Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

[Zzarchov]

Uhm, Actually Athiesm IS a religious belief system. It is a belief there is no god. Believing something not to exist without proof is the same as believing something DOES exist without proof. Scientific Method would say you should be Agnostic if you were truly not religious.

That is something you believe, Athiesm is a religious leaning. Now Athiesm itself is not a religion anymore than Monothiesm is a religion. But there are many different Athiest Religions, from Scientology to LeVay "Satanism" (which does not include belief in Satan, the name is only used for PR).

Religion does not equate to a belief in god, as there are many athiest religions both currently and throughout history, just as there have been many monothiest and polythiest religions through out history (long before Judaism)

So yes, Athiesm can be a religion and to many it is. As is Pseudo-Science as a branch of that, the belief (through lack of knowledge) that science must know all the answers when it freely admits it does not yet. This is equally as dangerous, as until science does know all the answers you will only lead to misery if you make assumptions about things which have neither been proven or disproven to this point.

This line of thought (being the same kind of human failing which leads to religious attrocities) has lead to many horrible secular attrocities, people thinking they knew all the answers because they had faith that untested science would turn out to be true in the future. Eugenics and the Nazi ideals it created are the most evident example of this.

 

[hermanntrude]

RE: Pope scolds Canada on

the pope surely does not understand. Does this mean he is a bad man or an ignorant man in power?

I think if u added a poll to this thread, it'd be very clear that probably more than 90% of the enlightened people on these forae (fora? what is the plural of forum anyway?) would agree that gay marriage is just fine and no-one has the right to say it isnt. If a rule is dumb i usually just quietly ignore it.

 

[AspiringStarvingArtist]

You know... guys... we really have to wake the hell up.

We have to come together on this stuff once and for all and be the leader that the world needs right now.

We're smarter then most of the world.. certainly smarter then the half billion people south of us.. in fact, I'd put ANY Canadian highschooler up against almost any USA highschooler anytime.. they can't find their own country on a map.. but I bet they could find Israel.

Which leads me to my next point. Religion is fine (esspecially when its not being used as an excuse to kill people - which seems to be rare these days). But WE have to avoid allowing it to control OUR OWN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL POLICIES and use COMMON SENSE AND COMPASSION to direct our future.. not allowing ANYTHING ELSE but our own well educated selves and our own good, strong hearts to tell us where we should go and what we should do to get there. WE can not allow ourselves to be influenced in the same way that ALL THE OTHER countries who are at each others throats have been ... over books written 1000s of years ago ... long before they even knew basic things like for example our solar system worked .. much like an american highschool student. And you wouldn't let an american highschool student run our country so why should we give a damn what any old "religious" text has to say about how we run our affairs?

Here in Canada we have NO natural enemies. We've NEVER allowed religion to gain a foothold here. DO YOU REALLY want our next election issues to be over if the 10 commandments should be put in our public schools?


After hearing about what happened in Lebanon and is now happening in Gaza right now... do YOU REALLY believe that Israeli values are Canadian values? Where do the Israelis GET their values from? Their religion.. mind you a very perverted way to practice it with their regular human sacrifices of Palistinian childern and other innocents. Would you ever be able to look at our flag again if you knew that in this day and age we were responsible for starving babies to death? This is what Harper has told us is OUR future I guess.. since he has repeatedly told us that we are "with" the Israeli people, though I have yet to meet one Canadian that gives a damn about Israel and its "problems" which we all know it brings down on itself... because it has USA weapons and is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons it DOESN'T HAVE to get along with its neighbours.. it can be as vicious and brutal as it wants to.. AND THAT is a state ruled by religion. REMEMBER THAT the next time the pope decides to talk about our nation like as if he has a say ... LIKE AS IF THEY HAVE EVER DONE A DAMN THING FOR US!


We are SO MUCH STRONGER then you know. And if WE ALL do not wake up soon and realize how strong a people we are, we'll be destroyed by those that know how much influence we will be able to bring to the table when we demand peace.. when we demand that the warmongers be brought to justice for the grief they have caused the world over. And we are such a beautiful nation and people.. if we cave in to the same influences that are destroying those other countries we'll meet the same fate as they are doomed to meet... we have to keep out of the wars. Its all over these stupid ancient and backwards ideas of "My god is bigger then your god!" and WE are BETTER then that. WE are strong because we do not allow myth to cloud our judgement.. we know right from wrong and do not have to read what someone who thought they heard Gods voice 2000 years ago has to say on the idea. ANYONE who has to fall back on something like that to make their point is a moron and YOU KNOW IT.

I dont have anything against religion in general. I have something SERIOUSLY against it influencing our futures. And the worst part of it all is that the people who do believe in these myths (and that is really all it comes down to) will influence us enough in ways that we will not want anyways when THEY start to war with each other over their conflicting Gods. Idiocy. SO we need to protect ourselves as soon as possible and send a message to the pope NOW if that is what it takes...


... Canada will DOES NOT need to be influenced by religion to make its policies for ALL of its people (and if I have anything to say about it we will not either). We are a GOOD PEOPLE... and I am certain we will do the right thing for all of us, and anyone else who needs our help.. and we certainly do not need the trappings of religion to tell us what is right for our nation.



Let me put it simply. NOT SO LONG AGO... Black men and women were being killed by white Americans in the southern states, not to mention the fact that many of them were slaves to begin with. WHERE WAS IT that they could go to escape to freedom? HERE! And those southern americans at the time were very "religious" people... us? Well we went to church on Sunday.. but for some reason we understood the whole "you won't hurt other people" commandment while people to the south of us didn't quite believe that Blacks were people. These are the people that today we call our "friends" ... yet they are at it again ... this time its Arabs, and do not doubt that after the next terror attack that they will be treated much the same as Blacks were 100 years ago. I don't believe that our people would ever stoop to those levels.. we're better then that.

And btw.. we're a threat to those who seek to rule the world BECAUSE we are not manipulatable in this fashion.. not through religion or fear. They know it... you should too, and you should let any of your friends and family know the same thing. This is why Harper has become such a good friend of Israelis lately while the rest of us are discusted with their behavior and actions in the recent years.. not to mention most of the last 50.

Tell me that I'm wrong.


Tell the pope to go to hell and keep religion out of Canadian law and policy. We don't need it. It doesn't need us and we have always been better without it.


Bah... sorry, makes me so damn mad that he even thinks we give a damn what he thinks. What an ass.


-VMX

 

[tamarin]

"Where do the Israelis GET their values from? Their religion.. mind you a very perverted way to practice it with their regular human sacrifices of Palistinian childern and other innocents."

This is what's coming from our vaunted IQ surplus?
Canadians are certainly no more intelligent than the average. Given the success of PC in the country, we can't say we've really got hard opinions on anything. Or standards or principles.
Nothing to be proud about.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

Uhm, Actually Athiesm IS a religious belief system. It is a belief there is no god. Believing something not to exist without proof is the same as believing something DOES exist without proof. Scientific Method would say you should be Agnostic if you were truly not religious.

Post-modern relativist crap. Atheism is the absence of a religious belief system. Your claim that believing something not to exist without proof is the same as believing something does exist without proof is fatuous nonsense. You're claiming that my disbelief in any ludicrous idea anyone might come up with is tantamount to a religious belief system.

You're not thinking very clearly. I make no claims for the existence or non-existence of god; the burden of proof is on the claimants, they have not provided it, therefore I withold belief in their claims. There's a subtle but significant difference between "I don't believe there's a god," and "I believe there is no god" which you evidently can't see.

And that's all I'm going to say about this damnfool subject for the foreseeable future.

 

[hermanntrude]

Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

Uhm, Actually Athiesm IS a religious belief system. It is a belief there is no god. Believing something not to exist without proof is the same as believing something DOES exist without proof. Scientific Method would say you should be Agnostic if you were truly not religious.

Post-modern relativist crap. Atheism is the absence of a religious belief system. Your claim that believing something not to exist without proof is the same as believing something does exist without proof is fatuous nonsense. You're claiming that my disbelief in any ludicrous idea anyone might come up with is tantamount to a religious belief system.

You're not thinking very clearly. I make no claims for the existence or non-existence of god; the burden of proof is on the claimants, they have not provided it, therefore I withold belief in their claims. There's a subtle but significant difference between "I don't believe there's a god," and "I believe there is no god" which you evidently can't see.

And that's all I'm going to say about this damnfool subject for the foreseeable future.

seems to me there's no argument here. it's just a matter of definition. Nowadays atheism is generally defined as beleif that there is no god. that's where the term agnostic came from, being usually defined as the belief that it is not possible to prove one way or the other. Personally I am neither.

Dexter I think you were a little harsh there... there's really no argument here

 

[Zzarchov]

Athiesm means the belief in no god. That does not mean there is no religion. Perhaps you should read a book.

Athiesm - No god, like how Asexual means no gender.
Monothiesm - One God, like how monogamous means one spouse
Polythiesm - Multiple Gods, like how Polygamous means multiple spouse.

Religion has NOTHING to do with god. Its a belief structure which dictates how you act in your life. Aside from Athiest religions, some of which are thousands of years old (ie, many forms of Buddhism).

Quite frankly you should look up how scientific method and logic works. Its a logical fallacy that the "Burden of proof is on the claimant". Thats what lazy people say when they realise their statement is faulty as they have no proof to back up their claims.

Something is always considered unknown until their is proof for it one way or the other.

If I claim this box in front of me is empty, the burden of proof is not on me to open it and find out. It is just considered an uknown (no matter how long people argue about it being empty) until someone opens it and proves one way or the other.

If logic worked as that popular and false thought goes ("The Burdon of proof goes to the claimant ") then we would never get anywhere as it would be a competition to who can correctly frame their question.

The origins of this fallacy come from the line of logic that "something is unknown until a claim about it has conclusive proof". Then those who didn't understand mangled it into the oft trotted out (and completely wrong) "The Burdon of proof goes to the claimant "

So yes, as much as it pisses you off (in the same way many religions dislike being called religions instead of simply "the truth") much of what you are saying is a religious thought process.

And thats fine, people need a religion to successfully get through life.

 

[tamarin]

Looks like Webster's Week here. Oh-hum. The pope is right and I'm not Catholic. Sucking up to the gay lobby might make some of our parliamentarians feel cool but longterm it's very detrimental to traditional marriage and the family. We need to restate and reaffirm and heroically support the role marriage has in our lives and communities. Giving gays the same right - when they had civil union guaranteed - was stupid. Time will bear me out on this one.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

Athiesm means the belief in no god.

Okay Zzarchov, I'll go around it one more time for you, and anybody else who thinks as you do. No, that is not what atheism means. Incidentally, you haven't managed to spell it right yet. And don't be telling me to look up how science and logic work. I've spent a career as a working scientist, and I have a far better understanding of them than you'll ever have, based on the evidence I've seen so far.

There are two sorts of atheists. One claims there is no deity, the other claims the evidence does not prove the existence of a deity. The former position--which is what you think it means--is untenable. Such a positive assertion requires the claimant to produce the evidence that proves the claim, which I'm sure you'll agree cannot be done. The position is illogical, sterile, and unjustifiable.

The latter position puts the burden of proof where it belongs, on those who claim the deity exists. They have not produced convincing evidence, so this position rejects that claim as unproven.

Atheism is a belief in the same way that not building model airplanes is a hobby.

 

[Zzarchov]

yes yes, I before E except after C or in theism.

Spelling does not make your arguement more convincing.

Nor does changing the definition of a word. Agnostic is the "second type of atheism". Which is in fact, not Atheism.

Seriously, The word Atheism is pretty clear cut , its a version of Theism.

theism — roughly, the opinion that gods or deities exist (see monotheism and polytheism)
atheism — roughly, the opinion that gods and deities do not exist
agnosticism — roughly, the opinion that it is not possible to know whether gods or deities exist.

And your model airplane concept is flawed as a belief is fundementally different than a hobby as it requires no action, only a thought.

Atheism is a belief in the same way that Zero is a number.

EDIT: You know, I'd also like to point out, as a matter that irritates me, you either are not a scientist then or you should be fired, as you apparently don't understand the basic concepts of logic and the scientific method.

My guess would be you work in a scientific field which does not require scientific investigation for your particular job, Ie, you may be a chemist but I doubt a research chemist. Either that or your fundemental belief structure prohibits you from using you knoweldge of logic and the scientific method in this debate.

Or "Scientist" is your "Internet Job" like how Im an Cosmonaught/Space Cowboy.

So im really wondering how you come up with you have a better understanding than I ever will, when you know diddley about me.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

So im really wondering how you come up with you have a better understanding than I ever will, when you know diddley about me.

You can't post without revealing something of yourself. I know what you've posted, so I've seen several of your explications of how you think science and logic work. You don't have a good understanding of them and you're way over your head here, best evidenced by your attempt to demonstrate that the burden of proof being on the claimant is a logical fallacy. It's entirely typical of your sort that you'd resort to ad hominem arguments.

You're not worth the trouble of knocking down anymore.

 

[Zzarchov]

Then im afraid you've just shown yourself out of your realm here.

You are confusing "Burden of Proof" as a legal term with being a form of logic, which it is not.

Burden of proof on the claimant is a legal term used to ensure that in the case of no definitive proof, no action is taken.

If used in logic this is used to create the fallacy of Dichotomy.
Ie, "I claim the chair is blue not red, so the burden of proof is on me to prove it is blue" Meanwhile it has never been ascertained the chair was red to begin with, for if you had the matter would have already been settled that it was in fact red and not blue at all (it had been proven already). Seeing as you don't know it is red, even failure to prove it is blue is irrelevant since it could be Green, or Yellow or Polka-Dot.

This is why you need to fully understand logic and what it means past its use as a sound byte.

I guess it is the problem with my sort (those who know what they are talking about) when dealing with your sort (those who don't) that we tend to be correct.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

If used in logic this is used to create the fallacy of Dichotomy.
Ie, "I claim the chair is blue not red, so the burden of proof is on me to prove it is blue" Meanwhile it has never been ascertained the chair was red to begin with, for if you had the matter would have already been settled that it was in fact red and not blue at all (it had been proven already). Seeing as you don't know it is red, even failure to prove it is blue is irrelevant since it could be Green, or Yellow or Polka-Dot.

* in fix'it man voice *

Yup, found y'er problem.

:wink:

See you are starting from the wrong place. You are starting from the assumption that there is a god. Whereas you should be starting from that assumption that there is not, and going from there. There never was the concept of a deity until it was proposed. Since it has never been proven that there is a god, the assumption must be that there is not one until such time that it is proven that there is.

 

[Zzarchov]

Im afraid not, your problem is starting with an assumption in the first place.

Thats the (pardon the insulting name)

Fallacy of Ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

looking around I found a good example on their negative proof bit.

it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist.

Another common example is that, "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the converse is also true, according to the argument from ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist". Also, similar to the aliens in the above example, since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist.



This is the point that people get hooked up on.

Not being able to prove something, does not prove the opposite of the original claim.

Being unable to prove something NEVER proves another hypothesis. Only by proving a competing hypothesis will anything be proven.

 

[feronia]

Zzarchov I'm assuming (no puns please) you don't need my comments. You have bigger fish to fry.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

You are confusing "Burden of Proof" as a legal term with being a form of logic, which it is not.

No, I am not. I am fully aware of what "Burden of Proof" means in legal terms, and I'm equally aware that it's not a form of logic. It's a purely pragmatic consideration, both in law and in logic: if someone makes a claim, about anything, it's not presumed to be true until proven false by someone else, the onus is on the person making the claim to produce the evidence that justifies it, and if the person cannot do so, the claim is rejected, in law and in logic. You're trying to define the world too much in terms of pure black and white positions and drawing artificial distinctions between concepts. Real life's not like that.

You appear to be pretty bright, which is the only reason I'm continuing to talk with you, and I'd guess you're also fairly young. Time and experience haven't yet chipped some of the corners off you. They will eventually, if you're really as perceptive as you appear to be. And if you're not young (by which I mean under 30) you must have had a remarkably sheltered and protected life, or else you're not half as smart as you appear to be, to express the things you do in the abrasive style you do. Frankly, you remind me of myself in my 20s. I've got letters I wrote at that time of my life that, based on what I've seen you post here, you could have written this morning.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean to censure you, in fact I feel a certain affection for you because you remind me so strongly of my younger self. I'm 57 Zzarc, which I'd guess is about twice your age. I get a little testy sometimes with people like you, same as I do with my own son (he's 24), but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what you think about.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Zzarc, from your own link:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)

My point is more that without evidence supporting the existance of a deity, it is logical to assume that there isn't one. I'm not saying that I believe that there is zero possibility for its existance, only that with no evidence supporting it, we can safely conclude that there is no deity until such time that we are presented with evidence supporting said existance.

As for the middle of the thread, about the definition of atheism: There are two different forms of atheism, strong and weak (or, positive and negative, or passive and active).

In a nutshell,

Strong atheism: Positive rejection of the existance of a deity.

Weak atheism: Absence of belief.

Agnosticism: Is an argument based on the the idea that there are some things that are unknowable. And that we cannot know either way if there is or is not a diety.

An example of the difference between strong and weak atheism from Wiki:

The theistic position of "I do believe that god does exist" can be negated in two ways:

* "I do not believe that god does exist"
* "I do believe that god does not exist"

The former represents a statement of weak atheism; the latter, strong atheism.

Believe me, this is something that even atheists can't agree on. Two people of differing views on the existance of god(s) aren't going to make much headway. :wink:

 

[LittleRunningGag]

RE: Pope scolds Canada on

Oh, and the Pope, while entitled to his remarks, can take his opinion and shove it up his ass.

I cannot abide anyone advocating taking the freedom of choice away from people. What people do with their lives is there business. If fifteen people want to get married and have crazy orgies every day, punctuated with ritual abortions on a monthly basis, thats their business. So long as I don't have to pay for it.

 

[lady_hawk_ca]

You should realise by now that the Catholic Church is always going to stick there noses where they aren't called... especially since Canada has "Catholic" churches they see it as their "duty" to remind us that we are sinners.

I just ignore them, in Spain they are going on and on about this garbage too.The Spanish government just approved gay marriages here also - and they (The Church)are having a cow! Spain is supposedly one of the Catholic "strongholds" in Europe, but people are getting tired of their intolerant ways.

 

[catman]

Communists states were not secular. Secular states today include Canada, Japan, most of Western Europe etc....

They have not organized any genocidle massacres that I am aware of.