I believe Asia, also, has a raging HIV epidemic. India's considered South Asian??
Them too.
With regards to Africa solving its' problems, etc......I don't believe you're going to see that anytime soon. Unfortunately.
Tribalism's a bitch.
Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
I believe Asia, also, has a raging HIV epidemic. India's considered South Asian??
Them too.
With regards to Africa solving its' problems, etc......I don't believe you're going to see that anytime soon. Unfortunately.
Tribalism's a bitch.
lolLord Gilbert. :lol:
NOT.
Of course not. I am just a mister not a lord, not even of this domain. Wifey and I share.
Give it a rest, Gerry. I was kidding in the first place, which everyone but you seems to have figured out. You seem to be as much fun as a case of AIDS.
Not ever letting children out of the house is also a sure fire way to ensure that they will not be molested, but they need to enjoy the fresh air.
We want the church to soften its view so that we can stop trying to marginalize their opinion. A life free of risk is no life at all, but one should take precautions against risks. The church preaches sexual asceticism to people who will not listen to the message but hear only the words: do not use condoms.
That sounds like YOUR problem, not mine. In fact, I was simply pointing out the difference between disbelief and belief. If you view that as bashing it's up to you. Besides, I don't care if it's Yahweh, Thor, Shiva, or whomever, so it wouldn't be Christian/Catholic bashing anyway; it'd be bashing religion in general. Get a grip.
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.
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 right, I think both India and China have a big problem with AIDS. I don’t know about other Asian countries, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they have the problem as well.
However, AIDS may not have much of an impact on total population in India and China. These days a person may stay alive for 10 or 15 years after testing HIV positive. He may well reproduce during that time.
AIDS is slow acting, unlike for instance Ebola virus. A virulent outbreak of Ebola virus or plague would wipe out the population in a short order. AIDS takes much longer. Some African centuries have been devastated by AIDS, but they may have been before remedies were found which could prolong the patient’s life.
Besides, India and China have such huge populations ( billion each) that even if 50 million people died with AIDS, the impact on total population will be negligible. They still will have almost a billion people.
There are the assumptions again..... because an Atheist or an Agnostic can not prove the existence of God they assume that no one else can and any belief in God MUST be based solely on Faith.
I did so, Spade. It's Thor's Day today, I think.
lmao Gerry, no-one has provided evidence of the existence of gods n goblins yet. Therefore it isn't an assumption that no-one can, it's a probability.
Anyway, getting back to the topic; I don't think the pope has any right telling people that aren't Catholic how to conduct themselves. If all he did was tell people that the RCC still has restrictions about the use of them, fine.
It's Thor's Day today, I think.lmao Gerry, no-one has provided evidence of the existence of gods n goblins yet. Therefore it isn't an assumption that no-one can, it's a probability.
Anyway, getting back to the topic; I don't think the pope has any right telling people that aren't Catholic how to conduct themselves. If all he did was tell people that the RCC still has restrictions about the use of them, fine.
I did so, Spade.
lmao Gerry, no-one has provided evidence of the existence of gods n goblins yet. Therefore it isn't an assumption that no-one can, it's a probability.
Wrong
God's existence has already been proven to me...that is all that is nesasary..for me.... it is not my responsibility to "prove" anything to you. That is YOUR responsibility, not mine.
What I am seeing here from all those that don't believe in the existence of "God" is arrogance. Arrogance in that since they are unable to find the proof they want, they make statements like you have concerning those that do believe.
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;-)
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;-)
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.
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?
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?
