• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheists, the Pope Says You're Alright...

ChezC3 said:
I suppose if building bridges or mending fences aren't on their agenda, you've a legitimate point.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the average Atheist sees anything to redress.
 
NoC_T said:
I don't believe the average Atheist sees anything to redress.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is a matter of righting a wrong so much as it is finding common ground and developing a spirit of cooperation rather than promoting conflict and confrontation.
 
ChezC3 said:
You have a rather cynical outlook.

To simplify the Church's position; Sex is a vehicle toward life not an avenue to fulfill one's desires.

You claim the Church is being irresponsible to the reality of the situation. I find that rather ironic, don't you? The reality of the situation is that the Church's teaching is that of self control and responsibility. What your saying essentially is throw out any standards of behavior whatsoever and let the people shag like feral cats and stray dogs.

Calling the Church the irresponsible ones because they tell you if you need to put a sock on the pickle you probably shouldn't be doing it is rather self serving. (and yes, yes, that's a sin too!!;))
Click to expand...

But I thought (and correct me if I"m wrong) that they ok'd the "rhythm method."

In other words, a comparatively ineffective use of birth control is ok, for....some reason, unstated.
 
ChezC3 said:
I don't know if it is a matter of righting a wrong so much as it is finding common ground and developing a spirit of cooperation rather than promoting conflict and confrontation.
Click to expand...
If true, then any preliminary inroads ought rightfully to proceed from the Atheist quarter. All militancy issues from their side.

But okay, assuming a mutual effort, promotion of relations sounds a laudable enough goal. For myself, I'm willing to settle for no dialogue whatsoever. Atheists tend to bore me so. Their anger is so much egocentricity.
 
Strucker said:
But I thought (and correct me if I"m wrong) that they ok'd the "rhythm method."

In other words, a comparatively ineffective use of birth control is ok, for....some reason, unstated.
Click to expand...

Rhythm method for natural family planning - MayoClinic.com

Yes, 13 to 25% in tests done. But you've got to remember, this is for hubby and wifey, who are viewed to only be who should be doing the hootchie cootchie in the first place.

it allows for the possibility for life when engaging in intercourse and expects abstinence when the cycle of ovulation is ripe so as to prevent preganancy. The entire premise is that you are leaving the chance of having a child up to God. Them 13 to 25 oopsies are God's will, so to speak...
 
Dragonfly said:
Life is not simple. Life is not black and white. Life is not 2+2=4.

Life is complicated. It's calculus. Derivatives. many shades of all colors.
Click to expand...

This is pointless as sex is voluntary. If it is complicated and shades of gray it is because that is how YOU made it. It is fully in your power to simplify it.

There's nothing as simple as this: Use condoms.
Click to expand...

False. Not using a condom is even simpler, and neither is as simple as not having sex if you aren't prepared for the consequences.

That would save lives, simplify lives, help the human condition around the world, and be a responsible message.
Click to expand...

And it is not anywhere as effective as not having sex at stemming the spread of STDs or avoiding pregnancy.

Birth control is not "evil". That's a simple and easy message.
Click to expand...

Straw man.
 
The most interesting thing about this thread is how atheists who complain about how intolerant religion is have professed apathy at the Pope's endorsement of tolerance. Hilarious. Why are so many people full of ****?
 
ChezC3 said:
Rhythm method for natural family planning - MayoClinic.com

Yes, 13 to 25% in tests done. But you've got to remember, this is for hubby and wifey, who are viewed to only be who should be doing the hootchie cootchie in the first place.
Click to expand...

But no condoms for hubby and wife.

it allows for the possibility for life when engaging in intercourse and expects abstinence when the cycle of ovulation is ripe so as to prevent preganancy. The entire premise is that you are leaving the chance of having a child up to God. Them 13 to 25 oopsies are God's will, so to speak...
Click to expand...

I'm not getting this. It's probably me, but can you clarify?
 
ChezC3 said:
So, would you accept this as an olive branch, or will you put a sword through the dove?
Click to expand...

I will accept your olive branch, and use it to club the dove to death, then as kindling to roast the dove after I consume its beating heart.
 
jmotivator said:
False. Not using a condom is even simpler, and neither is as simple as not having sex if you aren't prepared for the consequences.

And it is not anywhere as effective as not having sex at stemming the spread of STDs or avoiding pregnancy.
Click to expand...

People are going to have sex. To argue otherwise is just putting your head in the sand. Therefore, to advocate not using condoms is most certainly increasing the spread of HIV/etc. Plus, one can advocate abstaining as the best choice, but still promote condom usage.
 
afr0byte said:
People are going to have sex. To argue otherwise is just putting your head in the sand. Therefore, to advocate not using condoms is most certainly increasing the spread of HIV/etc. Plus, one can advocate abstaining as the best choice, but still promote condom usage.
Click to expand...

Common sense does prevail in some. Thank you.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The most interesting thing about this thread is how atheists who complain about how intolerant religion is have professed apathy at the Pope's endorsement of tolerance. Hilarious. Why are so many people full of ****?
Click to expand...

Him saying atheists can be good can come off as condescending to an atheist, when to us he's just a normal person. That seemed to be the primary reason for responses on here. Obviously it's good if religious people are more tolerant of atheists, though. I doubt they were unhappy that it might make Catholics more tolerant.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The most interesting thing about this thread is how atheists who complain about how intolerant religion is have professed apathy at the Pope's endorsement of tolerance. Hilarious. Why are so many people full of ****?
Click to expand...

#1) some of us think it's pretty cool that he said such a thing - some of us even posted it in this thread

#2) what kind of reaction were you hoping for?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The most interesting thing about this thread is how atheists who complain about how intolerant religion is have professed apathy at the Pope's endorsement of tolerance. Hilarious. Why are so many people full of ****?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the indifference is due to the fact that the way he did it was condescending and doesn't treat atheists as equals.

In his statement, he had the atheist in a "seeking answers" position, and himself as the "paternal/educator" figure.

This gives the appearance that atheists are little unthinking wayward sheep which he, the shepherd, must guide in some way. Now, given the context of who he is (the "shepherd of the Catholic faith), this isn't surprising nor should it be seen as offensive, but that's not very easy to see from the perspective of a non-Catholic atheist. From their perspective, it's the kind of statement which warrants indifference.

What really matters, though, is that his message is not intended for atheists. It is intended for Roman Catholics. How atheists react to it means nothing. It's all about how Catholics react to it. If this inspires many Catholics to start determining good based on deed rather than belief, then it doesn't matter if he did it in a somewhat condescending way.

Some atheists being apathetic to his comments won't make any real difference, though.
 
Strucker said:
But no condoms for hubby and wife.



I'm not getting this. It's probably me, but can you clarify?
Click to expand...

Nope, because you are seeking to leave the door closed completely.

You'd have to clarify on what needs clarification.
 
spud_meister said:
I will accept your olive branch, and use it to club the dove to death, then as kindling to roast the dove after I consume its beating heart.
Click to expand...

MY olive branch? No, No, Like HEY-Zeus I came to bring the sword... :duel
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The most interesting thing about this thread is how atheists who complain about how intolerant religion is have professed apathy at the Pope's endorsement of tolerance. Hilarious. Why are so many people full of ****?
Click to expand...

I was waiting to see a few more posts before presenting this very same observation...
 
afr0byte said:
Him saying atheists can be good can come off as condescending to an atheist, when to us he's just a normal person. That seemed to be the primary reason for responses on here. Obviously it's good if religious people are more tolerant of atheists, though. I doubt they were unhappy that it might make Catholics more tolerant.
Click to expand...
I understand the sentiment about condescension. Although, for atheists who complain about how intolerant religion is, I don't think that they see him as a "normal" person. He is, after all, a huge influence over (many, not all) Catholics so he's hardly normal in terms of his ability to do the very thing that many atheists seem to want: increase tolerance.

The rest of your posts makes sense to me, so no disagreements there.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I don't see how an individual could lead a humble, caring and moral life and not believe.

There is no conflict of interest there as a Catholic.

Since Atheists don't believe in an afterlife I suppose if they're good people in life their beliefs are moot.
Click to expand...


Well, an interesting thing to me is those of the humanistic bend rarely know or if knowing, prefer not to acknowledge the fact that St. Augustine of Hippo (Doctor of the Church) was hugely influential to their tradition.
 
Dragonfly said:
#1) some of us think it's pretty cool that he said such a thing - some of us even posted it in this thread

#2) what kind of reaction were you hoping for?
Click to expand...
1. I know. I even liked Jred's post who was just such a poster.

2. I wasn't "hoping" for anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom