MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 29th 2021 - 09:41 UTC



Lula da Silva announces his back in politics after defeating cancer

Thursday, March 29th 2012 - 07:07 UTC
Full article 16 comments

Former Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced Wednesday that he was returning to politics after being told that his larynx cancer was in “complete remission.” Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • ChrisR

    So WTF is he going back to politics for.

    Why not become a nun and be the wife of God? He's certainly behaving like a woman.

    Does he not think the doctors and engineers and scientists who looked after him had something to do with it?

    Oh, I forgot, it was God who told them to do it no doubt. It's about time the delusionalists grew up and stopped worrying about the 'wrath of God'. He / she does not exist.

    Mar 29th, 2012 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JuanStanic

    You seem very sure of what you say. Proove he does not exist.

    Mar 29th, 2012 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zethe

    “Proove he does not exist.”

    You can't prove he does.

    The doctors however can prove that they saved his life.

    Mar 29th, 2012 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Fido Dido

    believing in God is good. It's a shame most Europeans don't believe in God anymore.

    Mar 29th, 2012 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JuanStanic

    That's right. But I just don't go through the life shouting he exists. I just believe he does.

    Never said they didn't. No matter you believe God exists or not, they saved him by themselves or god saved him through their job, meaning they were crucial in any case.

    Mar 29th, 2012 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brit abroad

    @3 It is not up to non belivers to prove god doesnt exist, it is upto the believers to prove he does, and they have spent thousands of years not being able to.

    God is an abstract concept devised by man to try and understand the world and control it!

    Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JuanStanic

    Not so. It's to both sides to proove their point. As long as neither does it remains a mystery and a matter of belief.

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brit abroad

    bullshit! @ 7 - Here is one (of many) of the most usual arguments against God existing (it assumes God is good of course, but I think most religions believe, or at least preach that God is good):

    Defenders of a good, all powerful, and all knowing God have to explain why two kinds of evil exist, not just one. The two kinds are chosen evil (rape, torture, murder, etc.) and unchosen evil (diseases, natural disasters, etc.).

    First they will say chosen evil must exist so that we can have free will. Okay, let's allow them that. Score a point for their God.

    Next they will say that unchosen evil must exist so that we can appreciate the good - that good cannot exist except in contrast with evil. There are two things wrong with that answer. First, it admits that God is incapable of creating a world in which good is absolute (non-relative). Second, even if we allow them the claim that good must be relative to evil, the question remains why *so very much* evil is necessary to make us appreciate the good. To say that there needs to be as much unchosen evil in the world as there is so that we can recognize and appreciate the good is like saying that we could not tell the difference between black and white in a picture unless at least half the picture was black.

    As a last resort, they will say evil does not exist - that what seems an evil is only an absence of good. This is like saying that there is no black paint on the canvas, there is only an absence of white paint - accepting it as an answer requires one to wilfully insult one's own intelligence.

    This is called The Problem of Evil.

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 04:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    I just knew my comment would draw out the delusionalists who need a dummy to suck on (GOD / ALLAH) to get through their lives. There are NO gods, anywhere!

    Napoleon was right.

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yul

    # 9 C.R/
    Napoleon was only keeping on Josephine &

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JuanStanic

    You are assuming all people believe in god in the same way.
    You are invited to proove so.

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    11 JuanStanic
    ”You are invited to proove(sic) so.”

    Prove what? That engineers, scientists and doctors made Lula better, I thought that was self-evident?

    Prove there is a God, any God will do.

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JuanStanic

    Never said they weren't part of the process. I said one way or another they were crucial.

    Why exactly does a God have to proove his/her own existance? Where is it written? Again, why are you so sure they should proove they exist?

    IMO you have a very fixed idea of what a God is, should be and should behave.

    Mar 30th, 2012 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brit abroad


    religious belief is abstract. being able to develope abstract ideas is one of those things that makes man different from the rest of the animal kingdon - it is a man made idea, and over hundreds of years developed into various forms/idealologies.

    Now, simple question! how does (lets use the christain god as an example) the teachings of his prophets apply to the modern world? genetics? etc It is outdated and the rhetoric used then suited that time I.E it was used to explain the then unknown and to control people and habits. God is just a title for a set of rules set up by the then learned to (as napoleon, albeit simply, puts it) keep the poor from killing the rich.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    13 JuanStanic

    I am sorry that you think I have fixed ideas about 'God'.

    Until the age of 13 ish I was the Head Altar Server at my parents CofE High Church. I was baptised by the Bishop of Lichfield.

    However, as my scientific education progressed and I started to think about things for myself I realised that what I had been doing was nothing other than religious subversion of the masses. That did it for me.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JuanStanic

    Again, you show a very fixed image of what God is. I don't follow blindly the Church rhetoric. I don't have to and I don't want to. IMO, religion(at least the part I consider so and that I follow) is a guide to life. Nothing more. I can follow it if I want. I can follow it as I want. I am not obliged to follow it in a particular way.
    Anyway above that depends on people. For example, I take Genesis as many metaphores, but not as fact as it's written.

    But to answer you more simply, How “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not steal” don't apply? I think they do. Genetics? “Honour your father and your mother”.


    Well, I only can feel sorry you had such an old school religious education. I did have an education but based on religion as a guide for life. We were told since the First Communion that Bible is not a history book, it's a book of teaching for life. Then you had us in the same religious school been teached the Evolution Theory, Big Bang, Genetics and many other scientific stuff. Nobody will tell you that the flood really happened. Even half of my class was pro-gay!
    The problem religion can have is not religion itself, it's how it's teached.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!