PDA

View Full Version : Atheist Blames Mother Theresa for Misery.



Gingersnap
11-04-2009, 02:45 PM
Hitchens Manages to Top Richard Dawkins, Assails Mother Theresa

Catholics and other Christians probably don't care what anyone says about them anymore, given the relative lack of outrage over Richard Dawkins' comments in The Washington Post this week. (See blog post below). So who will notice what Christopher Hitchens just unloaded on the Dennis Miller show this morning? Miller, let it be said, was not buying it at all--merely letting Hitchens spout this about abortion and Mother Theresa:


"Mother Theresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean, who comes to that conclusion who isn't a complete fanatic? She took - and I would directly say stole...millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it -- when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize -- that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it's a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to."

Christopher Hitchens is a regular contributor to The New Republic, The Atlantic and Vanity Fair.

Discovery (http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2009/10/hitchens_manages_to_top_dawkin.php)

noonwitch
11-04-2009, 05:00 PM
Hitchens' irrational hatred toward Mother Theresa is not really news. He's a drunk jerk who manages to make everyone on the left and right despise him. He's also the role model for the character of the british journalist in Bonfire of The Vanities.

PoliCon
11-04-2009, 05:57 PM
So much hate and vitriol on the left . . . I guess without Bush as their sole target of hate it was inevitable that it would spread to other targets . . . .

CueSi
11-05-2009, 02:33 AM
Penn and Teller did something similar already. :p

~QC

GrumpyOldLady
11-05-2009, 07:47 AM
She didn't campaign against family planning.
She campaigned against murdering unborn children.
That's different.
Her faith says that natural family planning is acceptable and desireable.

The guy is talking out his butt.

djones520
11-05-2009, 10:36 AM
Penn and Teller did something similar already. :p

~QC

I didn't see that episode, but their usually spot on.

JackKetch
11-05-2009, 10:16 PM
meh, hitchens. he did commentary on mother teresa's funeral with peter jennings and at the most sacred part of the Mass, hitchens started attacking mother teresa. jennings did not stop him, either. it was unbelievable. what kind of person verbally attacks someone during her funeral?

do you suppose i can get on tv and attack hitchens when his liver implodes and he goes to hell?

[no, i dont like hitchens as a matter of fact.] :D

wilbur
11-06-2009, 12:03 AM
Hitchens wrote a book criticizing Mother Theresa long before he wrote his famous "God is not Great" book - which is excellent, by the way - so his views arent exactly new here. He was actually invited to the Vatican to play the part of Devil's Advocate during Mother Theresa's canonization - and he did. He took part in that religious tradition and made the case for why she shouldnt have been sainted.

I have to say I understand his point - Mother Theresa was supportive of a philosophy that endorsed suffering, for sufferings sake - she was thankful for the suffering of the people she 'helped', because it was 'good for the world'. Presumably, their suffering was to God what carbon credits are to Al Gore. I believe Hitchens argues that she wasnt out to help prevent suffering, but to keep people alive as they suffered. If so, I believe that is very perverse - but not surprising, given the occult she was apart of.

She's didnt seem to be one of the modern right wing Christian's who seem to believe that fully living a prosperous happy republican life in capitalist America is the ultimate virtue. She was old school... she loved suffering.

wilbur
11-06-2009, 12:07 AM
She didn't campaign against family planning.
She campaigned against murdering unborn children.
That's different.
Her faith says that natural family planning is acceptable and desireable.

The guy is talking out his butt.

Ok, but that doesnt address contraception - is that "murdering unborn children" too?

PoliCon
11-06-2009, 12:14 AM
Ya know - if you abstain from cheap meaningless sex - and teach the third world that you do not cure aids by sleeping with virgins - imagine how much better life could be?

wilbur
11-06-2009, 12:18 AM
Ya know - if you abstain from cheap meaningless sex - and teach the third world that you do not cure aids by sleeping with virgins - imagine how much better life could be?

If only it worked.

PoliCon
11-06-2009, 12:25 AM
If only it worked.

It does work. Kinda hard to get pregnant or to get STD's if you're not having meaning less sex or having sex with someone who is having meaningless sex . . . .

wilbur
11-06-2009, 12:29 AM
It does work. Kinda hard to get pregnant or to get STD's if you're not having meaning less sex or having sex with someone who is having meaningless sex . . . .

No, it doesnt work, conclusively and empirically. The sex drive can beat sensible advice with one arm tied behind its back any day of the week.

You simply cannot change human behavior that way. To pretend you can is destructive and ultimately gets people killed. You can give it a little nudge, with birth control.

Rockntractor
11-06-2009, 12:34 AM
No, it doesnt work, conclusively and empirically. The sex drive can beat sensible advice with one arm tied behind its back any day of the week.

You simply cannot change human behavior that way. To pretend you can, is destructive, and ultimately gets people killed. You can give it a little nudge, with birth control.

If only someone had warned your parents that fateful night!

wilbur
11-06-2009, 12:35 AM
If only someone had warned your parents that fateful night!

What a zinger!

PoliCon
11-06-2009, 01:01 AM
No, it doesnt work, conclusively and empirically. The sex drive can beat sensible advice with one arm tied behind its back any day of the week.And yet - it is a demonstrable fact that if you abstain you have a far lower chance of either contracting a STD or of getting or getting someone pregnant.


You simply cannot change human behavior that way. To pretend you can is destructive and ultimately gets people killed. You can give it a little nudge, with birth control. Bullshit. People can control their base instincts - it's what raises us above animals. If you cannot control yourself and rut like an animal - fine. But don't pretend like self control is impossible.

wilbur
11-06-2009, 01:04 AM
And yet - it is a demonstrable fact that if you abstain you have a far lower chance of either contracting a STD or of getting or getting someone pregnant.
Bullshit. People can control their base instincts - it's what raises us above animals. If you cannot control yourself and rut like an animal - fine. But don't pretend like self control is impossible.

You hope to install that sort of self-control with a wag of the finger? Condoms and birth control have an empirically verified track record of reducing unwanted pregnancy and disease, ipso facto.

Promoting absitence without birth control has an empirically verified track record of increasing the contraction of STD's along with unwanted pregnancy.

RobJohnson
11-06-2009, 02:23 AM
It does work. Kinda hard to get pregnant or to get STD's if you're not having meaning less sex or having sex with someone who is having meaningless sex . . . .

Sounds boring. :)

Rockntractor
11-06-2009, 02:43 AM
Sounds boring. :)
If she is having meaningless sex whats the problem. At least she is having it!:confused:

Rockntractor
11-06-2009, 02:47 AM
wait a minute! Whats going on here, this is supposed to be a thread about mother Teresa?

RobJohnson
11-06-2009, 03:08 AM
And yet - it is a demonstrable fact that if you abstain you have a far lower chance of either contracting a STD or of getting or getting someone pregnant.
Bullshit. People can control their base instincts - it's what raises us above animals. If you cannot control yourself and rut like an animal - fine. But don't pretend like self control is impossible.

Libtards prove every day that they have no self control. :)

GrumpyOldLady
11-06-2009, 07:30 AM
You hope to install that sort of self-control with a wag of the finger?
It's already installed. It's called the brain.
Claiming that people are mindless sex machines is just wrong.

CueSi
11-06-2009, 08:19 AM
Didn't Uganda have some success with a variant of this program, actually managing to lower the AIDS rates for a couple years, but when they changed the course of the education, they shot back up again. . .?

~QC

RobJohnson
11-06-2009, 08:21 AM
It's already installed. It's called the brain.
Claiming that people are mindless sex machines is just wrong.

Wilbur just does not understand such things, if he only had a brain!

PoliCon
11-06-2009, 10:21 PM
You hope to install that sort of self-control with a wag of the finger?No - with education and social pressure.


Condoms and birth control have an empirically verified track record of reducing unwanted pregnancy and disease, ipso facto. And yet they are not nearly as effective at both as simple abstinence. How many women can you point to who have gotten pregnant while abstaining from sex? How many can people contract STDs while abstaining from sex? In both cases - the empirical evidence is much greater in favor of abstinence.


Promoting absitence without birth control has an empirically verified track record of increasing the contraction of STD's along with unwanted pregnancy. absitence? What's that?

PoliCon
11-06-2009, 10:22 PM
Libtards prove every day that they have no self control. :)

true. and they assume that because they cannot control themselves - no one else can either. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
11-06-2009, 10:23 PM
Didn't Uganda have some success with a variant of this program, actually managing to lower the AIDS rates for a couple years, but when they changed the course of the education, they shot back up again. . .?

~QC

One of the chief reasons why aids is so rampant in Africa is the mistaken idea that aids can be cured by sleeping with a virgin. EDUCATE people - and you will automatically have a drop in aids.

Rockntractor
11-06-2009, 10:25 PM
true. and the assume because they cannot control themselves that no one else can either. :rolleyes:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/beware-demotivational-poster-125688.jpg?t=1257560674

PoliCon
11-06-2009, 10:29 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/beware-demotivational-poster-125688.jpg?t=1257560674

I have no idea what you're talking about :p

FlaGator
11-06-2009, 10:48 PM
No - with education and social pressure.
And yet they are not nearly as effective at both as simple abstinence. How many women can you point to who have gotten pregnant while abstaining from sex? How many can people contract STDs while abstaining from sex? In both cases - the empirical evidence is much greater in favor of abstinence.
absitence? What's that?

Regardless of the little statistics that wilbur loves to throw out, he has yet to show me a single person who, while remaining in abstinent, ever produced an unwanted child or contracted an STD that didn't involve forced intercourse or a medical mishap. The motivation behind the sexual education adherents is a desire for sex on demand with no responsibility for the consequences of choices made. I am pro-choice, but the choice I support is the one made a little sooner in the process so that later on a choice doesn't have to be made to kill a child. Likewise many who support abortion with no limitations tends to be a group of self aborbed individuals whose interest in their own hedonism trumps the life of the offspring they create and the health of those they exchange bodily fluids with.

MrsSmith
11-07-2009, 08:36 AM
Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity continued to expand, and at the time of her death it was operating 610 missions in 123 countries, including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counselling programs, orphanages, and schools.

Yeah, she just loved to see people suffering...that's why she spent so much of her life reducing suffering. :rolleyes:


These include objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus

This is what Hitchens and many other atheists hate...she did all that work in the name of Christ, and was never ashamed to speak His name in reverence. How DARE SHE!!!! :eek::rolleyes:

A Wiki link...just for our favorite leftists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa)

hampshirebrit
11-07-2009, 08:43 AM
The link contains some interesting information about Mother Theresa's doubts:


Mother Teresa expressed grave doubts about God's existence and pain over her lack of faith:
"Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul ... How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, ... What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true"

MrsSmith
11-07-2009, 08:50 AM
The link contains some interesting information about Mother Theresa's doubts:

Everyone has doubts. Even atheists can look at the beauty and wonder of God's universe and doubt that everything happened by accident. :p

hampshirebrit
11-07-2009, 08:53 AM
Everyone has doubts. Even atheists can look at the beauty and wonder of God's universe and doubt that everything happened by accident. :p

A good and gracious comeback, as usual, Mrs S. :)

Sonnabend
11-07-2009, 09:21 AM
Even Christ, at Gethsemane, asked that the cup be taken from him...yet he stood and let Caesars soldiers take him. Those who work for others, to better others, always have doubts..no one is ever self assured.

That you are an atheist doesnt surprise me.,..actually, it tells me a lot about you, Brit, especially about the company you keep.

wilbur
11-07-2009, 02:41 PM
That you are an atheist doesnt surprise me.,..actually, it tells me a lot about you, Brit, especially about the company you keep.

Being atheist myself, I can say that when I learn that someone else is an atheist, it tells me squat about the person. When I learn that someone is a theist.... it doesn't tell me squat about the person either. No position on their ethical views, their political beliefs or the company they keep.

Either of those labels simply tell one about the content of a very specific narrow belief they hold, but no more than that.

wilbur
11-07-2009, 02:47 PM
Yeah, she just loved to see people suffering...that's why she spent so much of her life reducing suffering. :rolleyes:



This is what Hitchens and many other atheists hate...she did all that work in the name of Christ, and was never ashamed to speak His name in reverence. How DARE SHE!!!! :eek::rolleyes:

A Wiki link...just for our favorite leftists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa)

I'm not particularly interested in her story, or if Hitchens is or isnt on the mark.

As for what Hitchens "hates", why don't you read his words yourself? Your current assessment... is a little silly.



It's unexamined journalistically - no one really takes a look at what she does. And it is unexamined as to why it should be she who is spotlighted as opposed to many very selfless people who devote their lives to the relief of suffering in what we used to call the "Third World." Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine? If you ask most people if they agree with the pope's views on population, for example, they say they think they are rather extreme. Well here's someone whose life's work is the propagation of the most extreme version of that.

That's the first motive. The second was a sort of journalistic curiosity as to why it was that no one had asked any serious questions about Mother Teresa's theory or practice. Regarding her practice, I couldn't help but notice that she had rallied to the side of the Duvalier family in Haiti, for instance, that she had taken money - over a million dollars - from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen; that she has been an ally of the most reactionary forces in India and in many other countries; that she has campaigned recently to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the only country in Europe with a constitutional ban on divorce, that her interventions are always timed to assist the most conservative and obscurantist forces.


http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

MrsSmith
11-07-2009, 05:55 PM
I'm not particularly interested in her story, or if Hitchens is or isnt on the mark.

As for what Hitchens "hates", why don't you read his words yourself? Your current assessment... is a little silly.



http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

Quote:
It's unexamined journalistically - no one really takes a look at what she does. And it is unexamined as to why it should be she who is spotlighted as opposed to many very selfless people who devote their lives to the relief of suffering in what we used to call the "Third World." Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine? If you ask most people if they agree with the pope's views on population, for example, they say they think they are rather extreme. Well here's someone whose life's work is the propagation of the most extreme version of that.

That's the first motive. The second was a sort of journalistic curiosity as to why it was that no one had asked any serious questions about Mother Teresa's theory or practice. Regarding her practice, I couldn't help but notice that she had rallied to the side of the Duvalier family in Haiti, for instance, that she had taken money - over a million dollars - from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen; that she has been an ally of the most reactionary forces in India and in many other countries; that she has campaigned recently to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the only country in Europe with a constitutional ban on divorce, that her interventions are always timed to assist the most conservative and obscurantist forces.


In your own quote, wil. Maybe you should have read it first. What Hitchens really hates is the fact that she worked in Christ's name. :D:D

wilbur
11-07-2009, 07:09 PM
In your own quote, wil. Maybe you should have read it first. What Hitchens really hates is the fact that she worked in Christ's name. :D:D

If "working in Christ's name" is synonymous with "proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine" to you, then I concede - he certainly doesn't seem to like that. But I doubt your definition of "working in Christ's name", is shared by many Christians.

Sonnabend
11-07-2009, 07:29 PM
Being atheist myself, I can say that when I learn that someone else is an atheist, it tells me squat about the person. When I learn that someone is a theist.... it doesn't tell me squat about the person either. No position on their ethical views, their political beliefs or the company they keep.

I was referring to that mod's sickening sycophancy and hypocrisy regarding our resident anti semite, Gator.

MrsSmith
11-07-2009, 10:54 PM
If "working in Christ's name" is synonymous with "proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine" to you, then I concede - he certainly doesn't seem to like that. But I doubt your definition of "working in Christ's name", is shared by many Christians.

Our boss seems to think it's the same thing:

Luk 9:49,50 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.


Aside from that, Catholic doctrine is largely the same as all true Christian doctrine. The differences from one conservative Christian belief to another aren't all that wide.

wilbur
11-07-2009, 11:26 PM
Our boss seems to think it's the same thing:

Aside from that, Catholic doctrine is largely the same as all true Christian doctrine. The differences from one conservative Christian belief to another aren't all that wide.

Heh.. the bad attempt at a prooftext (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext) aside...

Hitchens is pretty crystal clear about the specifics of what he does and does not like about Mother Theresa - your blank assertion that he hates her because "she does stuff in the name of Christ" hasnt gained any credibility. Its negligently ambiguous... boisterous rhetoric that's devoid of any actual meaningful content. I think we can safely assume you havent even bothered to consult the words of Hitchens himself before you assumed to know what he hates and why he hates it. Get real.

Rockntractor
11-07-2009, 11:29 PM
Heh.. the bad attempt at a prooftext (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext) aside...

Hitchens is pretty crystal clear about the specifics of what he does and does not like about Mother Theresa - your blank assertion that he hates her because "she does stuff in the name of Christ" hasnt gained any credibility. Its negligently ambiguous... boisterous rhetoric that's devoid of any actual meaningful content. I think we can safely assume you havent even bothered to consult the words of Hitchens himself before you assumed to know what he hates and why he hates it. Get real.

I bet you kick puppies!

wilbur
11-07-2009, 11:34 PM
I bet you kick puppies!

Don't do that... Well, shoot fish in barrels maybe...

wilbur
11-07-2009, 11:39 PM
Regardless of the little statistics that wilbur loves to throw out, he has yet to show me a single person who, while remaining in abstinent, ever produced an unwanted child or contracted an STD that didn't involve forced intercourse or a medical mishap. The motivation behind the sexual education adherents is a desire for sex on demand with no responsibility for the consequences of choices made. I am pro-choice, but the choice I support is the one made a little sooner in the process so that later on a choice doesn't have to be made to kill a child. Likewise many who support abortion with no limitations tends to be a group of self aborbed individuals whose interest in their own hedonism trumps the life of the offspring they create and the health of those they exchange bodily fluids with.

I hope it doesnt surprise you to learn, that I also believe that one who abstains from sex will have little to no chance of getting an STD. Go figure. However, purposefully discouraging birth control or withholding birth control information from an entire nation of people crushed by fatal sexually transmitted diseases.... kills people. Seriously, it does.

The state of Texas executes people for less.

Rockntractor
11-07-2009, 11:41 PM
I hope it doesnt surprise you to learn, that I also believe that one who abstains from sex will have little to no chance of getting an STD. Go figure. However, purposefully discouraging birth control or withholding birth control information from an entire nation of people crushed by fatal sexually transmitted diseases.... kills people. Seriously, it does.

The state of Texas executes people for less.

My aren't we the drama queen tonight!

MrsSmith
11-08-2009, 03:04 PM
Heh.. the bad attempt at a prooftext (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext) aside...

Hitchens is pretty crystal clear about the specifics of what he does and does not like about Mother Theresa - your blank assertion that he hates her because "she does stuff in the name of Christ" hasnt gained any credibility. Its negligently ambiguous... boisterous rhetoric that's devoid of any actual meaningful content. I think we can safely assume you havent even bothered to consult the words of Hitchens himself before you assumed to know what he hates and why he hates it. Get real.

I love it. Regardless of how absolute and plain the language of your heroes, you still insist that they didn't say what they said, or mean what they said. :D:D:D

Hitchens:

Quote:
It's unexamined journalistically - no one really takes a look at what she does. And it is unexamined as to why it should be she who is spotlighted as opposed to many very selfless people who devote their lives to the relief of suffering in what we used to call the "Third World." Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism

Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism

Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism

Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism

Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism


I'm sure he didn't REALLY mean it though. He was just kidding. ROFL!!

MrsSmith
11-08-2009, 03:05 PM
I hope it doesnt surprise you to learn, that I also believe that one who abstains from sex will have little to no chance of getting an STD. Go figure. However, purposefully discouraging birth control or withholding birth control information from an entire nation of people crushed by fatal sexually transmitted diseases.... kills people. Seriously, it does.

The state of Texas executes people for less.

And this somehow has something to do with Mother Theresa and abortion? If people don't do the thing that causes unwanted babies, they also don't catch fatal STDs. It would seem that you're on the wrong side of this argument, also! :eek::eek: ;)

Goldwater
11-08-2009, 04:16 PM
And this somehow has something to do with Mother Theresa and abortion? If people don't do the thing that causes unwanted babies, they also don't catch fatal STDs. It would seem that you're on the wrong side of this argument, also! :eek::eek: ;)

I don't know if thats what he is saying.

Abstinance works, if it is practiced correctly, the problem is people don't practice it very well, if at all.

I think that is what wilbur is trying to convey anyway.

wilbur
11-08-2009, 04:37 PM
I love it. Regardless of how absolute and plain the language of your heroes, you still insist that they didn't say what they said, or mean what they said. :D:D:D

...

Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism


So your thesis is that Christopher Hitchens and other atheists hate Mother Theresa (and presumably anyone else) who does things "in Christs name". Not only have I explicitly shown that he has much to say on the subject, and his actual feelings on the matter appear to be far more involved than your little ad-hoc, silly sound-bite conveys - it is plainly self evident should one actually... read.

I can't help but notice you once again keep chopping the sentence in half as well, where he specifically mentions the 'most extremes of Catholic doctrine' - he also goes into greater detail about exactly what this means, and suffice to say... it further illustrates the silliness of your thesis - just read what he says beyond that one little sentence you have latched onto for dear life.

Perhaps it is the years of prooftexting the Bible that has trained you to think you can examine a couple words, yanked from the midst of thousands said, misrepresent them with an absurdly trite and vague piece of rhetorical nonsense, while thinking you have actually said something wise and meaningful about it. But it simply reveals a very unsophisticated, deficient thought process. For your sake, I hope you start to realize it one day.

wilbur
11-08-2009, 04:47 PM
And this somehow has something to do with Mother Theresa and abortion? If people don't do the thing that causes unwanted babies, they also don't catch fatal STDs. It would seem that you're on the wrong side of this argument, also! :eek::eek: ;)

You can affect the prevalence of both STD's and unwanted pregnancy with abstinence education and social pressure. A little. You can affect them both enormously when you introduce birth control.

When you actively discourage a population ravaged by disease from using birth control, and thwart attempts to bring it to them, you kill people. Lots of them. Its not complicated.

We can talk all day about how an individual won't get an STD if they just practice abstinence - but unless you have a sure fire way to coerce entire populations of people into abstaining to such a degree that birth control is an ineffective and unnecessary measure to save lives, its damn irrelevant... and its grossly negligent and immoral to discourage the use of birth control in the meantime.

PoliCon
11-08-2009, 07:04 PM
I hope it doesnt surprise you to learn, that I also believe that one who abstains from sex will have little to no chance of getting an STD. Go figure. However, purposefully discouraging birth control or withholding birth control information from an entire nation of people crushed by fatal sexually transmitted diseases.... kills people. Seriously, it does.

The state of Texas executes people for less. And why is it that these countries are overrun with aids? Are you aware that the main reason that aids is spreading in Africa is that they mistakenly believe that the way to be CURED of aids is to sleep with virgins?

wilbur
11-08-2009, 07:24 PM
And why is it that these countries are overrun with aids? Are you aware that the main reason that aids is spreading in Africa is that they mistakenly believe that the way to be CURED of aids is to sleep with virgins?

Sorry, no. Aids epidemics in Africa occur over a huge range of cultures, some may have this particular belief, others certainly don't.

PoliCon
11-08-2009, 07:29 PM
Sorry, no. Aids epidemics in Africa occur over a huge range of cultures, some may have this particular belief, others certainly don't.

And yet - feet on the ground all report this same lie all over the continent. I can tell you that it is something that I had to combat while I was in Nakuru. People all over the continent believe that the way to be cured of aids is to sleep with virgins - or some variation on that story.

MrsSmith
11-08-2009, 10:12 PM
So your thesis is that Christopher Hitchens and other atheists hate Mother Theresa (and presumably anyone else) who does things "in Christs name". Not only have I explicitly shown that he has much to say on the subject, and his actual feelings on the matter appear to be far more involved than your little ad-hoc, silly sound-bite conveys - it is plainly self evident should one actually... read.

I can't help but notice you once again keep chopping the sentence in half as well, where he specifically mentions the 'most extremes of Catholic doctrine' - he also goes into greater detail about exactly what this means, and suffice to say... it further illustrates the silliness of your thesis - just read what he says beyond that one little sentence you have latched onto for dear life.

Perhaps it is the years of prooftexting the Bible that has trained you to think you can examine a couple words, yanked from the midst of thousands said, misrepresent them with an absurdly trite and vague piece of rhetorical nonsense, while thinking you have actually said something wise and meaningful about it. But it simply reveals a very unsophisticated, deficient thought process. For your sake, I hope you start to realize it one day.

You know, you can go on and on and on...but you can't unmake the words he said and you quoted. For your sake, I hope you start to realize that someday. ;)

MrsSmith
11-08-2009, 10:16 PM
You can affect the prevalence of both STD's and unwanted pregnancy with abstinence education and social pressure. A little. You can affect them both enormously when you introduce birth control.

When you actively discourage a population ravaged by disease from using birth control, and thwart attempts to bring it to them, you kill people. Lots of them. Its not complicated.

We can talk all day about how an individual won't get an STD if they just practice abstinence - but unless you have a sure fire way to coerce entire populations of people into abstaining to such a degree that birth control is an ineffective and unnecessary measure to save lives, its damn irrelevant... and its grossly negligent and immoral to discourage the use of birth control in the meantime.

There is only one method of birth control that does anything to reduce STDs, and that would be the use of condoms. Condoms are about 85% effective for birth control. Given the fact that women can only get pregnant for 3 or 4 days out of 28, while many STDs are contagious for 28 days out of 28, the best way to spread them around is to hand out a bunch of condoms and tell people they're now safe.

However, abstinence before marriage, followed by faithfulness duing marriage, are able to reduce the chances of STDs to nearly nothing.

wilbur
11-08-2009, 11:08 PM
There is only one method of birth control that does anything to reduce STDs, and that would be the use of condoms. Condoms are about 85% effective for birth control. Given the fact that women can only get pregnant for 3 or 4 days out of 28, while many STDs are contagious for 28 days out of 28, the best way to spread them around is to hand out a bunch of condoms and tell people they're now safe.


No one wants to hand out condoms to people and then proceed tell them they're now invincible and can screw without risk to their hearts content. Condoms are simply one part of a multifaceted strategy... other parts include education with accurate information about risks of STD's while using condoms and without.

Misleading people by teaching them that condoms are ineffective, as you suggest above, does not help, and also leads to deaths for real live people.

When we see widespread use of condoms, its almost always accompanied by a significant drop in incidents of STD's. So its simply not true, not in the slightest, that the "best way to spread STD's is to give out condoms"



However, abstinence before marriage, followed by faithfulness duing marriage, are able to reduce the chances of STDs to nearly nothing.

Well, till you have some effective means to convince continents of people with radically different values than yourself to do this, we'll continue to use all approaches - and condemn those who want to discard (and mislead people about) invaluable tools that save lives.

MrsSmith
11-08-2009, 11:47 PM
No one wants to hand out condoms to people and then proceed tell them they're now invincible and can screw without risk to their hearts content. Condoms are simply one part of a multifaceted strategy... other parts include education with accurate information about risks of STD's while using condoms and without.

Misleading people by teaching them that condoms are ineffective, as you suggest above, does not help, and also leads to deaths for real live people.

When we see widespread use of condoms, its almost always accompanied by a significant drop in incidents of STD's. So its simply not true, not in the slightest, that the "best way to spread STD's is to give out condoms"



Well, till you have some effective means to convince continents of people with radically different values than yourself to do this, we'll continue to use all approaches - and condemn those who want to discard (and mislead people about) invaluable tools that save lives.

Your condoms save lives in exactly the same way abortions do...you must be careful not to count the "unwanted" lives in order to make the stats work. We live in a country that supposedly teaches it's kids everything...and condoms are available in schools, bathrooms, stores, family planning centers and often in the kids' homes...yet, weirdly enough, our STD rate, teen pregnancy rate and abortion rate are still sky high. But I'm sure your plans will work fine in Africa. Really. I mean it. :)

:rolleyes:

Puggsy
11-09-2009, 02:19 AM
What IS the point of being an atheist ANYWAY?
To imagine everything came into existence by chance is illogical.

Please watch, see the clockwork complexity of this, then tell me it just happened by chance.

http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=S1Nhc1RTcWuRpLW5fZ00&inside-the-cell=
http://www.flixxy.com/biology-nano-visualization-cell-life.htm

C Fabregas
11-09-2009, 10:18 AM
Your condoms save lives in exactly the same way abortions do...you must be careful not to count the "unwanted" lives in order to make the stats work. ...

Not sure I follow the logic of this statement. Could someone possibly explicate it further as there may be a nuance with which I'm not familiar.

wilbur
11-09-2009, 12:10 PM
Not sure I follow the logic of this statement. Could someone possibly explicate it further as there may be a nuance with which I'm not familiar.

Category error - there is no logic in Mrs Smith's statements.

wilbur
11-09-2009, 12:24 PM
Your condoms save lives in exactly the same way abortions do...you must be careful not to count the "unwanted" lives in order to make the stats work. We live in a country that supposedly teaches it's kids everything...and condoms are available in schools, bathrooms, stores, family planning centers and often in the kids' homes...yet, weirdly enough, our STD rate, teen pregnancy rate and abortion rate are still sky high. But I'm sure your plans will work fine in Africa. Really. I mean it. :)

:rolleyes:

And just imagine where things would be if there were no birth control. (Hint: think African thoughts)

wilbur
11-09-2009, 12:27 PM
What IS the point of being an atheist ANYWAY?
To imagine everything came into existence by chance is illogical.

Please watch, see the clockwork complexity of this, then tell me it just happened by chance.

http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=S1Nhc1RTcWuRpLW5fZ00&inside-the-cell=
http://www.flixxy.com/biology-nano-visualization-cell-life.htm

Surely God, as described by most theists, is a being so great, that he makes the interworkings of the cell look trivial - along with everything else in this universe. So just how in Zues's name, did chance produce Him?

Puggsy
11-11-2009, 11:34 PM
Science can't explain it, therefore you won't believe it.

MrsSmith
11-11-2009, 11:43 PM
Category error - there is no logic in Mrs Smith's statements.

Nope, none at all.

It is not logical that people who reserve sex for faithful, committed marriages will have far less chance of catching STDs than people who use a condom most of the time with multiple partners.

It is not logical to look at the efficiency of birth control by condoms...about 85%...and the number of days a woman can get pregnant in a month, and see that, if condoms can't even manage to work 4 or 5 days a month, they can't work very well 28 days a month.

It is not logical to believe that inefficient condoms have done as much to kill people as abortion has.

Nope. No logic at all.

But it's logical to believe that the rate of STDs and teen pregnancy in the US absolutely prove wilbur's logic.

Right? :D

MrsSmith
11-11-2009, 11:44 PM
Science can't explain it, therefore you won't believe it.

Eventually, science will be able to explain everything. And then some Christian will point out the fact that they've actually discovered that Genesis was right... :D

Big Guy
11-11-2009, 11:49 PM
Surely God, as described by most theists, is a being so great, that he makes the interworkings of the cell look trivial - along with everything else in this universe. So just how in Zues's name, did chance produce Him?

Sir, it is real simple.

We call it faith, with faith we need no proof, it just is. I strongly disagree with Atheists but I respect their opinion. That is the American way, freedom to believe or not to.

You have probably been asked before, what if you are wrong?

MrsSmith
11-11-2009, 11:51 PM
Surely God, as described by most theists, is a being so great, that he makes the interworkings of the cell look trivial - along with everything else in this universe. So just how in Zues's name, did chance produce Him?
Hey, wil, in your spare time, you may want to look up the word "eternal." {Hint: No beginning and no ending.} Um, your logic is slipping...again.

Rockntractor
11-12-2009, 12:44 AM
Surely God, as described by most theists, is a being so great, that he makes the interworkings of the cell look trivial - along with everything else in this universe. So just how in Zues's name, did chance produce Him?
You spelled Zeus's name wrong. Beware of lightning bolts!

wilbur
11-12-2009, 10:09 AM
Hey, wil, in your spare time, you may want to look up the word "eternal." {Hint: No beginning and no ending.} Um, your logic is slipping...again.

Oh I get it... I really do. Pause for thought... perhaps it is you who are missing something (.. it is).

When one finds themselves awe inspired by the workings of the universe, they often think 'Hey, how could this happen by chance?'. To explain the moment of incredulity, they often fall into the trap of saying "God!", but go no further. But the existence of God, who is allegedly a being who is greater than the material universe in all ways, should incite even more incredulity - for however unlikely it seems that a universe could exist, then it should seem even more unlikely that a being who is greater in all ways should just exist, eternally and forever.

If we are going to hypothesize the existence of some some eternal force which results in universes, then Occams Razor rules out God. A simple immaterial eternal mindless force that produces universes, is much more probable than a great immaterial eternal mindful force that designs universes.

wilbur
11-12-2009, 10:37 AM
Sir, it is real simple.

We call it faith, with faith we need no proof, it just is. I strongly disagree with Atheists but I respect their opinion. That is the American way, freedom to believe or not to.

You have probably been asked before, what if you are wrong?

Pascal's wager is what your question paraphrases and it is really a simple risk assessment formula. It tries to say that if there is a non-zero probability of something being true, and if it has infinite negative consequences (or infinite positive consequences), and also requires little to no sacrifice to avoid or attain those consequences, then from a risk management standpoint, you should bet on it being true.

Sounds sensible enough at first glance... but its reasonable to conclude that every single religion has a non-zero probability of being true, and that there are other possible infinite afterlives which will either be better for me than Christian heaven, or worse for me than Christian hell (they both are pretty generic). By the rules of the wager, I should find the religion which poses the greatest risk (or reward) to my eternal well-being and believe in it, instead. So if one wants to bet their life according to the wager, it should hardly be a given that Christianity is the religion to choose. So, what if you are wrong? I hear Islam's afterlife is supposed to be pretty cool (at least for us men).

The other portion where it fails, is the assumption that the sacrifice of this life, is no sacrifice at all. Indeed, I will have given up the only existence and chance at well-being I may ever have, living according to a philosophy I don't actually think is true. I do not think this is a trivial sacrifice, and it is possibly the largest sacrifice that its possible to ask of a person. The actual sensible choice, is to attempt to discover what is most probably true, and live according to what ever that is.

wilbur
11-12-2009, 11:08 AM
Nope, none at all.

It is not logical that people who reserve sex for faithful, committed marriages will have far less chance of catching STDs than people who use a condom most of the time with multiple partners.

It is not logical to look at the efficiency of birth control by condoms...about 85%...and the number of days a woman can get pregnant in a month, and see that, if condoms can't even manage to work 4 or 5 days a month, they can't work very well 28 days a month.

It is not logical to believe that inefficient condoms have done as much to kill people as abortion has.

Nope. No logic at all.

But it's logical to believe that the rate of STDs and teen pregnancy in the US absolutely prove wilbur's logic.

Right? :D

Still missing the point - you can have your cake and eat it too. You can work to promote abstinence, and all your beloved sexual virtues - while also providing a positive view of birth control. Combined strategies, of encouraging responsible sexual behavior through education and social pressure, along with birth control, result in a society with far less sex related problems than societies which do only one of the two.

In fact, when one uses only one of the two options, it makes matters worse. For example, teaching abstinence only, while stigmatizing or otherwise marginalizing birth control, results in more disease, more unwanted pregnancy, and all around more sexual dysfunction. Yet this has been, for all intents and purposes, the Christian strategy towards sex - and in Africa, it really hurts. It's no hyperbole to say that people die because of abstinence policies that leave birth control marginalized and stigmatized.

And of course, handing out birth control, without any sort of plan to encourage responsible sexual behavior, can also be a recipe for disaster.

Puggsy
11-13-2009, 01:28 PM
Why are you guys antagonizing him?
He's obviously made his mind up, Is quite intelligent and brings up an interesting point regarding potential afterlife benefits.

Trying to convince him of intelligent design on a forum will do nothing but drive him further from it.

wilbur
11-13-2009, 04:40 PM
Why are you guys antagonizing him?
He's obviously made his mind up, Is quite intelligent and brings up an interesting point regarding potential afterlife benefits.

Trying to convince him of intelligent design on a forum will do nothing but drive him further from it.

I don't feel that anyone here was antagonizing... just chatting. Well, MrsSmith is always antagonizing - but I start that sometimes.

Lanie
11-13-2009, 06:28 PM
Discovery (http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2009/10/hitchens_manages_to_top_dawkin.php)

I have always been curious about the arguments against Mother Theresa. I do think it might be possible that the argument against building all those convents could be valid because that is money that could have been used to help the poor. However, I'm sure she still did a lot to help the poor.

Lanie
11-13-2009, 06:33 PM
Ya know - if you abstain from cheap meaningless sex - and teach the third world that you do not cure aids by sleeping with virgins - imagine how much better life could be?

I agree, but there's still nothing wrong with family planning. One of my gripes about stuff like the gag order isn't just an issue of abortion, but that we wouldn't give money to anybody who even mentioned the a word. They didn't have to perform abortions to be deprived of funding. They just had to say the a word. In light of the fact that the third world is in such bad health (and that women dying in childbirth is much more common over there), I think this was wrong. The RCC can take whatever stands they want to, but I often believe that they and some others do not completely get the pro-life picture. It's like some people are saying that pro-life only is about life in the womb.

MrsSmith
11-13-2009, 11:43 PM
I agree, but there's still nothing wrong with family planning. One of my gripes about stuff like the gag order isn't just an issue of abortion, but that we wouldn't give money to anybody who even mentioned the a word. They didn't have to perform abortions to be deprived of funding. They just had to say the a word. In light of the fact that the third world is in such bad health (and that women dying in childbirth is much more common over there), I think this was wrong. The RCC can take whatever stands they want to, but I often believe that they and some others do not completely get the pro-life picture. It's like some people are saying that pro-life only is about life in the womb.

We would much rather continue to build hospitals and orphanages...and fund both...than the alternative. It like some people just don't get the picture that abortion always causes at least one human death. Far, far better to save both mother and baby(ies). And yes, despite the very tired old liberal lie, Christians do provide as much care as we possibly can, both before and after birth. In truth, in Africa, "Christian" is not an insult.

Lanie
11-13-2009, 11:54 PM
We would much rather continue to build hospitals and orphanages...and fund both...than the alternative. It like some people just don't get the picture that abortion always causes at least one human death. Far, far better to save both mother and baby(ies). And yes, despite the very tired old liberal lie, Christians do provide as much care as we possibly can, both before and after birth. In truth, in Africa, "Christian" is not an insult.

But if a place simply talks about abortion, but never performs them, then what deaths have occured?

PoliCon
11-14-2009, 01:41 AM
I agree, but there's still nothing wrong with family planning. One of my gripes about stuff like the gag order isn't just an issue of abortion, but that we wouldn't give money to anybody who even mentioned the a word. They didn't have to perform abortions to be deprived of funding. They just had to say the a word. In light of the fact that the third world is in such bad health (and that women dying in childbirth is much more common over there), I think this was wrong. The RCC can take whatever stands they want to, but I often believe that they and some others do not completely get the pro-life picture. It's like some people are saying that pro-life only is about life in the womb.

One of the chief goals of family planning should be learning how to control our baser instincts. Self control is one of the few things that separate us from animals.

Rockntractor
11-14-2009, 01:44 AM
One of the chief goals of family planning should be learning how to control our baser instincts. Self control is one of the few things that separate us from animals.

Snif snif mmmmm! Woof baby woof!