• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

Cheap food is affordable to many with little to spend without the right ingredients.
Seriously, though, what the fuck does this have to do with God's response?
When paramedics arrive at a scene, they don't treat the injured differently if the accident was avoidable. They have the power to rescue, so they rescue.
God sees suffering and does fuck all, so you try to find an excuse for Him, blaming someone else.
But that doesn't prove any love on god's part. Just inaction.
 
Bullshit. There have been famines throughout history, when man was in no position to send aid to help out those affected. Millions upon millions dying of starvation just because of where they live. Your god is a 5-year-old with a magnifying glass and an anthill. His only redeeming trait is his non-existence.

Famines mainly came from wars. People started to claim land and territories, all the greedy things men do and hunting grounds become off limits. There are variable reasons for famines. There were people at certain periods that lived well,like the nomad types that moved with the climates and seasons and knew where they would get their next meals. Humans have the gift of common sense (when used right)
 
Bullshit. There have been famines throughout history, when man was in no position to send aid to help out those affected. Millions upon millions dying of starvation just because of where they live. Your god is a 5-year-old with a magnifying glass and an anthill. His only redeeming trait is his non-existence.

Famines mainly came from wars.
And God does nothing...
People started to claim land and territories, all the greedy things men do and hunting grounds become off limits.
And God does nothing...
There are variable reasons for famines.
But God's response is standard...
There were people at certain periods that lived well,like the nomad types that moved with the climates and seasons and knew where they would get their next meals. Humans have the gift of common sense (when used right)
Which really, Learner, has fucking nothing to do with why an omnipotent being of love allows this stuff to go on. The story is inconsistent with the supposed attributes of the skybeast.
 
Seriously, though, what the fuck does this have to do with God's response?
When paramedics arrive at a scene, they don't treat the injured differently if the accident was avoidable. They have the power to rescue, so they rescue.God sees suffering and does fuck all, so you try to find an excuse for Him, blaming someone else. But that doesn't prove any love on god's part. Just inaction.

Knowledge of how to avoid certain disasters ourselves , is my point!
 
A biologist loves the lions as much as he loves the impala it's eating. Or, he loves the impala that escapes as much as he loves the lion that goes hungry.

But what parent lets cancer run untreated in their child because they love the cancer as much as they love the kid?
If someone watches their kid suffer and die because it's a 'natural thing' we put those people in jail and call it abuse.

If this was the case I would agree. Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people. Healthy as in tip top condition unlike myself as I 'm not as half as healthy as I should be (cough cough) and I'm sure I am more at risk than others. Some of these particular parents may be unfortunately ignorant as your mentioned above. My belief is; God has already provided the means against getting cancer. (healthy living).

Unfortunately not all can get the correct nourishment even by having 3 meals a day, like junk food.(A physician I saw once said )

You have been sadly misinformed about cancers, as you have about so much.

Healthy living can reduce the chances of some kinds of cancers. It is NOT effective in eliminating cancer altogether. No matter how you eat and how you live, you still have a non-zero probability of developing cancer and of dying as a result. Sure, eating lots of fibre will reduce your chances of getting bowel cancer. And not smoking will significantly reduce your chances of lung cancer. But these things just improve the odds - they cannot reduce the chances to zero.

There are plenty of unavoidable environmental and metabolic mutagens that can cause cancer. Your body is naturally and unavoidably radioactive, as is your food. The cells in a human body produce a whole range of chemicals that damage DNA as a natural part of their working, even in the most healthy individuals; and these things can and do cause cancers.

If you want to reduce the chances of cancer, then eating good food, and avoiding tobacco and alcohol are good strategies. But they are NOT guaranteed to work - you could still get unlucky. Cancer does (and should be expected to) appear in healthy people.
 
Famines mainly came from wars. People started to claim land and territories, all the greedy things men do and hunting grounds become off limits. There are variable reasons for famines. There were people at certain periods that lived well,like the nomad types that moved with the climates and seasons and knew where they would get their next meals. Humans have the gift of common sense (when used right)

800–1000 Severe drought killed millions of Maya people due to famine and thirst and initiated a cascade of internal collapses that destroyed their civilization.
1229–1232 The Kangi famine, possibly the worst famine in Japan's history. Caused by volcanic eruptions.
1601–1603 One of the worst famines in all of Russian history; famine killed as many as 100,000 in Moscow and up to one-third of Tsar Godunov's subjects. Same famine killed about half Estonian population. The famine was part of worldwide record cold winters and crop disruption, which in 2008 geologists linked to the 1600 volcanic eruption of Huaynaputina in Peru.
1630–1631 Deccan Famine of 1630–32. The famine was the result of three consecutive staple crop failures, leading to intense hunger, disease, and displacement in the region.
1661 Famine in India, due to lack of any rainfall for two years.
1695–1697 Great Famine of Estonia killed about a fifth of Estonian and Livonian population (70,000–75,000 people). Famine also hit Sweden (80,000–100,000 dead). The climate was unfavorable for crops in 1694 and the summer of 1695 was cold and rainy, followed by an early autumn frost that destroyed the summer crops. Cold conditions continued during 1696, and rain fell throughout the summer. Peasants, orphans and the elderly began to die en masse of starvation and the spring snow-melt of 1697 revealed many corpses. Meanwhile, landlords and merchants exported grain to Finland and Sweden, where crops also had failed.
1783 Famine in Iceland caused by Laki eruption killed one-fifth of Iceland's population.
1789–92 Doji bara famine or Skull famine. Brought on by a major El Niño event lasting from 1789 CE to 1795 CE and producing prolonged droughts. Recorded by William Roxburgh, a surgeon with the British East India Company, in a series of pioneering meteorological observations, the El Niño event caused the failure of the South Asian monsoon for four consecutive years starting in 1789.
1816–1817 Year Without a Summer. Severe climate abnormalities caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.
 
You have been sadly misinformed about cancers, as you have about so much.

I think we're just in disagreement on those mentioned things.

Sure, we disagree. But the reason we disagree is that you are wrong. Your understanding of carcinogenesis and oncology is pathetically rudimentary, and yet you believe that you have a valuable opinion on these subjects. You are mistaken in that belief.
 
800–1000 Severe drought killed millions of Maya people due to famine and thirst and initiated a cascade of internal collapses that destroyed their civilization.
1229–1232 The Kangi famine, possibly the worst famine in Japan's history. Caused by volcanic eruptions.
1601–1603 One of the worst famines in all of Russian history; famine killed as many as 100,000 in Moscow and up to one-third of Tsar Godunov's subjects. Same famine killed about half Estonian population. The famine was part of worldwide record cold winters and crop disruption, which in 2008 geologists linked to the 1600 volcanic eruption of Huaynaputina in Peru.
1630–1631 Deccan Famine of 1630–32. The famine was the result of three consecutive staple crop failures, leading to intense hunger, disease, and displacement in the region.
1661 Famine in India, due to lack of any rainfall for two years.
1695–1697 Great Famine of Estonia killed about a fifth of Estonian and Livonian population (70,000–75,000 people). Famine also hit Sweden (80,000–100,000 dead). The climate was unfavorable for crops in 1694 and the summer of 1695 was cold and rainy, followed by an early autumn frost that destroyed the summer crops. Cold conditions continued during 1696, and rain fell throughout the summer. Peasants, orphans and the elderly began to die en masse of starvation and the spring snow-melt of 1697 revealed many corpses. Meanwhile, landlords and merchants exported grain to Finland and Sweden, where crops also had failed.
1783 Famine in Iceland caused by Laki eruption killed one-fifth of Iceland's population.
1789–92 Doji bara famine or Skull famine. Brought on by a major El Niño event lasting from 1789 CE to 1795 CE and producing prolonged droughts. Recorded by William Roxburgh, a surgeon with the British East India Company, in a series of pioneering meteorological observations, the El Niño event caused the failure of the South Asian monsoon for four consecutive years starting in 1789.
1816–1817 Year Without a Summer. Severe climate abnormalities caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.
looking more on it with interest and perhaps respond. No surprises with peasants,orphans and the elderly.
 
Sure, we disagree. But the reason we disagree is that you are wrong. Your understanding of carcinogenesis and oncology is pathetically rudimentary, and yet you believe that you have a valuable opinion on these subjects. You are mistaken in that belief.

I have not made it any more valuable than your opinion if it is just opinions we're are not claiming expertise on these subjects or are you?
 
Sure, we disagree. But the reason we disagree is that you are wrong. Your understanding of carcinogenesis and oncology is pathetically rudimentary, and yet you believe that you have a valuable opinion on these subjects. You are mistaken in that belief.

I have not made it any more valuable than your opinion if it is just opinions we're are not claiming expertise on these subjects or are you?

I studied biochemistry and molecular biology at university; So I know enough to know that I am not an expert, and that you don't have the first clue what you are on about.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one (and they are usually full of shit).
 
I studied biochemistry and molecular biology at university; So I know enough to know that I am not an expert, and that you don't have the first clue what you are on about.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one (and they are usually full of shit).
What if I picked up a few things trying to save my father after being told no hope, some years ago (before I was born again). Doesn't make me an expert but it certainly doesn't mean I was talking about eating more fibre for stomach cancer and that is all I know as an opinion.
 
I studied biochemistry and molecular biology at university; So I know enough to know that I am not an expert, and that you don't have the first clue what you are on about.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one (and they are usually full of shit).
What if I picked upa few things to save my father (before I was born again). Doesn't make me an expert but it certainly doesn't mean I was talking about eating more fibre for stomach cancer and that is all I know as an opinion.

You obviously didn't 'pick up' enough things to realize that your claim "Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people" is total nonsense. And yet you confidently shared this nonsense, and seem to imagine that it has some validity on the grounds of being 'opinion'.

Poorly informed opinion is, at best, worthless. And on this occasion, it is not only worthless but demonstrably false - and so of negative worth.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But nobody's opinion is of any value unless it is backed by facts.
 
You obviously didn't 'pick up' enough things to realize that your claim "Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people" is total nonsense. And yet you confidently shared this nonsense, and seem to imagine that it has some validity on the grounds of being 'opinion'.

Poorly informed opinion is, at best, worthless. And on this occasion, it is not only worthless but demonstrably false - and so of negative worth.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But nobody's opinion is of any value unless it is backed by facts.

No you're making the opinion or the hint of it into an expertise claim of myself. What I mentioned in previous post is a "general idea" of good health stops cancer.
 
Back
Top Bottom