Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on January 28, 2010, 10:57:03 AM
-
You would think that those who are so convinced that there is no God would have better things to do than to bleat and blubber, about an old lady, who spend the bulk of her life doing humanitarian work.
This, even by their standards, is PITIFUL.
Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp -- and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.
The stamp -- set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa's 100th birthday -- will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.
"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."
But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.
"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.
Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.
Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan's stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.
Martin Luther King "just happened to be a minister," and "Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure," she said.
"And he's not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific."
Gaylor said Mother Teresa infused Catholicism into her secular honors — including an "anti-abortion rant" during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech — and that even her humanitarian work was controversial.
"There was criticism by the end of her life that she turned what was a tiny charity into an extremely wealthy charity that had the means to provide better care than it did," Gaylor said. "...There's this knee jerk response that everything she did was humanitarian, and I think many people would differ that what she was doing was to promote religion, and what she wanted to do was baptize people before they die, and that doesn't have a secular purpose for a stamp."
But the Postal Service said the commemorative stamp has nothing to do with Mother Teresa's religion.
"Mother Teresa is not being honored because of her religion, she's being honored for her work with the poor and her acts of humanitarian relief," Betts told FoxNews.com.....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html)
BTW, someone should mention to these folks that, the reason Malcolm X isn't called "Father" is because he ain't Catholic, though in Muslim circles, he was known as "Brother Minister".
And, lest these factually-challenged geniuses forget that other civil rights leaders' title, it's REV. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
Geeze,are you kidding me?Muhamed Ali had a stamp and I refer to him as a "mother fucker" should that have eliminated him?The women dedicated her life to helping the poor and the sick,so shes a religious kook and probably a commie,lets at least admit she did wonderfull work.
-
As I mentioned in another thread, it is very common to point out and condemn religious extremism. But secular extremism gets a pass.
-
Mother Theresa was a charlatan. At least by the end of her life she realized their was no Jesus.
Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Mother Teresa: No saint
I think it was Macaulay who said that the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. This rather oblique compliment belongs to a more serious age. What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.
It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims. The pope has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century.
As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)
According to an uncontradicted report in the Italian paper L'Eco di Bergamo, the Vatican's secretary of state sent a letter to senior cardinals in June, asking on behalf of the pope whether they favored making MT a saint right away. The pope's clear intention has been to speed the process up in order to perform the ceremony in his own lifetime. The response was in the negative, according to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who has acted as postulator or advocate for the "canonization." But the damage, to such integrity as the process possesses, has already been done.
During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …
This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?
The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for "the poorest of the poor." People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.
One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
-
Yeah great,she sucked but Martin Luther King[by the way also not his real name]was out fucking prostitutes and making all kinds of shady deals, we laud him as a saint.
-
TA - seriously, that post was probably one of your worst ever, and that is saying a lot.
Shame on you.
-
Geeze,are you kidding me?Muhamed Ali had a stamp and I refer to him as a "mother fucker" should that have eliminated him?The women dedicated her life to helping the poor and the sick,so shes a religious kook and probably a commie,lets at least admit she did wonderfull work.
A kook and a commie is the guy, Christopher Hitchens, who tried to destroy Mother Teresa's image with nothing but lies and fabrications.
"Hitchens doesn't like rich people (save for those obsessed with guilt and who give to "progressive" causes) and that explains why he doesn't like it when Mother Teresa takes money from the wealthy. But it wouldn't bother Hitchens if she took money from the government, because that would make her a real redistributionist. From this perspective, Robin Hood is a game that only collectivists can play." - William A. Donohue
Hating Mother Teresa
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/hating_mother_teresa.htm
-
A kook and a commie is the guy, Christopher Hitchens, who tried to destroy Mother Teresa's image with nothing but lies and fabrications.
"Hitchens doesn't like rich people (save for those obsessed with guilt and who give to "progressive" causes) and that explains why he doesn't like it when Mother Teresa takes money from the wealthy. But it wouldn't bother Hitchens if she took money from the government, because that would make her a real redistributionist. From this perspective, Robin Hood is a game that only collectivists can play." - William A. Donohue
Hating Mother Teresa
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/hating_mother_teresa.htm
ROFLMAO@ citing the Catholic League of Donahue
-
Mother Theresa was a charlatan. At least by the end of her life she realized their was no Jesus.
Christopher Hitchens is a charlatan, hateful, obese alcoholic who doesn't get along even with his own brother.
-
ROFLMAO@ citing the Catholic League of Donahue
So? He exposes all of Christopher Hitchens' lies and fabrications about Mother Teresa.
You took everything that Christopher Hitchens said without even looking at his sources...oh, that's right. He cited no sources.
-
Christopher Hitchens is a charlatan, hateful, obese alcoholic who doesn't get along even with his own brother.
Aeitheists by and large are worse than the "fundies" they so like to mock.
TA - seriously - shame on you bro. You really are embarassing yourself. You live off an inheritance and have the balls to call out a woman who lived in squalor to help people?
WTF is wrong with you?
-
So? He exposes all of Christopher Hitchens' lies and fabrications about Mother Teresa.
You took everything that Christopher Hitchens said without even looking at his sources...oh, that's right. He cited no sources.
Uh, he wrote a whole volume on Mother Theresa and all of his sources are listed in the book extensively.
(http://versouk.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/verso-missionary-position1.jpg)
-
TA - seriously bro - this is why even though I am not religious, I hate the aeithist left wing freak show with a passion far more than the religious right.
-
Just one of many instances of the fraud, Mother Theresa
She also accepted 1.4 million dollars from Charles Keating, involved in the fraud and corruption scheme known as the Keating Five scandal and supported him before and after his arrest. The Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles, Paul Turley, wrote to Mother Teresa asking her to return the donated money to the people Keating had stolen from, one of whom was "a poor carpenter". The donated money was not accounted for, and Turley did not receive a reply.
-
One minute, you have atheists claiming that Mother Teresa was an atheist, herself.
The next minute, you have atheist groups, blubbering that a ROMAN CATHOLIC WOMAN is getting her own stamp?
Do you, TA, realize how silly both you and Hitchens sound, especially here?
-
TA - seriously bro - this is why even though I am not religious, I hate the aeithist left wing freak show with a passion far more than the religious right.
What are you talking about? Mother Theresa it turned out no longer believed in Jesus or god by the time she died. She is a fraud for many reasons.
-
Uh, he wrote a whole volume on Mother Theresa and all of his sources are listed in the book extensively.
Ha ha ha. You show me the book cover? ::)
How about you show me the citations? Oh, that's right. His book has no footnotes, no citations of any kind. It's a gossip book.
-
One minute, you have atheists claiming that Mother Teresa was an atheist, herself.
The next minute, you have atheist groups, blubbering that a ROMAN CATHOLIC WOMAN is getting her own stamp?
Do you, TA, realize how silly both you and Hitchens sound, especially here?
While on one level I dont think TA is a bad person at all, some of these posts are deeply disturbing at least.
TA - did it ever dawn on you that maybe she gave the money away to the work she was doing?
-
-
Just one of many instances of the fraud, Mother Theresa
She also accepted 1.4 million dollars from Charles Keating, involved in the fraud and corruption scheme known as the Keating Five scandal and supported him before and after his arrest. The Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles, Paul Turley, wrote to Mother Teresa asking her to return the donated money to the people Keating had stolen from, one of whom was "a poor carpenter". The donated money was not accounted for, and Turley did not receive a reply.
In the promotion flyer accompanying the book, the publisher delights in saying that Hitchens outlines Mother Teresa's relationship with "Paul Keating, the man now serving a ten-year sentence for his central role in the United States Savings and Loan scandal." Wrong, the man's name is Charles Keating, but what difference does that make to a publisher unconcerned with verifying the sources of its authors?
Keating gave Mother Teresa one and a quarter million dollars. It does not matter to Hitchens that all of the money was spent before anyone ever knew of his shenanigans. What matters is that Mother Teresa gave to the poor a lot of money taken from a rich guy who later went to jail. But her biggest crime, according to Hitchens, was writing a letter to Judge Lance Ito (yeah, the same one) "seeking clemency for Mr. Keating."
"It would be rather audacious of Mother Teresa if she were to intervene in a trial "seeking clemency" for the accused, unless, of course, she had evidence that the accused was innocent. But she did nothing of the kind: what she wrote to Judge Ito was a reference letter, not a missive "seeking clemency."
"I do not know anything about Mr. Charles Keating's work," Mother Teresa said, "or his business or the matters you are dealing with." She then explains her letter by saying "Mr. Keating has done much to help the poor, which is why I am writing to you on his behalf."
Now why this character reference, written of someone who was presumed innocent at the time, should be grounds for condemnation is truly remarkable. It reveals more about Hitchens than his subject that he brands her letter an appeal for "clemency." It was nothing of the sort, but this matters little to someone filled with rage."
-
Why does your boy refer to her as "Hell's Angel" if he does not believe in god, heaven or hell to begin with?
-
Why does your boy refer to her as "Hell's Angel" if he does not believe in god, heaven or hell to begin with?
That was only revealed after she died from her personal notes. The Documentary was made before then. Hitchens also addressed her loss of faith when it became known.
-
One minute, you have atheists claiming that Mother Teresa was an atheist, herself.
The next minute, you have atheist groups, blubbering that a ROMAN CATHOLIC WOMAN is getting her own stamp?
Do you, TA, realize how silly both you and Hitchens sound, especially here?
I too am interested in what TA has to say about this.
-
Watch Donahue, Leader of the Catholic get DESTROYED by Hitchens regarding Mother Theresa the Fraudulent atheist
-
TA - do you actually realize that many of us watch these clips and that they say the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim?
WTF is wrong with you bro?
-
TA - do you actually realize that many of us watch these clips and that they say the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim?
WTF is wrong with you bro?
Media processing bias perhaps? You and others have grave problems in disseminating correct information and I have pointed this out many times in various articles where comprehension was skewed.
Mother Teresa was a fraud in her faith and in her shady dealings. If anyone else pulled the kind of ponzi scheme in which she did with Keating and Duvalier, they would be facing serious charges and jail time.
-
Media processing bias perhaps? You and others have grave problems in disseminating correct information and I have pointed this out many times in various articles where comprehension was skewed.
Mother Teresa was a fraud in her faith and in her shady dealings. If anyone else pulled the kind of ponzi scheme in which she did with Keating and Duvalier, they would be facing serious charges and jail time.
Unreal. "Shady dealings". You are so clueless its not even worth discussing this with you. Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps she had given the money away to other charities before she was contacted regarding the matter?
-
That was only revealed after she died from her personal notes. The Documentary was made before then. Hitchens also addressed her loss of faith when it became known.
What she displayed was despair and a crisis in faith. She wasn't the first and won't be the last. That hardly makes her an atheist.
Once again your musings sound utterly ridiculous, especially with this group, whining about her portrait on a stamp, BECAUSE SHE'S CATHOLIC.
-
Media processing bias perhaps? You and others have grave problems in disseminating correct information and I have pointed this out many times in various articles where comprehension was skewed.
Perhaps it is you, TA, and not 333386 who has grave problems in disseminating correct information.
-
Unreal. "Shady dealings". You are so clueless its not even worth discussing this with you. Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps she had given the money away to other charities before she was contacted regarding the matter?
One of Mother Teresa’s volunteers in Calcutta described her “Home for the Dying” as resembling photos of concentration camps such as Belsen. No chairs, just stretcher beds. Virtually no medical care or painkillers beyond aspirin, and a refusal to take a 15-year-old boy to a hospital. Hitchens adds, “Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so... is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering, but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection.”
Then Hitchens notes that Mother Teresa “has checked into some of the finest and costliest clinics and hospitals in the West during her bouts with heart trouble and old age.”
The author mentions her visit to Haiti and her endorsement of the Duvaliers, the source of much deprivation of the poor in Haiti.
Also, her acceptance of stolen money from Charles Keating, “now serving a ten-year sentence for his part in the savings and loan scandal.” Keating, a “Catholic fundamentalist”, gave Mother Teresa one and a quarter million dollars and “the use of his private jet.” During the course of Keating’s trial, Mother Teresa wrote Judge Ito asking clemency and asked Ito “to do what Jesus would do.”
One of the prosecutors in the trial wrote her telling her “of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000.” He added, “You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart--as he sentences Charles Keating--and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience.” The prosecutor asked her to return the money, and offered to put her “in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.” This supposed paragon of virtue never replied to his letter.
No one knows what happens to the millions of dollars Mother Teresa receives. There is no accounting and no evidence that she has built a hospital or orphanage that reflects modern health and sanitary conditions.
-
Penn and Teller BULLSHIT! Mother Teresa, Holier than thou!
-
Sarojini Naidu once remarked about Mahatma Gandhi: “It costs a lot to keep him poor.”
There are many disparaging writings having to do with Gandhi. There are many very complimentary, even hero worship, writings about Ghandhi. Same with Mother Teresa.
We can all use the TA tactic of googling works that support our point of view. TA is a radical secular extremist.
I would have no problem having either Gandhi or Mother Teresa on a stamp. I'm sure if they wanted to put Ayn Rand on a stamp no main stream Christian denomination would give a crap. They have better things to do. If only the radical secularist could find better things to do.
I wonder how much that Atheist group did to help Haiti?
-
Sarojini Naidu once remarked about Mahatma Gandhi: “It costs a lot to keep him poor.”
There are many disparaging writings having to do with Gandhi. There are many very complimentary, even hero worship, writings about Ghandhi. Same with Mother Teresa.
We can all use the TA tactic of googling works that support our point of view. TA is a radical secular extremist.
I would have no problem having either Gandhi or Mother Teresa on a stamp. I'm sure if they wanted to put Ayn Rand on a stamp no main stream Christian denomination would give a crap. They have better things to do. If only the radical secularist could find better things to do.
I wonder how much that Atheist group did to help Haiti?
Oh you mean like this one with the several million that this one brought in alone by Richard Dawkins:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
Non-Believers Giving Aid: a religion-free way to help disaster victims
Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) has joined forces with 18 other freethought groups or associates, to collect donations to non-religious relief organizations. Those participating are Atheist Alliance International, Atheists Helping the Homeless, Atheists United, The British Humanist Association, Freedom From Religion Foundation, The International Humanist and Ethical Union, James Randi Educational Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, New Humanist Magazine, Pharyngula, Rationalist Association, Reasonable New York, The Reason Project, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, Secular Student Alliance, Skeptics in the Pub, The Skeptic Magazine, The Skeptics Society and Unreasonable Faith.
We have set up a new dedicated bank account and PayPal facility in the new name of Non-Believers Giving Aid. All of the money donated will be distributed to disaster relief.
Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too. There are, of course, many ways for you to donate to relief organizations already, but doing it through Non-Believers Giving Aid offers some advantages:
1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: PayPal has agreed to waive all fees on Haiti-related donations from January 12th through February 11th. This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.
2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.
It goes without saying that your donations will only be passed on to aid organizations that do not have religious affiliations. In the case of Haiti, the two organizations we have chosen are:
Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)
International Red Cross
You may stipulate using the dropdown menu which of these two organizations you want your donation to go to; otherwise, it will be divided equally between them.
Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves. Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent. The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches. Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity. Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good.
Whether you do it by clicking the PayPal button or by cheque (see below), please help us to help the suffering people of Haiti.
Important note for UK donors – please read carefully
If you are a UK taxpayer, please make it possible for us to claim Gift Aid on your donation. Gift Aid means that every £10 you donate becomes £12.82. We aim to have Gift Aid-compatible electronic donation facilities in place for future emergency appeals, but until then we would urge you to donate by cheque rather than to use the PayPal facility below, and to enclose a completed Gift Aid Declaration with your cheque. Please make your cheque payable to RDFRS, and make sure you write ‘NBGA’ on the reverse of it, along with the name of your preferred charity (MSF or IRC) if appropriate. If you simply write ‘NBGA’ on the reverse, without the addition of MSF or IRC, your donation will be evenly divided between them. Then post it, along with your completed Gift Aid Declaration, to the Oxford address shown below. RDFRS will not retain any part of your donation or any Gift Aid we are able to reclaim on it.
Donations made via the PayPal button below are still very welcome, and will still make a huge difference to the people of Haiti; but donations by cheque + Gift Aid Declaration will go further still, and we hope that this thought will help to compensate for any inconvenience. Thank you!
-
Or perhaps you mean the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, run by Atheist Bill Gates and Atheist Warren Buffet. Which also happens to be THE LARGEST PRIVATE CHARITY in the World. Thank you Atheists!
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is the largest transparently operated[5] private foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. The foundation is "driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family".[6] The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington, is controlled by its three trustees: Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.
-
Bill Gates PWNS the fraud Mother Teresa.
-
I love this:
Gates was profiled by Walter Isaacson in a January 13, 1996 TIME MAGAZINE cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:
Isaacson: Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?
Gates: I don't have any evidence on that.
“Gates face suddenly becomes expressionless,” writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."
Gates: Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.
-
Bill Gates PWNS the fraud Mother Teresa.
And guess how he made that kid on money to give away TA?
-
Warren Buffett
The multi-billionaire, financier, atheist and business man. The following is taken from--Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, by Roger Lowenstein (Doubleday, 1995), page 13...
"He did not subscribe to his family's religion. Even at a young age he was too mathematical, too logical, to make the leap of faith.”
“He adopted his father's ethical underpinnings, but not his belief in an unseen divinity.”
-
TA, you can google all you want but that still doesn't answer the specific question. Anybody can google anything to support their point of view. Should I google the irrefutable evidence that Hitler is alive and well? That we have been invaded by reptilian hybrids? The world will end in 2012? The Jews control the entire world?
For a smug, pretentious, self-absorbed, little dandy you sure are intellectually lazy.
Do you have a problem with Mother Teresa being on a stamp?
BTW, how's your faux British accent coming along? And give my regards to the always lovely Jezebelle (sp?).
-
TA, you can google all you want but that still doesn't answer the specific question. Anybody can google anything to support their point of view. Should I google the irrefutable evidence and Hitler is alive and well? That we have been invaded by reptilian hybrids? The world will end in 2012? The Jews control the entire world?
For a smug, pretentious, self-absorbed, little dandy you sure are intellectually lazy.
Do you have a problem with Mother Teresa being on a stamp?
BTW, how's your faux British accent coming along? And give my regards to the always lovely Jezebelle (sp?).
Put her on the stamp with a disclaimer that she is a fraud and has allowed and reveled in human suffering as is documented by her Hospices of Death. She made the Catholic Church that much wealthier as they do not have to disclose what she did with any of the money that was donated. There is no evidence anything was done with it. None.
-
TA, you can google all you want but that still doesn't answer the specific question. Anybody can google anything to support their point of view. Should I google the irrefutable evidence that Hitler is alive and well? That we have been invaded by reptilian hybrids? The world will end in 2012? The Jews control the entire world?
For a smug, pretentious, self-absorbed, little dandy you sure are intellectually lazy.
Do you have a problem with Mother Teresa being on a stamp?
BTW, how's your faux British accent coming along? And give my regards to the always lovely Jezebelle (sp?).
You cannot deny the massive Atheist contributions. In fact, the only reason why you really know anything or have a computer to type on, is because of us Atheists. You wouldn`t even have electricity if it weren`t for us. :) (Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison)
-
Put her on the stamp with a disclaimer that she is a fraud and has allowed and reveled in human suffering as is documented by her Hospices of Death. She made the Catholic Church that much wealthier as they do not have to disclose what she did with any of the money that was donated. There is no evidence anything was done with it. None.
Hysterical - yet you campaigned for Obama and dont see him as a fraud despite much more evidence on him.
-
TA, you can google all you want but that still doesn't answer the specific question. Anybody can google anything to support their point of view. Should I google the irrefutable evidence that Hitler is alive and well? That we have been invaded by reptilian hybrids? The world will end in 2012? The Jews control the entire world?
For a smug, pretentious, self-absorbed, little dandy you sure are intellectually lazy.
Do you have a problem with Mother Teresa being on a stamp?
BTW, how's your faux British accent coming along? And give my regards to the always lovely Jezebelle (sp?).
Pellius,
You've pretty much summed up the argument I've been making privately for years. This isn't a dig on TA but he is literally the poster child for what I call IGS (Internet Genius Syndrome). This syndrome afflicts many a intellectual wannabe and has is spreading faster than AIDS did in the 80's. Basically, there people cannot tell the difference between information and knowledge in the modern, internet age. This means anyone who can google, or cut & paste shit may easily delude themselves into thinking they're smart.
There was a time when people actually studied and researched shit from real books, peer reviewed papers, took classes, gained life experience, and so on.... now all someone needs to do is google, youtube, Wiki, ask Jeeves or whatever to get a barely superficial understanding of any concept and can even choose the point of view they like. Last year someone was claiming there was no possible way hGH could in any way possible be responsible for big bellies. I explained in exhausting detail, down to the basic physiology, three methods by which it was possible/likely but people still kept referencing articles written by guys who take it, LOL!
Arguing, explaining, or whatever with a majority of posters here is a waste of time and this site should be for entertainment purposes only. People with IGS aren't really stupid, in the classic sense, they just can't be educated because feeling right is more important to them than trivial things like facts.:)
-
You cannot deny the massive Atheist contributions. In fact, the only reason why you really know anything or have a computer to type on, is because of us Atheists. You wouldn`t even have electricity if it weren`t for us. :) (Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison)
This shit always cracks me up. MattC is another abuser of this. Trying to latch onto the accomplishments of someone because you have something in common, i.e. being born white or being atheist.
Einstein put his right sock on first in the morning and I do the same. Thus I deserve some of the credit for his paper on the photoelectric effect. ::)
-
Pellius,
You've pretty much summed up the argument I've been making privately for years. This isn't a dig on TA but he is literally the poster child for what I call IGS (Internet Genius Syndrome). This syndrome afflicts many a intellectual wannabe and has is spreading faster than AIDS did in the 80's. Basically, there people cannot tell the difference between information and knowledge in the modern, internet age. This means anyone who can google, or cut & paste shit may easily delude themselves into thinking they're smart.
There was a time when people actually studied and researched shit from real books, peer reviewed papers, took classes, gained life experience, and so on.... now all someone needs to do is google, youtube, Wiki, ask Jeeves or whatever to get a barely superficial understanding of any concept and can even choose the point of view they like. Last year someone was claiming there was no possible way hGH could in any way possible be responsible for big bellies. I explained in exhausting detail, down to the basic physiology, three methods by which it was possible/likely but people still kept referencing articles written by guys who take it, LOL!
Arguing, explaining, or whatever with a majority of posters here is a waste of time and this site should be for entertainment purposes only. People with IGS aren't really stupid, in the classic sense, they just can't be educated because feeling right is more important to them than trivial things like facts.:)
Take your stupid bias (stupid because it is meaningless, why are you trying to make this personal?) against me out of the equation and instead focus on the information I presented.
Is any of it incorrect. If it is, can you show me where and why it is incorrect? Again, why do you want to make this personal? All I did was provide the information and my information comes from research, books, first hand accounts, primary and secondary sources. We just happen to communicate via the internet.
Would you rather me mail you correspondence instead? You can always PM me your mailing address. Do you want to discuss this over the phone? Should I rent out a conference room and have a symposium? Do you want to meet at the Library of Congress or some other facility?
Exit Question: How is the same material presented on digital form any different than in paper form.
Also, when you see Obama, Bush or say Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking giving a lecture on the internet, do you not really think that they are the actual person but some sort of impostor?
Do you not think the Journals uploaded on internet sites are exact copies of paper copies?
You really cannot be this moronic. Or can you? I don`t want to presume you are but you are making it difficult to think otherwise.
-
This shit always cracks me up. MattC is another abuser of this. Trying to latch onto the accomplishments of someone because you have something in common, i.e. being born white or being atheist.
Einstein put his right sock on first in the morning and I do the same. Thus I deserve some of the credit for his paper on the photoelectric effect. ::)
So you don`t think Science would be any different if scientists were complacent in believing that the Sun revolves around the earth and that it is 6000 years old and miracles are behind all weather events?
If you are religious, you are going to have a pretty skewed view of how and why things occur and will never arrive at an demonstrable, evidence based and logical solution.
I am appalled that you think "God did it" is a viable conclusion to how anything in the Universe operates.
-
So you don`t think Science would be any different if scientists were complacent in believing that the Sun revolves around the earth and that it is 6000 years old and miracles are behind all weather events?
If you are religious, you are going to have a pretty skewed view of how and why things occur and will never arrive at a evidence based and logical solution.
I am appalled that you think "God did it" is a viable conclusion to how anything in the Universe operates.
I'm actually atheist but what I was focusing on is the fact that you're trying to latch yourself onto the accomplishments of Tesla and Edison when you have absolutely nothing in common with them beyond the fact that you're an atheist. The use of "we" as if you played in a part in their discoveries is pretty funny. ::)
MattC is notorious for doing this as well.
-
You cannot deny the massive Atheist contributions. In fact, the only reason why you really know anything or have a computer to type on, is because of us Atheists. You wouldn`t even have electricity if it weren`t for us. :) (Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison)
Doesn't compare to the contritbutions made by religious based groups. Google it.
-
I'm actually atheist but what I was focusing on is the fact that you're trying to latch yourself onto the accomplishments of Tesla and Edison when you have absolutely nothing in common with them beyond the fact that you're an atheist. The use of "we" as if you played in a part in their discoveries is pretty funny. ::)
MattC is notorious for doing this as well.
I just dont get why Aiethists are so rabid on this issue.
-
Put her on the stamp with a disclaimer that she is a fraud and has allowed and reveled in human suffering as is documented by her Hospices of Death. She made the Catholic Church that much wealthier as they do not have to disclose what she did with any of the money that was donated. There is no evidence anything was done with it. None.
Would you agree to a disclaimer on a MLK stamp? Or the drug abusing Elvis stamp?
-
Would you agree to a disclaimer on a MLK stamp? Or the drug abusing Elvis stamp?
I seriously dont expect an answer to that GREAT question.
-
I'm actually atheist but what I was focusing on is the fact that you're trying to latch yourself onto the accomplishments of Tesla and Edison when you have absolutely nothing in common with them beyond the fact that you're an atheist. The use of "we" as if you played in a part in their discoveries is pretty funny. ::)
MattC is notorious for doing this as well.
How am I trying to take credit for anything? The point is, Tesla and Edison, had they been satisfied with "God the all powerful master behind everything" they would have been satisfied with not understanding the world much to humanity's loss for their talents would have never been exploited.
I share my free thinking with them as well and posses the same curiosity. Religion and belief in god limit this and encourage limitation of the mind via faith or belief in the supernatural, evidence free.
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-
I just dont get why Aiethists are so rabid on this issue.
Atheists that trumpet it and are constantly talking about how superior atheism is while chastising others are no better than the religious nutjobs in my book.
-
Atheists that trumpet it and are constantly talking about how superior atheism is while chastising others are no better than the religious nutjobs in my book.
Why should religion get a free pass? You are on here all the time trumpeting about your choice in politics, movies and what have you....what you like, dislike and why you feel that way, why treat religion any different than you treat your politics?
Doesn`t make any sense.
-
Why should religion get a free pass? You are on here all the time trumpeting about your choice in politics, movies and what have you....what you like, dislike and why you feel that way, why treat religion any different than you treat your politics?
Doesn`t make any sense.
Because your condescending attitude and how you conduct yourself with regards to atheism/religion is no different from the people trumpeting the bible/koran/whatever. Your arguments are no different from theirs. You just argue your point from the other end of the spectrum. Replace "atheism" with "Christianity" and your argument is exactly the same as theirs.
-
Would you agree to a disclaimer on a MLK stamp? Or the drug abusing Elvis stamp?
Sure why not. I wish the stamp were big enough to read like a biography. I don`t care if Mother Teresa is on the stamp either. I am not against it at all. I am against people deifying a fraud and believing an alternate history rather than the one that did occur.
MLK did not start the civil rights movement by the way. (had to throw that in there since many think he did)
I do find great pleasure in the music of Elvis and think he will be the type of icon that will be relevant hundreds of years from now.
I don`t want to see Muhammad on a stamp and I suspect you don`t want to see that either. I also do not want to see Jesus on a stamp. I personally like Dog stamps and animal stamps. We need more of those.
I answered your question now you answer mine. So, would you want Muhammad on a stamp glorifying Islam?
-
Why should religion get a free pass? You are on here all the time trumpeting about your choice in politics, movies and what have you....what you like, dislike and why you feel that way, why treat religion any different than you treat your politics?
Doesn`t make any sense.
Can you post a recent picture of the lovely Jeezebelle. I miss her. I wouldn't protest if they put her on a stamp.
-
Sure why not. I wish the stamp were big enough to read like a biography. I don`t care if Mother Teresa is on the stamp either. I am not against it at all. I am against people deifying a fraud and believing an alternate history rather than the one that did occur.
MLK did not start the civil rights movement by the way. (had to throw that in there since many think he did)
I do find great pleasure in the music of Elvis and think he will be the type of icon that will be relevant hundreds of years from now.
I don`t want to see Muhammad on a stamp and I suspect you don`t want to see that either. I also do not want to see Jesus on a stamp. I personally like Dog stamps and animal stamps. We need more of those.
I answered your question now you answer mine. So, would you want Muhammad on a stamp glorifying Islam?
Honestly, I never liked the idea of putting anybody on a stamp. I just alway by the one with the flag on it. Once I was desperate and had to buy a book of stamps at the grocery store. The only one they had was the one that said "LOVE" on it. For chrissakes! Just give me a fuking regular stamp already.
-
Because your condescending attitude and how you conduct yourself with regards to atheism/religion is no different from the people trumpeting the bible/koran/whatever. Your arguments are no different from theirs. You just argue your point from the other end of the spectrum. Replace "atheism" with "Christianity" and your argument is exactly the same as theirs.
1. Atheism is not a religion and cannot be considered as one. It is simply no belief. I really don`t like the word as many seems to think it is a school of thought when it is merely an absence of supernatural belief of any kind.
2. My arguments are NOT arguments and are based in Evidence and Science. Whereas theirs are faith based which means believing in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
3. Some may consider you condescending when it comes to politics and what you think you know. Do I care. Nope. To me, you are that little twerp ( based on your older pic) who sometimes has some good points, but very rarely. Hope this helps.
-
Honestly, I never liked the idea of putting anybody on a stamp. I just alway by the one with the flag on it. Once I was desperate and had to buy a book of stamps at the grocery store. The only one they had was the one that said "LOVE" on it. For chrissakes! Just give me a fuking regular stamp already.
ROFLMAO. I hope nobody got the wrong idea.
Here is the first pic that came up.
-
ROFLMAO. I hope nobody got the wrong idea.
Here is the first pic that came up.
There was always something about her I liked and your only verifiable accomplishment in life. I have to give you that.
Tell her another one of her many GetBig fans gives his regards.
-
Oh you mean like this one with the several million that this one brought in alone by Richard Dawkins:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
Non-Believers Giving Aid: a religion-free way to help disaster victims
Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) has joined forces with 18 other freethought groups or associates, to collect donations to non-religious relief organizations. Those participating are Atheist Alliance International, Atheists Helping the Homeless, Atheists United, The British Humanist Association, Freedom From Religion Foundation, The International Humanist and Ethical Union, James Randi Educational Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, New Humanist Magazine, Pharyngula, Rationalist Association, Reasonable New York, The Reason Project, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, Secular Student Alliance, Skeptics in the Pub, The Skeptic Magazine, The Skeptics Society and Unreasonable Faith.
We have set up a new dedicated bank account and PayPal facility in the new name of Non-Believers Giving Aid. All of the money donated will be distributed to disaster relief.
Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too. There are, of course, many ways for you to donate to relief organizations already, but doing it through Non-Believers Giving Aid offers some advantages:
1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: PayPal has agreed to waive all fees on Haiti-related donations from January 12th through February 11th. This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.
2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.
It goes without saying that your donations will only be passed on to aid organizations that do not have religious affiliations. In the case of Haiti, the two organizations we have chosen are:
Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)
International Red Cross
You may stipulate using the dropdown menu which of these two organizations you want your donation to go to; otherwise, it will be divided equally between them.
Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves. Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent. The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches. Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity. Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good.
Whether you do it by clicking the PayPal button or by cheque (see below), please help us to help the suffering people of Haiti.
Important note for UK donors – please read carefully
If you are a UK taxpayer, please make it possible for us to claim Gift Aid on your donation. Gift Aid means that every £10 you donate becomes £12.82. We aim to have Gift Aid-compatible electronic donation facilities in place for future emergency appeals, but until then we would urge you to donate by cheque rather than to use the PayPal facility below, and to enclose a completed Gift Aid Declaration with your cheque. Please make your cheque payable to RDFRS, and make sure you write ‘NBGA’ on the reverse of it, along with the name of your preferred charity (MSF or IRC) if appropriate. If you simply write ‘NBGA’ on the reverse, without the addition of MSF or IRC, your donation will be evenly divided between them. Then post it, along with your completed Gift Aid Declaration, to the Oxford address shown below. RDFRS will not retain any part of your donation or any Gift Aid we are able to reclaim on it.
Donations made via the PayPal button below are still very welcome, and will still make a huge difference to the people of Haiti; but donations by cheque + Gift Aid Declaration will go further still, and we hope that this thought will help to compensate for any inconvenience. Thank you!
How sad that these atheists will help their fellow human beings, not because they care about people, but only to prove a silly point and to attack religion and compete with rescue efforts by religious organizations.
Religious organizations on the other hand are always willing to coordinate efforts with secular charities, because the people in need is all that matters.
Too bad these atheists are not willing to work with and coordinate efforts with religious organizations.
Oh well, whatever their motivation, the people of Haiti need their help too.
-
Sure why not. I wish the stamp were big enough to read like a biography. I don`t care if Mother Teresa is on the stamp either. I am not against it at all. I am against people deifying a fraud and believing an alternate history rather than the one that did occur.
MLK did not start the civil rights movement by the way. (had to throw that in there since many think he did)
I do find great pleasure in the music of Elvis and think he will be the type of icon that will be relevant hundreds of years from now.
I don`t want to see Muhammad on a stamp and I suspect you don`t want to see that either. I also do not want to see Jesus on a stamp. I personally like Dog stamps and animal stamps. We need more of those.
I answered your question now you answer mine. So, would you want Muhammad on a stamp glorifying Islam?
Dogs are animals too. :)
Oh, and whoever puts Muhammad on a stamp, it won't be to glorify Islam. That would infuriate the Muslims and they would put a bounty on the heads of those responsible.
-
Take your stupid bias (stupid because it is meaningless, why are you trying to make this personal?) against me out of the equation and instead focus on the information I presented.
Is any of it incorrect. If it is, can you show me where and why it is incorrect? Again, why do you want to make this personal? All I did was provide the information and my information comes from research, books, first hand accounts, primary and secondary sources. We just happen to communicate via the internet.
Would you rather me mail you correspondence instead? You can always PM me your mailing address. Do you want to discuss this over the phone? Should I rent out a conference room and have a symposium? Do you want to meet at the Library of Congress or some other facility?
Exit Question: How is the same material presented on digital form any different than in paper form.
Also, when you see Obama, Bush or say Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking giving a lecture on the internet, do you not really think that they are the actual person but some sort of impostor?
Do you not think the Journals uploaded on internet sites are exact copies of paper copies?
You really cannot be this moronic. Or can you? I don`t want to presume you are but you are making it difficult to think otherwise.
Adonis,
Bigger words aren't a sign of intelligence.
You're actually less smart than originally given credit for.
Any idiot can quote or copy from a journal.
-
Dogs are animals too. :)
Oh, and whoever puts Muhammad on a stamp, it won't be to glorify Islam. That would infuriate the Muslims and they would put a bounty on the heads of those responsible.
Let me go to a religious area in the United States and try to distribute material derogatory of Christianity or Jesus himself... I'm sure they'll take it in exchange for a peice of pie, or some flowers even ;D
-
Let me go to a religious area in the United States and try to distribute material derogatory of Christianity or Jesus himself... I'm sure they'll take it in exchange for a peice of pie, or some flowers even ;D
You may or may not get punched in the face by some stupid red neck if you do that, but you can create all kinds of material derogatory of Christianity or Jesus himself, it happens every day, and Christians will not put a bounty on your head like Muslims have done when someone writes a book trashing Islam or publishes a cartoon of Muhammad in the newspaper.
Either way, putting an image of Muhammad on a stamp would not be derogatory of Islam or Muhammad, but Muslims would definitely take offense to it.
-
You may or may not get punched in the face by some stupid red neck if you do that, but you can create all kinds of material derogatory of Christianity or Jesus himself, it happens every day, and Christians will not put a bounty on your head like Muslims have done when someone writes a book trashing Islam or publishes a cartoon of Muhammad in the newspaper.
Either way, putting an image of Muhammad on a stamp would not be derogatory of Islam or Muhammad, but Muslims would definitely take offense to it.
Muslims and Christians pray to the same god. HA HA HA
-
You may or may not get punched in the face by some stupid red neck if you do that, but you can create all kinds of material derogatory of Christianity or Jesus himself, it happens every day, and Christians will not put a bounty on your head like Muslims have done when someone writes a book trashing Islam or publishes a cartoon of Muhammad in the newspaper.
Either way, putting an image of Muhammad on a stamp would not be derogatory of Islam or Muhammad, but Muslims would definitely take offense to it.
I'm talking about Christians who take their faith seriously- not exactly a whole lot of them left around. I highly doubt christians in the third world would act any differently. You merely presuppose all of this based on how "christians" act in modern secular western countries. Let us also not forget the wrongdoings of the Church in history in this respect.
Now you may argue that no christian LEADER calls a hit on some one if they publish anti-christianity material. But then again it is hard to attribute their actions to their christian faith, or the progressive western ethic against the use of violence. Some may argue that things would be a lot different, as they were in history, under dominant christian rule.
And also: It IS derogatory to make images of Muhammed FOR A MUSLIM. To take that as a peice of evidence agaisnt Islam as being a "violent religion" is very presumptuos.
-
I saw a story once, think it was on Fox but I'm not sure that the number of atheists that actually go crazy with lawsuits, protests, prayer in school, 10 commandments in courts etc are actually very small in number. So I always wonder why the media gives them the PR when they're bitching about something like this. Wouldn't it be a bigger hit in the face to just ignore them if there are not many of them? Or it could be the the right likes to give these few people headlines on stuff like this since it makes all atheists look bad? I dunno....
-
I'm talking about Christians who take their faith seriously- not exactly a whole lot of them left around. I highly doubt christians in the third world would act any differently. You merely presuppose all of this based on how "christians" act in modern secular western countries. Let us also not forget the wrongdoings of the Church in history in this respect.
Now you may argue that no christian LEADER calls a hit on some one if they publish anti-christianity material. But then again it is hard to attribute their actions to their christian faith, or the progressive western ethic against the use of violence. Some may argue that things would be a lot different, as they were in history, under dominant christian rule.
And also: It IS derogatory to make images of Muhammed FOR A MUSLIM. To take that as a peice of evidence agaisnt Islam as being a "violent religion" is very presumptuos.
TA asked pellius
So, would you want Muhammad on a stamp glorifying Islam?
I was simply pointing out to TA the fact that Muhammad will never be on a stamp because one, that does not glorify Islam but rather offends Muslims and two, Muslims most likely will put a bounty on the head of anyone who does that. These are simple facts.
I never said in this thread that this was evidence against Islam as being a "violent religion." You said that. I wasn't putting down Islam or trying to start a Christianity vs Islam argument. You did.
By the way, you got your Christians reversed. The "Christians who take their faith seriously" are the ones who not only would not strike you if you do or say something derogatory toward Christianity or toward Jesus Christ Himself, but they are the ones who also would not strike back even if you strike them first. Christians who take their faith seriously are the ones who forgive their enemies and do not harm those who hate them. And there are a whole lot of them left around. They have been around for thousands of years. This is what Jesus Christ taught by word and by example. This is what his apostles taught by word and by example. This is what Christians who take their faith seriously do or at least try very hard to do. It has always been that way.
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it." Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
-
Interesting points, Loco. That being said it's doubtful people here would seriously discuss how few Christians practice Christianity's principles because it might end with them being compared to Muslims who have strayed from the Islam.
-
Mother Teresa wasn't an atheist. However, in her crisis of faith in the later years it became evident that she had lived a spiritual life as opposed to a religious one. Which is not a bad thing.
Everyone has shortcomings, but this woman had a selfless heart that loved everyone openly no matter what gender, race, belief, etc..
I have no problem with honoring someone who valued the lives of others like she did.
-
Mother Teresa wasn't an atheist. However, in her crisis of faith in the later years it became evident that she had lived a spiritual life as opposed to a religious one. Which is not a bad thing.
Everyone has shortcomings, but this woman had a selfless heart that loved everyone openly no matter what gender, race, belief, etc..
I have no problem with honoring someone who valued the lives of others like she did.
According to TA - she was like Madoff and running ponzi schemes.
-
According to TA - she was like Madoff and running ponzi schemes.
Off Topic - but have you seen the ponzi scheme kingpins coming out of S. Florida lately? Rothstein was just jailed and facing a 100 years (fucking fool for returning to US and turning himself in), now some mini-rothstein has been nabbed on a much smaller level. By much smaller, they say only about 30-40 million that they know of.
-
Off Topic - but have you seen the ponzi scheme kingpins coming out of S. Florida lately? Rothstein was just jailed and facing a 100 years (fucking fool for returning to US and turning himself in), now some mini-rothstein has been nabbed on a much smaller level. By much smaller, they say only about 30-40 million that they know of.
Our whole nation, and especially those who appear to have amassed all this "wealth", are running on, off, or close to a ponzi scheme as far as $ $ $ goes.
-
Interesting points, Loco. That being said it's doubtful people here would seriously discuss how few Christians practice Christianity's principles because it might end with them being compared to Muslims who have strayed from the Islam.
Funny. They would be just like you then as you're pretty much incapable of discussing Islam without referencing Christianity in the 1200s.
-
Funny. They would be just like you then as you're pretty much incapable of discussing Islam without referencing Christianity in the 1200s.
Not talking about the crusades, BF. Talking about how many "Christians" post racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population. I fully admit not keeping up so it's entirely possible a few of the commandments have been changed. :)
It's almost like many are Christian in name only and don't attempt to apply any of the tenets to real life.
-
Not talking about the crusades, BF. Talking about how many "Christians" post racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population. I fully admit not keeping up so it's entirely possible a few of the commandments have been changed. :)
It's almost like many are Christian in name only and don't attempt to apply any of the tenets to real life.
This is surprising? The only religious group that doesn't bother me are the buddhists. And that seems to be because they're more concerned with their own lives than what everyone else is doing.
That said, while Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism/etc have their faults, Islam stands head and shoulders above them with regards to fuckery.
-
Not talking about the crusades, BF. Talking about how many "Christians" post racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population. I fully admit not keeping up so it's entirely possible a few of the commandments have been changed. :)
It's almost like many are Christian in name only and don't attempt to apply any of the tenets to real life.
Then you admit to Christianity itself being good, but the problem being "Christians" not following Christianity, not following Jesus Christ's example and teachings. I agree with that. But many Christians do follow Jesus Christ's example and teachings, or at least sincerely try their best.
-
Then you admit to Christianity itself being good, but the problem being "Christians" not following Christianity, not following Jesus Christ's example and teachings. I agree with that. But many Christians do follow Jesus Christ's example and teachings, or at least sincerely try their best.
Goodis relative considering religion itself is a creation of man.
-
Goodis relative considering religion itself is a creation of man.
That's not what I meant.
You mentioned "Christians" not following Christianity being a bad thing, "relative" to you, and you mentioned things you consider bad that these "Christians" shouldn't be doing or saying because it goes against what they claim to follow. So what they claim to follow and what they should follow is good, relative to you.
Now if Christianity had teachings such as "racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population" and if Christians today did not follow those teachings, then it would be good, relative to you, that Christians don't follow Christianity.
Whether or not it's good that someone follows or fails to follow a teaching or ideal depends on whether or not that teaching or ideal is good, relative to you.
-
That's not what I meant.
You mentioned "Christians" not following Christianity being a bad thing, "relative" to you, and you mentioned things you consider bad that these "Christians" shouldn't be doing or saying because it goes against what they claim to follow. So what they claim to follow and what they should follow is good, relative to you.
Now if Christianity had teachings such as "racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population" and if Christians today did not follow those teachings, then it would be good, relative to you, that Christians don't follow Christianity.
Whether or not it's good that someone follows or fails to follow a teaching or ideal depends on whether or not that teaching or ideal is good, relative to you.
Your point is dead on but far too complicated for GetBig. Questioning the validity, goodness, or badness of a religion is useless because faith doesn't require proof. It's much easier for people to ask themselves how consistent their behavior is with the core principles of whatever they profess to believe.
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".
-
Your point is dead on but far too complicated for GetBig. Questioning the validity, goodness, or badness of a religion is useless because faith doesn't require proof. It's much easier for people to ask themselves how consistent their behavior is with the core principles of whatever they profess to believe.
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".
Your statement about faith isn't quite accurate. Christians have faith in what God can do, based on what God has done.
To use a football analogy, if you're a Colts fan and you're watching a game in which the Colts are down 14 points late in the 4th quarter, you have faith that Peyton Manning can mount a comeback and lead the Colts to victory.
Why?
Because, in the past, Manning has been down by 14 pts, late in the 4th quarters, but has led his team on the comeback trail to victory.
-
TA asked pellius
I was simply pointing out to TA the fact that Muhammad will never be on a stamp because one, that does not glorify Islam but rather offends Muslims and two, Muslims most likely will put a bounty on the head of anyone who does that. These are simple facts.
I never said in this thread that this was evidence against Islam as being a "violent religion." You said that. I wasn't putting down Islam or trying to start a Christianity vs Islam argument. You did.
By the way, you got your Christians reversed. The "Christians who take their faith seriously" are the ones who not only would not strike you if you do or say something derogatory toward Christianity or toward Jesus Christ Himself, but they are the ones who also would not strike back even if you strike them first. Christians who take their faith seriously are the ones who forgive their enemies and do not harm those who hate them. And there are a whole lot of them left around. They have been around for thousands of years. This is what Jesus Christ taught by word and by example. This is what his apostles taught by word and by example. This is what Christians who take their faith seriously do or at least try very hard to do. It has always been that way.
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it." Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
I was only annoyed at your insistence that muslims would act a certain way. Perhaps you took my intial statement as being a defensive one, whereas I only said so in a humorous manner (note the smiley).
Your statements about what a 'true christian' is like, though not exactly relevant to our 'debate' do ring true in my mind; and they also are true for how a good muslim should act. In fact, in Islam we do not make the distinction between how a true christian and true muslim acts (there are some difference in theology, but we are talking about acts here).
Just as you do not like Christianity to be portrayed in a bad manner, neither do I when it comes to Islam. But I do see that it was not in your intentions to do in your intial statement. I apologise that I might have misread your post (but I didn't react so badly did I? :P)
-
I was only annoyed at your insistence that muslims would act a certain way. Perhaps you took my intial statement as being a defensive one, whereas I only said so in a humorous manner (note the smiley).
Your statements about what a 'true christian' is like, though not exactly relevant to our 'debate' do ring true in my mind; and they also are true for how a good muslim should act. In fact, in Islam we do not make the distinction between how a true christian and true muslim acts (there are some difference in theology, but we are talking about acts here).
Just as you do not like Christianity to be portrayed in a bad manner, neither do I when it comes to Islam. But I do see that it was not in your intentions to do in your intial statement. I apologise that I might have misread your post (but I didn't react so badly did I? :P)
You're a good guy haider! :)
-
Your statement about faith isn't quite accurate. Christians have faith in what God can do, based on what God has done.
To use a football analogy, if you're a Colts fan and you're watching a game in which the Colts are down 14 points late in the 4th quarter, you have faith that Peyton Manning can mount a comeback and lead the Colts to victory.
Why?
Because, in the past, Manning has been down by 14 pts, late in the 4th quarters, but has led his team on the comeback trail to victory.
You really can't offer solid proof that God has even done one thing. Faith, by its very nature, requires no proof. The Bible could be proven as history's greatest work of fiction and people would still want to believe what's in it.
I believe there's something and can't find any harm in calling it God. Seeing a nice ass on a woman makes me want to believe it couldn't happen by accident. :)
-
You're a good guy haider! :)
thanks loco!
the feeling is mutual :)
-
You really can't offer solid proof that God has even done one thing. Faith, by its very nature, requires no proof. The Bible could be proven as history's greatest work of fiction and people would still want to believe what's in it.
I believe there's something and can't find any harm in calling it God. Seeing a nice ass on a woman makes me want to believe it couldn't happen by accident. :)
Glutes on any human is not by accident at all. It is non-random genetic alleles combined with environmental stimuli (accumulation of fat due to diet, muscularity from working out etc..) that produce the effect you so dearly love. Nothing accidental at all.
-
Yeah great,she sucked but Martin Luther King[by the way also not his real name]was out fucking prostitutes and making all kinds of shady deals, we laud him as a saint.
Not to side track the discussion, but why are all of you trying to defame people who have done exemplary work in the world for the good of mankind? Martin Luther King's only supposed difference in his name was that it is Michael and you are trying to demonize him?. What shady deals are you speaking of? Supposedly dealing with communist? The american white government referred/s to all people, races and nations as COMMUNIST when they don't/didn't go along with american nonsense. So far as supposedly "fucking white prostitutes"...now that the man is dead all manner of claims were and are being made against him by the white establishment to defame and slander...WHY?
Now here we are with Mother Teresa a woman who dedicated her whole life to helping the diseased/sickly/poor/homeless and hungry and yet the same slander ensues...again... WHY?
Maybe you should all check your own mental sicknesses, lacking and short comings. It is NOT that these people have done any wrong, it is that you are resenting the fact that despite their frailties they have accomplished much which has brought them recognition and here you are with the same frailties but more resources...YET HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.
-
You would think that those who are so convinced that there is no God would have better things to do than to bleat and blubber, about an old lady, who spend the bulk of her life doing humanitarian work.
This, even by their standards, is PITIFUL.
Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp -- and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.
The stamp -- set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa's 100th birthday -- will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.
"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."
But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.
"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.
Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.
Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan's stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.
Martin Luther King "just happened to be a minister," and "Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure," she said.
"And he's not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific."
Gaylor said Mother Teresa infused Catholicism into her secular honors — including an "anti-abortion rant" during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech — and that even her humanitarian work was controversial.
"There was criticism by the end of her life that she turned what was a tiny charity into an extremely wealthy charity that had the means to provide better care than it did," Gaylor said. "...There's this knee jerk response that everything she did was humanitarian, and I think many people would differ that what she was doing was to promote religion, and what she wanted to do was baptize people before they die, and that doesn't have a secular purpose for a stamp."
But the Postal Service said the commemorative stamp has nothing to do with Mother Teresa's religion.
"Mother Teresa is not being honored because of her religion, she's being honored for her work with the poor and her acts of humanitarian relief," Betts told FoxNews.com.....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html)
BTW, someone should mention to these folks that, the reason Malcolm X isn't called "Father" is because he ain't Catholic, though in Muslim circles, he was known as "Brother Minister".
And, lest these factually-challenged geniuses forget that other civil rights leaders' title, it's REV. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
THe very sad part is Mother Teresa did not operate on religion, but compassion for the needy. What does compassion have to do with religion that these Godless freaks would be so up in arms? Cue the FIRE AND... BRIMSTONE
-
Not to side track the discussion, but why are all of you trying to defame people who have done exemplary work in the world for the good of mankind? Martin Luther King's only supposed difference in his name was that it is Michael and you are trying to demonize him?. What shady deals are you speaking of? Supposedly dealing with communist? The american white government referred/s to all people, races and nations as COMMUNIST when they don't/didn't go along with american nonsense. So far as supposedly "fucking white prostitutes"...now that the man is dead all manner of claims were and are being made against him by the white establishment to defame and slander...WHY?
Now here we are with Mother Teresa a woman who dedicated her whole life to helping the diseased/sickly/poor/homeless and hungry and yet the same slander ensues...again... WHY?
Maybe you should all check your own mental sicknesses, lacking and short comings. It is NOT that these people have done any wrong, it is that you are resenting the fact that despite their frailties they have accomplished much which has brought them recognition and here you are with the same frailties but more resources...YET HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.
Really! We all have sort of a moral bank account. We make good deposits and bad withdrawals. Hopefully, at the end of the day (or life) there's something there. The totality of a person's life should be taken into account. For example, I hate to admit it, but I flipped off an ass clown that cut me off in traffic. But to make up for that transgression when a homeless person asked me for money I kicked him in the nuts.