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

Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

To denote the thread has been moved
Are you actually asserting, without evidence, that humans cause brain cancer in children?

Yes. There's plenty of evidence that human activity causes cancer.

Since you seem unfamiliar with the science, here; www.who.int

- Smoking. (Apparently God didn't make us smart enough to know that setting fire to tobacco and deliberately inhaling the smoke isn't natural.)

- Over eating. (Listed in the bible under gluttony)

- Alcohol and substance abuse. (Who would have guessed?)

- Physical inactivity (Listed in the bible under sloth)

Excuse me, I am asking about brain cancer in children. Show me the evidence that humans cause that.

As to the rest, those don’t help your cause either. Who created addictive substances, and human genomes with propensity to addiction? If God exists, he did. Who created the danger of overeating? if God exists, he did. Who made alcohol and other substances addictive and dangerous? If God exists, he did. And so on. You have no case. Notice too that according to you, God created heaven, where none of these problems exist, nothing bad ever happens, and everyone is happy forever and ever. Which shows that your God could have bypassed all the torment of earth and simply made heaven only. But he didn’t. Why?
 
So a child molesting cult leader who thinks he's the reincarnation of Jesus Christ is evidence that there is a god to you. Wow.

An athest masquerading as clergy might not have any scruples about molesting children.

Christianity is built upon a foundation of crooked cult leaders often molesting children. So if they're actually atheists then their followers speaking in tongues and feeling the holy ghost when they speak are also non-corroborating. That's basically everyone!
 
Excuse me, I am asking about brain cancer in children. Show me the evidence that humans cause that.

I gave you the predominant causes.

You think the unhealthy behaviour of parents can't affect their offspring by causing harmful genetic mutations?

If you think there's no causal link and want to argue some sort of...'we don't know therefore Goddidit" that's on you.
 
Excuse me, I am asking about brain cancer in children. Show me the evidence that humans cause that.

I gave you the predominant causes.

You did not give any reason to believe that human behavior causes brain cancer in children, and of course, being slippery as you are, you ignored all my other points about how if God exists, then he either created or allowed things like addictive dangerous chemicals and humans prone to such addictions. Why did you ignore that?

You think the unhealthy behaviour of parents can't affect their offspring by causing harmful genetic mutations?

Why did God create such conditions in the first place?
If you think there's no causal link and want to argue some sort of...'we don't know therefore Goddidit" that's on you.

We DO know where cancers come from, and it’s not from God, because God does not exist. But IF God existed, as you define him — omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent — then that entity is responsible for EVERYTHING. And the problem for you is that the omni traits of this alleged God are logically inconsistent with ANY kind of human suffering, much less the intense suffering of stuff like brain cancer in innocent children.
 
Are you actually asserting, without evidence, that humans cause brain cancer in children? If so, you have the burden of proof. Please present your evidence.
People have parents. All people. (‘Cept Jesus) So, whatever their parents gave them genetically causes the predisposition (just ask science) and the human environment and its sinful food and ignorance of God’s love does the rest - voilá: cancer.
 
Excuse me, I am asking about brain cancer in children. Show me the evidence that humans cause that.

I gave you the predominant causes.

You did not give any reason to believe that human behavior causes brain cancer in children...

I did. Behaviour of parents can and does cause genetic mutation defects. You can claim ignorance of this well known problem if you like.

You wouldnt be the first person to ignore behavioural consequences for unborn babies. Theres tons of pregnant women who are ignorant of FASD too.

...you ignored all my other points about how if God exists, then he either created or allowed things like addictive dangerous chemicals and humans prone to such addictions. Why did you ignore that?

Because it's irrelevant Gish Gallop.
But OK.

Who created addictive substances,

If I smash myself in the face with a Rubics Cube can I blame Erno Rubik?

Who created human genomes with propensity to addiction?

Every alcoholic and drug addict on Earth would love to blame someone else for their behaviour.
...in a world that wants God to mind His own business and everyone screams..."my body my choice"

Who created the danger of overeating?

McDonalds, KFC, Mondelez....

I'm shocked at the cognitive dissonance that would, on one hand, encourage rational thought and evidence-based decision making. Then 2 seconds later argue that we aren't responsible for the consequences of doing the opposite.

Who made alcohol and other substances addictive?

Spoken like someone who supports sharia law and says women need to wear burkas because men can control themselves.

...not the rapists fault because God made the woman too attractive?

...Notice too that according to you, God created heaven, where none of these problems exist, nothing bad ever happens, and everyone is happy forever and ever.

Yes, and guess what. The people in heaven dont want to rape or murder or assault or rob others any more or less than they did on Earth.

Which shows that your God could have bypassed all the torment of earth and simply made heaven only. But he didn’t. Why

He Did make heaven on Earth.
Did you miss that part of the bible? Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.


Why did God create such conditions in the first place?

Are we back to blaming obesity on God for making food taste so delicious and abundant?

If you think there's no causal link and want to argue some sort of...'we don't know therefore Goddidit" that's on you.
As to the rest, those don’t help your cause either.
We DO know where cancers come from, and it’s not from God, because God does not exist.

If there can be causes of cancer independent of God's existence then my claim about man-made causes of cancer is perfectly valid. You just admitted you know their cause.

But IF God existed, as you define him — omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent — then that entity is responsible for EVERYTHING.

That is a logical non-sequitur. It doesn't follow.

An omnipotent God can create a being that is responsible for their own deliberate choices.

An omnibenevolent God can benevolently grant humans the right to choose for themselves. In fact, It could be viewed as malevolent if God punished us for actions we didn't freely choose to do.

And God's omniscient ability to know anything He wants doesn't control people who don't even think God is real. Therefore, He isn't responsible for their bad choices.

And the problem for you is that the omni traits of this alleged God are logically inconsistent with ANY kind of human suffering, much less the intense suffering of stuff like brain cancer in innocent children.

I dont accept that suffering is incompatible with God's existence. God Himself can experience sadness and suffering. And yet He continues to exist.
 
Excuse me, I am asking about brain cancer in children. Show me the evidence that humans cause that.

I gave you the predominant causes.

You did not give any reason to believe that human behavior causes brain cancer in children...

I did. Behaviour of parents can and does cause genetic mutation defects. You can claim ignorance of this well known problem if you like.
Cool, doesn't mean human behavior is the cause of all cancer. Stupid argument is stupid.
 
Cool, doesn't mean human behavior is the cause of all cancer. Stupid argument is stupid.
Or that any human behavior is not a result of our God given nature.
We are as God made us, if God is a designer.

However "Intelligent"
Tom
 
Are you actually asserting, without evidence, that humans cause brain cancer in children?

Yes. There's plenty of evidence that human activity causes cancer.

Since you seem unfamiliar with the science, here; www.who.int

- Smoking. (Apparently God didn't make us smart enough to know that setting fire to tobacco and deliberately inhaling the smoke isn't natural.)

- Over eating. (Listed in the bible under gluttony)

- Alcohol and substance abuse. (Who would have guessed?)

- Physical inactivity (Listed in the bible under sloth)

God arranged nature so that certain types of sin would cause cancer? Is that the claim?

What about non-sinners who get cancer? Secret sins? Collateral damage? Revenge against sinful parents who died before they could be properly punished?

Most atheists I know think the bible isn't persuasive and they don't believe there's an afterlife. (Stop worrying. God isnt real. Enjoy whatever you want.)

Did atheists actually tell you that atheism freed them from moral behavior? Do you think Christians are significantly more moral than non-Christians?

Are Biden, Tom Hanks and the Pope atheists?
 
I dont accept that suffering is incompatible with God's existence. God Himself can experience sadness and suffering. And yet He continues to exist.
Nor do I.

Suffering is completely incompatible with most religious God images I know about though. "Omnimax, benevolent, sentient being" is incompatible with the human situation. It's flat out incoherent.
Tom
 
This omni-everything God really is impossible, a theologians' creation, and should be removed from the discussion. Can we all agree that a small ball, very limited God is the only type worth discussing?
 
So a child molesting cult leader who thinks he's the reincarnation of Jesus Christ is evidence that there is a god to you. Wow.

An athest masquerading as clergy might not have any scruples about molesting children.
What would prevent them? Bible verses condemning such behaviour? Bible verses threatening afterlife punishment for such behaviour?

Most atheists I know think the bible isn't persuasive and they don't believe there's an afterlife. (Stop worrying. God isnt real. Enjoy whatever you want.)

article-1106924-02F61967000005DC-21_468x286.jpg
Generally, it's the priests without scruples molesting children.

And there are no verses condemning such behavior.

The difference is that most atheists still think there is truth in the world and that socially destructive behavior is a bad thing for society.
Are you actually asserting, without evidence, that humans cause brain cancer in children?

Yes. There's plenty of evidence that human activity causes cancer.

Since you seem unfamiliar with the science, here; www.who.int

- Smoking. (Apparently God didn't make us smart enough to know that setting fire to tobacco and deliberately inhaling the smoke isn't natural.)

- Over eating. (Listed in the bible under gluttony)

- Alcohol and substance abuse. (Who would have guessed?)

- Physical inactivity (Listed in the bible under sloth)

God arranged nature so that certain types of sin would cause cancer? Is that the claim?

What about non-sinners who get cancer? Secret sins? Collateral damage? Revenge against sinful parents who died before they could be properly punished?

Most atheists I know think the bible isn't persuasive and they don't believe there's an afterlife. (Stop worrying. God isnt real. Enjoy whatever you want.)

Did atheists actually tell you that atheism freed them from moral behavior? Do you think Christians are significantly more moral than non-Christians?

Are Biden, Tom Hanks and the Pope atheists?

So, in my meanderings through the myriad of ways to consider sin, "divine providence of natural consequences" means that anyone who suffers anything deserves it, at the full extreme of the idea.

Could this be that?
 
So, in my meanderings through the myriad of ways to consider sin, "divine providence of natural consequences" means that anyone who suffers anything deserves it, at the full extreme of the idea.

Could this be that?

What about the gullible followers of the crazed Christian preacher in the video? Are they being punished for their sins?
 
And, speaking of kids and cancer, Why do kids get cancer?

Oops! I don’t see anything in there about bad parenting causing cancer. But even if, in some inconceivable way, parents were to blame for brain cancer in their children, why would God allow the innocent child to be punished for their parents’ bad decisions?

Now let’s see what new bullshit rationalizations Lion dishes up.
 
Oops! I don’t see anything in there about bad parenting causing cancer. But even if, in some inconceivable way, parents were to blame for brain cancer in their children, why would God allow the innocent child to be punished for their parents’ bad decisions?
Those parents are also the product of the circumstances that they grew up in. With all the faults and failings that they were born with. And the ones that they developed in the situation they're in, whatever that is.

All of which is fully the responsibility of our Creator, whatever that means. The pretence that Almighty God, as described by Abrahamic religionists, can't do any better is utterly incoherent.
Tom
 
So, in my meanderings through the myriad of ways to consider sin, "divine providence of natural consequences" means that anyone who suffers anything deserves it, at the full extreme of the idea.

Could this be that?

What about the gullible followers of the crazed Christian preacher in the video? Are they being punished for their sins?
Arguably, yes, they are paying for the sin of listening to his screed.. By being forced to listen to his screed.
 
This omni-everything God really is impossible, a theologians' creation, and should be removed from the discussion. Can we all agree that a small ball, very limited God is the only type worth discussing?
We could, but that's not the type of god that most Christians (or Muslims) claim to exist.

If and when these two major religions accept that their god is very limited, then that becomes a discussion worth having. Don't hold your breath.

Right now, it is obvious to anyone who is capable of logic and reason that positing an all powerful being as a god makes the task of refuting god trivially easy (eg via the Problem of Evil).

Sadly, most religionists are incapable of logic and reason, and take an infantile approach wherein their imaginary friend overrides any and all objections by becoming more and more powerful.

It seems to have started as a way to convert believers in other gods. "You are making offerings to Zeus? Our Jehovah could kick Zeus's backside - follow him instead!". Anything another god could do, Jehovah could do better, until He has completely unlimited power, knowlege, compassion, and is located literally everywhere.

A similar "ability inflation" happened with Superman - he started out able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but now he can actually fly.

But (as Spiderman could tell us) with unlimited power comes unlimited responsibility. An omnimax god is simply incompatible with observed reality. And those of us who have yet to completely lose touch with reality see this as undeniable proof that no omnimax god is (or possibly could be) real.

Of course it is considerably harder to disprove a very limited god. The disproof in each such case must be tailored to the claimed nature of that god, and that's a lot of work. But as very few people currently claim that any very limited gods exist, such disproof isn't really necessary - nobody's likely to pass laws imposing their opinions on me, in the name of some very limited god.

If anyone wants to believe in such an absurdity, I don't mind one bit, as long as they leave the rest of us alone. People who struggle to separate fiction from reality are common enough, and are mostly harmless.
 
Back
Top Bottom