So, what's the point of picking sides here? You wait until, in exasperation, I make a statement that must be untrue before you come in swinging? My point is that "South America" deserves inclusion in Jack's list of oppressed people no more than Eastern Europe, eastern Germany, or east London for that matter. In fact, Haiti is the only area in the Western Hemisphere even close to your average African nation in terms of poverty and hunger.Famine
Religion is contrived
- Thread starter Danoff
- 1,109 comments
- 26,505 views
- 87,230
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Who's picking sides or swinging? You made a factually inaccurate statement.
Incidentally, this is the Horn of Africa in which, as Touring Mars referenced earlier, 11 million people are suffering with food shortages:
That's 10 countries.
The report I referenced said that 12 million people are facing food shortages in Brazil. That's ONE country.
So, one might say that the "average" African country in this situation is 10 times BETTER off than a single South American one. However, Brazil is about twice the size of this region - although the report specifies the northeast of Brazil rather than the country as a whole.
I am curious why you take offence to the "suggestion" that 12 million in Brazil is comparable to 11 million in the Horn...
Incidentally, this is the Horn of Africa in which, as Touring Mars referenced earlier, 11 million people are suffering with food shortages:
That's 10 countries.
The report I referenced said that 12 million people are facing food shortages in Brazil. That's ONE country.
So, one might say that the "average" African country in this situation is 10 times BETTER off than a single South American one. However, Brazil is about twice the size of this region - although the report specifies the northeast of Brazil rather than the country as a whole.
I am curious why you take offence to the "suggestion" that 12 million in Brazil is comparable to 11 million in the Horn...
Gee, I really don't know. Do you mean BESIDES the obvious fact that the rest of Africa is in similarly poor shape to those countries in the horn (with the possible exceptions of Egypt and South Africa), and the rest of the South American countries are in BETTER shape than Brazil appears to be in? Besides the fact that there is frequent open warfare in Africa, compounding the problem? BESIDES the fact that people in South America have gov'ts that at least DESIRE to help? BESIDES the fact that the people that face hunger in Brazil are having hard times and struggling (facing HUNGER), and the people in Africa are facing STARVATION? Did you notice the graph in the pdf you put up? How many people had died from various famines (no offense). There is nothing in the western hemisphere. Why is this concept so alien to everyone?
[edit] the numbers from south africa and the horn together are over 28 million, and that doesn't even take the central african nations into account. War torn Rwanda, the Congo, etc.
[edit] the numbers from south africa and the horn together are over 28 million, and that doesn't even take the central african nations into account. War torn Rwanda, the Congo, etc.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
We all understand that hunger and starvation is a reality regardless of the intensity in different geographical locations. This we cannot argue. How then, does this relate to this thread? Religious groups are helping and doing what they can, human support groups are doing what they can, and governments are doing what they want. Individuals have just as much responsibility to help out as do organizations. No one is to blame for this except ourselves. I personally have a hard time understanding the full magnitude of what's happening down in Africa or other countries but find it shameful that it's being used for purposes of debate to show if God is helping or not. Millions of people are dieing or starving to death. This is something that should never have happened, or should be allowed to continue to happen. So WHY is man (who atheists put so much trust in) allowing this to happen when world resources could fix the problem? Anyone? Why?
By golly, that report was from 2002! I wonder what the newer reports have to say? http://www.bread.org/pdfs/Hunger-Report-2004/Chapter 3.pdf Check out the two graphs on page 11, and look how the americas compare to africa. OR check out the 2005 report. Orders of magnitude, people. The 2005 report, http://www.bread.org/pdfs/Hunger-Report-2005/Chapter 2.pdf graphs on pages 7, 10, the map on page 43. In fact, like I said, if you want to start picking on areas, you may as well include north america too. http://www.bread.org/institute/hunger_report/2005-pdf.htm. No reason to be prejudiced here.
Why don't you guys call up the Bread for the World Institute and tell them how wrong they are for focusing on Africa? Tell them how naive they're being?
Why don't you guys call up the Bread for the World Institute and tell them how wrong they are for focusing on Africa? Tell them how naive they're being?
You seem to be hung up on something I said while exasperated instead of really rebutting my whole point here. You'll notice I already recognized that was a far overreaching statement. But the plight of people in CA and SA is a lot closer to people in rural Alabama than people in Africa. The whole point of this argument was to get people to stop throwing South America under the bus with Africa. There is really a world of difference.Famine
- 87,230
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'm not "hung up".
I'm uninterested in rebutting your point (whatever it may be) since, frankly, this whole avenue of exploration bores me rigid and, unless certain people actually get to the point we'll never be entirely sure why we're going down this road in this thread. I just loathe factual inaccuracy - and that statement was a glaring example of it.
What on Earth does "throwing under the bus" mean in any case?
I'm uninterested in rebutting your point (whatever it may be) since, frankly, this whole avenue of exploration bores me rigid and, unless certain people actually get to the point we'll never be entirely sure why we're going down this road in this thread. I just loathe factual inaccuracy - and that statement was a glaring example of it.
What on Earth does "throwing under the bus" mean in any case?
I apologize for the factual inaccuracy I put forth when trying to protest Jack's factual inaccuracy. Throwing under the bus means pushing someone under a bus or off a cliff to save your own hide. I wasn't aware that Africa was "predominantly Christian." I suspect that Jack had the same reservation, and therefore tossed South America in with Africa as examples of areas where Christian people are definitely NOT blessed by their God. I felt he was throwing South America under the bus because they are not really that bad off (nowhere NEAR the same class as Africa or most parts of Asia, but targeted them because they were Christian), and he was grasping at straws. And holding on to them, no less. He might as well have targeted poor Southern Baptists in Alabama. And no one seemed to agree with him until I MADE MY ALL IN CAPS STATEMENT, and diverted the argument.Famine
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
danoff
Oh man...not even sure where to begin on this one...
Are you saying that some races of humans are less genetically evolved than others, and therefore are starving because of their genetic inferiority? Survival of the fittest? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that Africans are less of an evolved race, and through natural selection, the genetically inferior genes will die out and not be passed along to future humans and our starvation problems will go away? I won't even comment on the "Fairness" reason.
Please tell me you're kidding, please tell me that
www.bread.org
across the globe arent starving because of Evolution and in the name of free enterprise and Fairness.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
PakoOh man...not even sure where to begin on this one...
Are you saying that some races of humans are less genetically evolved than others, and therefore are starving because of their genetic inferiority? Survival of the fittest? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that Africans are less of an evolved race, and through natural selection, the genetically inferior genes will die out and not be passed along to future humans and our starvation problems will go away? I won't even comment on the "Fairness" reason.
Please tell me you're kidding, please tell me that
across the globe arent starving because of Evolution and in the name of free enterprise and Fairness.
Just for a little extra tidbit of info, the african cro-magnon man slaughted the neanderthals over thousands of years because they were genetically surperior. They were from Africa, and were taller, smarter, and leaner. They basically kicked caveman's ass.
- 1,620
Because men are bastards and only look out for themselves, unless the odd moral person brings their attention to what is happening in Africa etc and makes them feel guilty because their own life is so good. Hence they join world vision, and give a measly $1 a day, to make themselves feel better.
Or why people will go to a charity 'band-aid' concert to see Bono and Sting sing some songs, but they'd never just donate that money without the strong impetus that comes from peer group pressure and the personal desire to go to a rock concert and have fun (in the name of charity of course).
God isn't even vaguely in the picture, he's off getting drunk (as I previously stated) and bumping into the furniture (*cough* tsunami *cough*)... he's only harmed people in recent memory.
Oh, and sorry for the personal attack on JacktheHat (which wasn't really that serious), but I got really frustrated with everyone's inability to at least admit that historically and recently, Africa is in the worst catagory of humanitarian problems in general. This is all Skicrush really wants everyone to agree on, all caps statements ignored... Sure, poverty is poverty, it doesn't matter where you are (here is where I type all the countries mentioned previously) and I don't subscribe to the notion that anyone that is in hunger and is stuck in a deprived lifestyle should be happy... However, I'm sure everyone can admit that Africa has clearly had the worst luck over the last 100 years or so...
I mean, they don't have high-profile band-aid concerts/world vision charities to try and save anyone else, Africa is number one on the "lets fix this" list. Whether its just that Africa is the most well known for its sufferage (a popularist vote), or they ACTUALLY have the worst humanitarian problems is the question. I would tend to agree with the latter.
What all this has to to with the thread I have no idea however.
Basically, Skicrush, Touring Mars and Famine were all arguing based on slightly different premises. Can we all get along now?
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
What does God do, anyway? I've always wondered this. In the bible it states that Jesus was to pay for the sins of man and get ressurected and then go to heaven and then come down again on amergeddon and save us etc etc blah blah blah. But what does "God" do?
This is an honest question, and I really don't know. It isn't used to demean or make god appear lazy or nonexistent, I just want to know.
This is an honest question, and I really don't know. It isn't used to demean or make god appear lazy or nonexistent, I just want to know.
- 383
Okay, I'm going to repeat myself for skicrush's benefit. Both areas are exploited. E_x_p_l_o_i_t_e_d.
People in the Americas are campaigning for an end to exploitation.
People in the Africas are campaigning for an end to exploitation.
Both were converted to Christianity.
They were supposedly 'Godless' before and their standard of life was quite possibly better than it is now.
Now they have 'found God' it is arguable that their situation has deteriorated, they don't own their own land, they no longer have the means to provide for themselves, their governments are corrupted and their country is in hock to first world banks.
People in the Americas are campaigning for an end to exploitation.
People in the Africas are campaigning for an end to exploitation.
Both were converted to Christianity.
They were supposedly 'Godless' before and their standard of life was quite possibly better than it is now.
Now they have 'found God' it is arguable that their situation has deteriorated, they don't own their own land, they no longer have the means to provide for themselves, their governments are corrupted and their country is in hock to first world banks.
- 29,298
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
James2097
As I mentioned in another thread (and as you point out too), it's absurd to believe that God is responsible for stuff that happens, like the Asian tsunami... but if you believe that he doesn't 'do' these things, then it follows that you should also believe that he doesn't 'do' anything at all.... as Woody Allen once said, 'I don't think that God is evil, but he's basically an underachiever...'
- 1,620
JacktheHat
I would (and I'm just using common sense here) assume that those countries that are expoited are so due to political and economic problems, lack of resources, geographic situation, etc etc. Perhaps issues like STDs/AIDS and the like are affected negatively by religious beliefs (reluctance to use appropriate contraception) but overall, I wouldn't assume religion either helps or hurts these peoples in any significant degree. At least not enough to go making conclusions as to how certain religious beliefs affect a country in either a strong negative (or positive) fashion.
Please accept there are degrees of exploitation that Skicrush talked about, just agree Africa has generally been worse off than pretty much anywhere else for as long as you can remember - it will really make Skicrush feel OK (all he was trying to hammer home really). We can then drop that point (never the real issue of debate regards to the thread anyway).
Note: I am staying clear of the middle-east in regards to this point!
- 383
James2097I would (and I'm just using common sense here) assume that those countries that are expoited are so due to political and economic problems, lack of resources, geographic situation, etc etc. Perhaps issues like STDs/AIDS and the like are affected negatively by religious beliefs (reluctance to use appropriate contraception) but overall, I wouldn't assume religion either helps or hurts these peoples in any significant degree. At least not enough to go making conclusions as to how certain religious beliefs affect a country in either a strong negative (or positive) fashion.
Please accept there are degrees of exploitation that Skicrush talked about, just agree Africa has generally been worse off than pretty much anywhere else for as long as you can remember - it will really make Skicrush feel OK (all he was trying to hammer home really). We can then drop that point (never the real issue of debate regards to the thread anyway).
Note: I am staying clear of the middle-east in regards to this point!
The point was never 'who is worse off?'
Re-read my last post.
- 383
James2097
Fair enough, but all he was doing was confusing the issue rather than offering valid debate...
I still think my initial question (which I've had to repeat several times) is pertinent though.
- 383
James2097
Basically, I was asking what God did to help the needy and indicated that he had, in fact, failed them
I was told by Swift that God hadn't failed people but that people had failed God.
I then asked how they had done this?
I used the peoples of South America and Africa as examples purely because they had been converted to some form of Christianity and, in my opinion, are worse off.
JacktheHat
- 383
Swift
No, if you actually read my post that you have quoted you will see there is a question in there, directed at you as it happens.
