120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[bilby]

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 into an expertise claim of myself. What I mentioned in previous post is a "general idea" of good health stops cancer.

Your exact words were "Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people". This is errant nonsense.

If you are aware that you have no fucking clue whether or not cancer appears in healthy people, then why make the claim?

If you actually know that cancer does appear in healthy people, then why say the opposite?

You had a false belief; You were unaware that it was false; You presented it as true; And you have been called on it. The civilized response is to apologize, and to refrain from making definitive statements on subjects you don't understand in future.

This may, however, mean that you won't be able to participate in many future discussions until you get a proper education.

 

[Learner]

Your exact words were "Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people". This is errant nonsense.

If you are aware that you have no fucking clue whether or not cancer appears in healthy people, then why make the claim?

If you actually know that cancer does appear in healthy people, then why say the opposite?

You had a false belief; You were unaware that it was false; You presented it as true; And you have been called on it. The civilized response is to apologize, and to refrain from making definitive statements on subjects you don't understand in future.

This may, however, mean that you won't be able to participate in many future discussions until you get a proper education.

Im talking about Cancer that is advanced as a disease. Are you talking about the everday non advanced cancer that the immune system handles itself in healthy people? If you are, then this is misleading.

But I will take your advice and learn more perhaps and hope to discuss further sometime.

 

[bilby]

Your exact words were "Cancer as we know does not or should not appear in healthy people". This is errant nonsense.

If you are aware that you have no fucking clue whether or not cancer appears in healthy people, then why make the claim?

If you actually know that cancer does appear in healthy people, then why say the opposite?

You had a false belief; You were unaware that it was false; You presented it as true; And you have been called on it. The civilized response is to apologize, and to refrain from making definitive statements on subjects you don't understand in future.

This may, however, mean that you won't be able to participate in many future discussions until you get a proper education.

Im talking about Cancer that is advanced as a disease.

Also known as 'cancer'.

Are you talking about the everday non advanced cancer that the immune system handles itself in healthy people? If you are, then this is misleading.

The depth of your ignorance is such that you can't even formulate a sensible question. Your ideas about cancer are completely incorrect, to the point of tautology - Late stage cancer cannot occur in healthy people because by definition a person with late stage cancer is unhealthy. Healthy people become unhealthy due (in some cases) to cancer; and this can occur regardless of the lifestyle of the person involved. There are not two separate categories of cancers, such that we could be talking about different things; That seems like an ad-hoc attempt to wave away the fact that your claim was false - ie the opposite of the apology and retraction that is your appropriate course of action at this time.

But I will take your advice and hope to discuss further sometime.

My advice is that you cease discussion altogether in favour of listening to people who know what they are talking about. For several years. You should probably start with some grade-school level science classes.

 

[Learner]

The depth of your ignorance is such that you can't even formulate a sensible question. Your ideas about cancer are completely incorrect, to the point of tautology - Late stage cancer cannot occur in healthy people because by definition a person with late stage cancer is unhealthy. Healthy people become unhealthy due (in some cases) to cancer; and this can occur regardless of the lifestyle of the person involved.

Wow and you didn't notice what I said. Playing with words are we?

There are not two separate categories of cancers, such that we could be talking about different things; That seems like an ad-hoc attempt to wave away the fact that your claim was false - ie the opposite of the apology and retraction that is your appropriate course of action at this time.

Seems like ..sure what ever makes you happy.

My advice is that you cease discussion altogether in favour of listening to people who know what they are talking about. For several years. You should probably start with some grade-school level science classes.

Haven't done too bad at least considering I'm going to start with grade school level.

 

[bilby]

Wow and you didn't notice what I said. Playing with words are we?

There are not two separate categories of cancers, such that we could be talking about different things; That seems like an ad-hoc attempt to wave away the fact that your claim was false - ie the opposite of the apology and retraction that is your appropriate course of action at this time.

Seems like ..sure what ever makes you happy.

My advice is that you cease discussion altogether in favour of listening to people who know what they are talking about. For several years. You should probably start with some grade-school level science classes.

Haven't done too bad at least considering I'm going to start with grade school level.

Your unawareness of just how badly you have done is not an actual indication that you haven't done too bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

[Keith&Co.]

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!

But not all disasters are avoidable, and god's response is ALWAYS inaction.

 

[James Brown]

And it's not just 'disasters' or 'cancer' that God doesn't save us from. If the Christian is correct, it's also everlasting damnation that God doesn't save us from.

Oh sure, they say that God provided a means of escape, but it's reserved for those who want it.

But as the original point I made demonstrates, a loving mother will save her toddler--be it from a car, a cancer, or hellfire--even if he doesn't want it.

This thread points out to me the power of Problem of Evil, and why it's such a powerful argument against the existence of the Christian God. The Christian tells us that God is more wise than we are, but it's unfalsifiable. How would a skeptic argue against it--submit God to an IQ test? It can't be done.

Next the Christian tells us that God is benevolent--that he loves us. But again, how can we know for sure? We only have the say-so of other people. Again, it's unfalsifiable.

Last the Christian tells us that God is powerful, and here's where the problem occurs. If we assume (for the sake of argument) that God is wise and benevolent AND if God is powerful, then evil would not exist, period. Here's where falsifiablity comes into play. We can test if there is evil in the world, and right away the test is conclusive--there is evil in the world.

And that's where the Christian apologist chimes in. "It's not evil if you chose your suffering for yourself." "Letting people suffer and die is exactly how God loves us--for a certain peculiar definition of love, that is." "God would like nothing more than to save us, but think of how horrible it would be to violate our free will!"

Sorry, any parent who loved her toddler the way that God presumably loved us would be convicted of child abuse and neglect. Idly watching people go to eternal damnation is NOT the same as observing a lion prey upon an impala. It's NOT the same as a teacher letting a student struggle to master a lesson. It's not the same as a doctor giving a child a vaccination injection.

If God can't save everyone from eternal damnation, then either he can't do it, or he doesn't know how, or he doesn't care.

 

[none]

and not believing something is actually not believing, not an action
so basically god acts out against people who aren't actually doing anything
"and that makes perfect sense!"

 

[DBT]

Certainly not faith....to hide oneself away as a God so as not to be detected but expect your creatures to believe in your existence regardless or be thrown into the lake of fire is, well, quite lame.

It's not a sufficient answer to say only what the condition should NOT be.

Depending on which particular verse you care to look at, it is either salvation by faith, grace, predestination or works....or you might argue for a combination of faith and works, but predetermination eliminates all other conditions.

Listen to people who have had NDEs (near death experiences).
The evidence suggests there is more to reality and life than we currently understand.

The evidence for actual survival after death is far from conclusive. NDE and out of body experiences have been generated in labs using electrical brain stimulation techniques.

But he IS detected, if the miracles of Jesus really did happen. You don't believe they really happened. But just in case you're mistaken about that, and they really did happen, then he has presented himself in a way to be detected by us.

What it says in this or that 'holy book' does not mean the characters and events described within their pages are detectable or verifiable.

 

[Lion IRC]

View attachment 9011

God's provided the means for these kids (healthy living), so his job is basically done.

Photo taken using $3,000 camera. News report filed using $1,000 satellite phone.
Story published in newspapers that coincidentally advertise color TV's, luxury cars,
jewellery, chocolate and pet care products.

Yeah. It's clearly all God's fault. Nothing to do with us hedonistic onlookers too preoccupied with abortion rights, same sex marriage, Bruce Jenners unwanted penis, whether there's life on Mars, Internet download speeds...

ETA - oh yeah, and atheists bang on about taxing charitable religious organisations!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, we're neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. We have to make priorities between different actions and often make the wrong ones for bad reasons.

If your argument is that God is just some dude who doing the best he can with limited resources, your argument makes sense. If you're talking about God, however, it's not really a relevant one.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We see no signs of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all knowing God at work in the Universe, despite theological claims. Then it becomes an exercise in special pleading to explain that fact despite supposed revelations God is Good, Just, Fair, Merciful and Compassionate.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, we're neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. We have to make priorities between different actions and often make the wrong ones for bad reasons.

If your argument is that God is just some dude who doing the best he can with limited resources, your argument makes sense. If you're talking about God, however, it's not really a relevant one.

I'll start to admit there is a 'problem' of pain when atheist parents explain why they bring children into the world - a world where they know suffering exists.

 

[Lion IRC]

And it's not just 'disasters' or 'cancer' that God doesn't save us from. If the Christian is correct, it's also everlasting damnation that God doesn't save us from.

Oh sure, they say that God provided a means of escape, but it's reserved for those who want it.

But as the original point I made demonstrates, a loving mother will save her toddler--be it from a car, a cancer, or hellfire--even if he doesn't want it...

Wait, wait, wait. Your analogy fails.
God doesn't send babies to hell.
God saves all babies. Why? Because they don't/can't decide stuff like wilful rejection of God.

Where do you get the notion that babies accidentally fall into a pit (called hell) and God won't save them? Or that they deliberately choose hell and God won't save them?

Adults - sure. They CAN form criminal (sinful) intent. But not kids.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

And it's not just 'disasters' or 'cancer' that God doesn't save us from. If the Christian is correct, it's also everlasting damnation that God doesn't save us from.

Oh sure, they say that God provided a means of escape, but it's reserved for those who want it.

But as the original point I made demonstrates, a loving mother will save her toddler--be it from a car, a cancer, or hellfire--even if he doesn't want it...

Wait, wait, wait. Your analogy fails.
God doesn't send babies to hell.
God saves all babies. Why? Because they don't/can't decide stuff like wilful rejection of God.

Where do you get the notion that babies accidentally fall into a pit (called hell) and God won't save them? Or that they deliberately choose hell and God won't save them?

Adults - sure. They CAN form criminal (sinful) intent. But not kids.

Wait, wait, wait.
Is that biblical? I thought you based your beliefs on the bible? Does it say anything about that in the bible, or is it just some theological avoidance of the issue?
I know that, until relatively recently, the RCC would say that unbaptised children would end up in Limbo (itself not biblical), but they changed their minds as they have done with many inconvenient doctrines. Other churches, I'm not sure about. So where does this idea that babies don't go to hell come from? Is it actually in the bible, or is it just some on-the-hoof theological tap-dancing?

 

[funinspace]

Wait, wait, wait. Your analogy fails.
God doesn't send babies to hell.
God saves all babies. Why? Because they don't/can't decide stuff like wilful rejection of God.

Where do you get the notion that babies accidentally fall into a pit (called hell) and God won't save them? Or that they deliberately choose hell and God won't save them?

Adults - sure. They CAN form criminal (sinful) intent. But not kids.

Wait, wait, wait.
Is that biblical? I thought you based your beliefs on the bible? Does it say anything about that in the bible, or is it just some theological avoidance of the issue?
I know that, until relatively recently, the RCC would say that unbaptised children would end up in Limbo (itself not biblical), but they changed their minds as they have done with many inconvenient doctrines. Other churches, I'm not sure about. So where does this idea that babies don't go to hell come from? Is it actually in the bible, or is it just some on-the-hoof theological tap-dancing?

I’d say it is one of those theological issues that is hard to be emphatic about. The Bible provides some tea leaves that suggest that those that are not of the age of accountability, get a free E-ticket, but it hardly a slam dunk. But Christians will usually toss in the catchall ‘God is holy, righteous, and just’, therefore God of course fits my moral paradigm. A few suggestive verses:
Matthew 18:3-5: Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Luke 18:16-17: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

And...
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201

In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son.

As it is with so much about the whole heaven topic, Christians end up in knife fights over OSAS, predestination, works verse faith, and even on 'do good/decent unsaved people go to hell?'. Why? Because the Bible wasn't exactly written like an instruction manual. Clarity just didn't seem to be all that important....

 

[James Brown]

Wait, wait, wait. Your analogy fails.
God doesn't send babies to hell.
God saves all babies. Why? Because they don't/can't decide stuff like wilful rejection of God.

Well, maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. It really depends on which Christian you ask.

But you're still stuck on the whole "You have to WANT to be saved before God can be bothered to lift a finger to help you." And that may indeed be the case, but then God would not be a benevolent deity. Lifeguards save people from drowning, be they children or adults, even if they originally didn't want to be rescued, as Richard Carrier's story illustrated. And a loving deity would be even more motivated to save us, young or old.

If God truly has all the facts and we do not (as Christians are quick to assure us) then he would not hold our ignorance against us when it comes to our eternal destiny. If God truly loves Christopher Hitchens, then he saved Hitch from eternal damnation, regardless of what opinions and beliefs the man held during his brief time on Earth.

The calendar age of a person is irrelevant to the argument. We are as children in our minds compared to the wisdom of God (as Christians are quick to assure us) and a loving Father saves his children, even disobedient ones.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, we're neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. We have to make priorities between different actions and often make the wrong ones for bad reasons.

If your argument is that God is just some dude who doing the best he can with limited resources, your argument makes sense. If you're talking about God, however, it's not really a relevant one.

I'll start to admit there is a 'problem' of pain when atheist parents explain why they bring children into the world - a world where they know suffering exists.

Because the benefits outweigh the costs. With limited knowledge, abilities and resources, we need to make non-perfect choices. We know that our children will experience suffering, but the joy they experience will (we hope) outweigh that. We try to limit that suffering and maximize the joy as much as possible, but our lack of omnipotence means we don't always succeed.

God doesn't have any of these problems, so he never needs to make the best of a bad situation or weigh the pros or cons. He can continuously create perfect situations and have nothing but pros.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

I'll start to admit there is a 'problem' of pain when atheist parents explain why they bring children into the world - a world where they know suffering exists.

Because the benefits outweigh the costs. With limited knowledge, abilities and resources, we need to make non-perfect choices. We know that our children will experience suffering, but the joy they experience will (we hope) outweigh that. We try to limit that suffering and maximize the joy as much as possible, but our lack of omnipotence means we don't always succeed.

God doesn't have any of these problems, so he never needs to make the best of a bad situation or weigh the pros or cons. He can continuously create perfect situations and have nothing but pros.

I've always wondered why Christians who believe in eternal torment for the unsaved take the risk and have kids. My parents had five and my father believes at least 2 of us are damned to hell(including me).

 

[James Brown]

I'll start to admit there is a 'problem' of pain when atheist parents explain why they bring children into the world - a world where they know suffering exists.

Because the benefits outweigh the costs. With limited knowledge, abilities and resources, we need to make non-perfect choices. We know that our children will experience suffering, but the joy they experience will (we hope) outweigh that. We try to limit that suffering and maximize the joy as much as possible, but our lack of omnipotence means we don't always succeed.

God doesn't have any of these problems, so he never needs to make the best of a bad situation or weigh the pros or cons. He can continuously create perfect situations and have nothing but pros.

Which is more absurd? An atheist parent bringing a child into a world that contains suffering? Or a God creating billions of people who will first suffer in this world and then suffer damnation for eternity in the next world?

"Not all of them!" the Christian is quick to assure us. "Those who accept his gift will spend eternity with God in paradise!"

Which makes me wonder, why didn't God just create those people in Paradise to begin with. That way, no one suffers eternal damnation, regardless of their Earthly decisions. Christianity feels like a service pack to patch a buggy initial design.