If 'modern' atheist people are so smart and 'ancient' god-fearing people were so backward, why do WE live in a pervasively poisoned world?

Ancient people lived in a pristine natural environment, were not threatened by overpopulation, nuclear weapons, tides of lethal sexual diseases and incurable cancers, gender confusion, inability to survive the presence of basic food staples like wheat and milk, and didn't exist in perpetual states of war disguised as various forms of 'futuristic progress.' They were also smart enough to 'repent' of their course when obvious tragedy struck, rather than use 'spin' to find a way to continue down it even further. Are 'we' really 'homo sapiens' the 'wise ones?'

17 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago

    If you are a ***** and didn't know it could you shut yo *** up? 

  • 1 month ago

    They had some of those problems but not all of them

  • poldi2
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    I wondered when desperate Christians would suggest that pollution in the world is the direct cause of atheism.

    But since atheists are only about 15% of the entire world population, they really haven't that kind of influence on the world. Christians prevent atheists from holding office, Christians claim climate change is a hoax, Christians want to eliminate science education from our schools.

  • 1 month ago

    In the ancient past, life was all about pillage, plunder, pestilence and poverty.

    Life today is all about Chinese trading and quid pro quo.

    Do the math.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    ask all the ancient civilisations that destroyed them selves

    start on the Easter Islands and then work you way around south america

  • Justin
    Lv 7
    1 month ago


    Dead pirate:

    Typical, you tell me to 'provide evidence' then block me from doing it.

    It is modern 'atheist' thinking that abandoned and mocked the natural cycles of disease and immunity established by GOD and nature, spending vast treasures, (of other people's stolen resources), to invent and maintain 'vaccines' which save lives in the short term, (allowing overpopulation to occur), artificially extending lives while offering no 'legacy' of permanent inheritable immunity to future generations, who end up dependent on that unsustainable technology while growing weaker and weaker genetically. A massive 'die off' is inevitable which will still not result in genetically inherited immunity, though it will address overpopulation anyway, making the entire point to vaccines moot, only leaving us extremely weak and vulnerable to future die offs.

    We have the knowledge and technology to actually face disease directly instead, surviving its full rigors and passing along permanent 'gifts' to our posterity instead of dying young anyway from drug overdoses, cancers, lethal sexual diseases and stupid accidents marching headlong into some bizarre vision of 'progress' without GOD or any appreciation of His creative design.

  • 1 month ago

    your question is ridiculous of course STDs and Cancers existed, Cancer was described by the ancient Egyptians by 1600 BCE and, much later, by Hippocrates and then Celsus during the early empire. Henry VIII of England had syphilis which was passed on to his son.

    Christopher Columbus's crew became infected with the disease while in the New World - where it was rampant among natives - and brought it back to Europe. Genetic studies indicate the disease originated in South America.

  • 1 month ago

    The vast majority of the world's population are, and have always been, "god-fearing people" of some description or other.

    So who do you think has caused your perceived "poisoned world" - those billions of god believers, or the relative handful of atheists?

  • I guess we'll start at the beginning. Overpopulation. Provide evidence that atheists reproduce at a higher rate than do religious people.

    I told you when I blocked you, dipshit. You figure it out. At that point, you were through listening to me and I was done listening to you. You're unusually hostile for a "christian".

  • 1 month ago


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.