenie is only a titular head of state. I could make a pun cause she has a big titulars, but I won't. We are about as secular as we gonna get. No church tells shithead Harper how to rule..........well maybe not........I dunno.
Any tie between church and state is a holdover from days gone by. As you say, we just drifted here; but, if some twit like Bush started spouting God bless Canada we would be up in arms.................... 8O ......Didn't Harper say God bless Canada.???
Did I just make a point?
:?
LittleRunningGag said:
Excellent and intelligent post, LRG. I'm a weak atheist as you defined the term, though I really dislike that name for it. I'd prefer a less emotive nomenclature, like a Type 1 and a Type 2 atheist. I will not state definitively that there is no deity, I can't possibly know that for a fact, but I will state that the evidence offered by believers in a deity is to me not sufficient to justify belief, so I have no such belief. In my heart of hearts I'm probably a strong atheist as you defined it (correctly I think), but my rational mind recognizes the illogic of that position, as I explained in another post, so it insists on a more reasoned position that edges toward agnosticism, again as you (correctly I think) defined the term. I wouldn't agree that these things are in principle unknowable, which is the essence of the agnostic position, but I would say that, first, we don't know them now, and second, the evidence we have so far is overwhelmingly against them.
But that doesn't mean we're right. There's way too much we don't know.
Actually Irving Copi gets refuted after you go past entry level logic courses when the problem arrises "who decides who's a qualified investigator?"
What are the qualifications for discovering god? What evidence do you need to prove he exists? Countless respected leaders and scientists throughout history claim to have met, seen or spoken to god, is that qualified? Is physical proof needed? A bit of gods toenail? Does he have a toenail?
What is the proof of god ones need? To most Athiest belief structures it wouldn't do if Stephen Hawking said tommorow "I saw god first hand, talked to him, he's a nice guy and has his coffee black" you wouldn't believe it. If he said he figured out the way matter cooled to create the big bang, you probably would without delving anymore into the how he knows it.
Thats why Copi gets refuted in regards to a Diety, you can't have a qualifed investigator fail to find evidence if you don't even know what evidence your looking for.
As for OldNUgly..
We don't ACT religious, but our society still is set up that way. They may be laws we don't enforce, but they are still on the books waiting to be used by someone with a grudge to force god down everyones throats.
What are the qualifications for discovering god? What evidence do you need to prove he exists? Countless respected leaders and scientists throughout history claim to have met, seen or spoken to god, is that qualified? Is physical proof needed? A bit of gods toenail? Does he have a toenail?
What is the proof of god ones need? To most Athiest belief structures it wouldn't do if Stephen Hawking said tommorow "I saw god first hand, talked to him, he's a nice guy and has his coffee black" you wouldn't believe it. If he said he figured out the way matter cooled to create the big bang, you probably would without delving anymore into the how he knows it.
Thats why Copi gets refuted in regards to a Diety, you can't have a qualifed investigator fail to find evidence if you don't even know what evidence your looking for.
As for OldNUgly..
We don't ACT religious, but our society still is set up that way. They may be laws we don't enforce, but they are still on the books waiting to be used by someone with a grudge to force god down everyones throats.
Ah yes, the Catholic chruch and every other church on the planet "preaching" what they don't practice.
Who gives a phuck what the Pope says. When he opens the wealth (in the billions of dollars) of the Vatican to the poor people of the earth, to help feed, clothe and house them, then maybe I'll listen to his demagoguery.
Till then, he can shove all that gold he wears up his ass.
Who gives a phuck what the Pope says. When he opens the wealth (in the billions of dollars) of the Vatican to the poor people of the earth, to help feed, clothe and house them, then maybe I'll listen to his demagoguery.
Till then, he can shove all that gold he wears up his ass.
Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion
If there is a god, and he can 'speak' to all these people, then he can come a speak to me. How about catching it on video. How about, anything beyond simply taking their word for it. Something that can be duplicated. Something with some substance to it.
As for the big bang thing, I don't pretend to to know anything about those theories. Astrophysics isn't really my thing. Having said that, I will take his word on it after others (those that are qualified) have gone through it and verified it. That I don't have a problem with. It is something that can be verified, it is something with substance.
So what is it, eh? So anything that we can't quite understand, we just say, 'Meh, its possible?' If I tell you that there is an invisible pink unicorn sitting behind you, but that its properties are such that you can't verify it, do you assume that its plausible for that to actually be true? No, you tell me I'm lying to you. You won't believe me. What is it about deitys (deiti?) that makes people lose common sense?
I've got this bridge that you can use. Its really great, but you can only use it if you buy these goggles that are specially made to let you see the bridge. The bridge is great because it will transport you anywhere in seconds. Only hundred dollars. Takers? Anyone?
Zzarchov said:
If there is a god, and he can 'speak' to all these people, then he can come a speak to me. How about catching it on video. How about, anything beyond simply taking their word for it. Something that can be duplicated. Something with some substance to it.
As for the big bang thing, I don't pretend to to know anything about those theories. Astrophysics isn't really my thing. Having said that, I will take his word on it after others (those that are qualified) have gone through it and verified it. That I don't have a problem with. It is something that can be verified, it is something with substance.
So what is it, eh? So anything that we can't quite understand, we just say, 'Meh, its possible?' If I tell you that there is an invisible pink unicorn sitting behind you, but that its properties are such that you can't verify it, do you assume that its plausible for that to actually be true? No, you tell me I'm lying to you. You won't believe me. What is it about deitys (deiti?) that makes people lose common sense?
I've got this bridge that you can use. Its really great, but you can only use it if you buy these goggles that are specially made to let you see the bridge. The bridge is great because it will transport you anywhere in seconds. Only hundred dollars. Takers? Anyone?
Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion
I really hope that the satisfaction that I read in that is imagined.
tamarin said:
I really hope that the satisfaction that I read in that is imagined.
Actually yes LittleRunningGag
If you told me there was a pink unicorn behind me, but its capabilities were such that I did not have the ability to verify it, then It would be a possibility.
I may not believe you, I would even probably think you are screwing with me and tell you so. But that would just be my own biased opinion.
You need to understand the difference between what is scientifically possible, and what is someones opinion on what is probable.
The Pink Unicorn/God is scientifically possible, but to many peoples opinion it is impossible/improbable.
Science does not deal in probables, it deals in knowns and unknowns. Thats it. Either we know something for 100% certain, or we don't know it (anywhere from no clue to 99.999*% certain)
So while you may find it ridiculous to believe a diety could exist, that is still just your opinion. It may be right (as some thought the world must be round) or it may later turn out wrong (as people were 99.999*% sure the sun had to be under a million years old since thats the longest it could burn if made of coal.)
Is god Probable? No, is god Possible? Yes.
If you told me there was a pink unicorn behind me, but its capabilities were such that I did not have the ability to verify it, then It would be a possibility.
I may not believe you, I would even probably think you are screwing with me and tell you so. But that would just be my own biased opinion.
You need to understand the difference between what is scientifically possible, and what is someones opinion on what is probable.
The Pink Unicorn/God is scientifically possible, but to many peoples opinion it is impossible/improbable.
Science does not deal in probables, it deals in knowns and unknowns. Thats it. Either we know something for 100% certain, or we don't know it (anywhere from no clue to 99.999*% certain)
So while you may find it ridiculous to believe a diety could exist, that is still just your opinion. It may be right (as some thought the world must be round) or it may later turn out wrong (as people were 99.999*% sure the sun had to be under a million years old since thats the longest it could burn if made of coal.)
Is god Probable? No, is god Possible? Yes.
I completley disreagard anything that man says , he's not an elected offical in canada hell he's not even from here he has no right to tell us how to go about our bussiness , regardless of what your opion is on any of these issues i think most canadians will agree that it's up to our internal discussions to produce policy here.