So it looks like the Poop got the majority.
41.7% Would cheer if the Pope got punched.
58.3% Said they wouldn't.
Reassuringly, you seem to be a more pacifist bunch of readers :-)
However I do have now way of knowing whether it was atheists or theists voting either way. (I know plenty of theists who would be happy to cheer if the Poop did get punched!)
Considering this man (nothing special, just a man) has such persuasive power in the world, and he can make such blatantly stupid statements such as 'condoms spread AIDS' and as a result WILL cause the unnecessary deaths of thousands, a little dark part of me would think "He deserved it."
Next vote coming soon :-)
PS. I am really enjoying being a blogroll member of the 'Atheist Blogroll'. I've had some great comments, I'm enjoying other people's blogs and it does make you feel as if you are part of a massive campaign for rationality. Dip in and see for yourself!
Thursday, 2 April 2009
30 comments:
Comments are unmoderated (free speech and all that) but I have decided to take off anonymous posting. If I can stick my head over the parapet, then common decency suggests that anyone wishing to debate should at least introduce themselves. :-)
Thanks. And feel free to comment about anything!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'd cheer if the pope got thrashed in a public debate about the issues he is so ignorant yet so influential on. I'm not sure about him getting punched in the stomach though.... Catholics love a good martyr.
ReplyDeleteYeah, a massive campaign for rationality! Lucky, we're catching it while its still cool and hip! Won't be more than a generation or so until its just common and boring. : P.
Imagine this little spin, chap....
ReplyDeleteConsidering this man (nothing special, just a man) has such persuasive power in the world, and he can make such blatantly stupid statements such as "imagine there's no heaven" and as a result WILL cause the unnecessary deaths of thousands, a little dark part of me would think "He deserved it."
Interesting 'spin' but clearly not in the same league of stupidity as the Pope's insightful (and infallible!?!) statement.
ReplyDeleteThe World Health Organisation have condemned his comments, as well as more enlightened members of the Catholic Church working with AIDS sufferers in Africa.
I'm sure we can both agree that 'imagine there IS a heaven' HAS caused many deaths in the world already. ;-)
Thanks for the comment.
Your most recent pol "Christian - existence of god =" needs a 5th option: "More rational", Everything else depends on how evil/reliant/decent/moral they were to begin with.
ReplyDeleteYep, missed that one.
ReplyDeleteBut voting has already commenced so I can't change the options now.
I would like to be able to see the difference between atheist votes and christian votes but at least it will give us an idea from readers of this blog.
I'm sure we can both agree that 'imagine there IS a heaven' HAS caused many deaths in the world already. ;-)
ReplyDelete- - - - -
I'm sure the other Fab Four-- Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung would have sang something like that for a benefit concert...if only they were still around. You must miss them.
You guys are really funny!
ReplyDeleteHIV infected people did not get that way following church doctrine...now these same folks won't use condoms because of what the Pope says?
Read the post.
ReplyDeletePeople WILL die because christian aid groups are forbidden from giving advice about the safest form of contaception. The condom.
Thousands of people are being denied sensible advice because the religion of these aid workers.
Condoms prevent transmission of the disease. People have sex. And what p****s me off is how the catholic church enforces its doctrine.
So if people in Africa have sex and get AIDS, it is their fault.
Well, I think that if people want to have sex and not get AIDS, they should be allowed to.
Question MY morality if you wish. BUT I DON'T THINK THEY DESERVE TO DIE!
Question MY morality if you wish. BUT I DON'T THINK THEY DESERVE TO DIE!
ReplyDelete- - - - - -
You are right, they don't deserve to die. But you are also saying that people with AIDS MUST NOT have to abstain from sex and that the Church/Christian aid workers MUST provide the information on condoms. Somehow the implication is that people in Africa can't control themselves AND have no other means of obtaining condom information other than through Christian aid groups.
You are expecting the church to do something you would not do...and that's abandon their principles. Let me ask you something. Would you believe in God to save someone's life?
OK. Several points here. :-)
ReplyDeleteI agree that that one of the best ways to not contract AIDS sexually is to abstain from sex. But the problem is that these aid workers are imposing THEIR morals on someone resulting in dreadful consequences. I am not saying they CAUSE more deaths only that their 'morality' is allowing thousands to die.
Education is better then indoctrination. At least they should provide the CHOICE. Surely that is worth saving many more souls?
Implying that Africans cannot control themselves? No. But in my humble opinion, consenting adults should be allowed to have sex.
Would I believe in a god if it would save someone's life? Well, I would definitely SAY I believed in a god to save a life, but it would be a lie. A convincing one I would hope ;-) And my personal pride would be of little consequence compared to the outcome. I'd even sleep with a bishop if it would save a member of my family!
Humour aside. This is a serious issue. I know these aid workers do a wonderful job out there, I also know that many agree with my views on sex education.
Cheers again for the comments. Always welcome.
Mr. R. Fish,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your response and realize you have good intentions for these people.
The Church deals with and treats people on a number of levels but the highest interest is in the salvation of people. This is not very popular in the secular world view.
I guess the only way to counteract the so called deleterious effects of the religious aid groups is to get the atheists to fund their own relief services. I don't know of any, though.
I hope you are never put to the test on the bishop challenge! What makes you think a bishop would sleep with you to save a life? Ha ha!
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you misunderestimate the 'secular world'. Humanists hold people in the highest regard. Freedom, safety, education, rights, food etc. are commonly represented in humanist charities.
Religious charities have 'salvation' as their highest priority? It is a fact that they have an agenda to recruit more members to their church.
What's in it for an atheist to give to charity? It's not like we're going to the happy afterlife. No, we simply do it because it is the right and moral thing to do. And that is reward enough.
Cynically, we could be forgiven for thinking that theists are not TRULY altruistic.
Anyway, you said you couldn't think of atheist charities. Well, atheism is not an organisation, it does not have the vast funds available of say, the catholic church. So it is rather unfair to imply we don't care or can't be bothered.
However, since atheism means 'without gods' I can safely list the following charities that have no religious affiliation.
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.oxfam.org.uk
www.msf.org.uk
www.nat.org.uk
http://laptop.org/en/
www.oneworldaction.org
www.wateraid.org/uk
www.unicef.org.uk
www.cnduk.org
www.crae.org.uk
www.dignityindying.org.uk
www.fairtrade.org.uk
www.field.org.uk
www.foe.co.uk
www.humanism.org.uk
www.nspcc.org.uk
And that's just the tip of the iceberg!
Here's one of the many sites that list some of the charities that people can donate to:
http://www.intelligentgiving.com/
www.charityportal.org.uk
www.philanthropycapital.org
Just from a quick perusal, I notice that there are considerably less religious charities in those lists. ;-)
Gotta go now, I think I've just spotted a bishop!
Mr. Fish,
ReplyDeleteThat is quite a list of unreligious charities (which we shall consider for your argument's sake as heavily funded by atheists) you have accumulated. I admire your diligent research.
Now explain to me why all your fine organizations can't counteract the negative effects you claim that the Church/Christian aid groups are creating in Africa.
You said, "People WILL die because christian aid groups are forbidden from giving advice about the safest form of contaception. The condom."
In my estimation, it is YOUR groups (who do believe in the condom) that are killing the African people due to THEIR inaction or the insufficient funding from the so called caring and selfless nonreligious population.
Please leave the bishop alone and chase after your local public school teachers, who do the most molesting.
Welcome back 'Anonymous' :-)
ReplyDeleteThankfully some of those charities ARE attempting to counteract the narrow minded view that is being indoctrinated. It's painful to watch people being given false hope and told that a god will love them in an afterlife whilst cruelly punishing others. (Whom, I assume in your opinion, deserve to die? Please correct me if I am wrong.)
As to a question of charity, please take the time to look at the Humanist websites out there. If you only just look at atheist's websites, you tend to find that the topic is about religion (or lack of!) not shouting about what charity they give to. Rest assured that being an atheist is not my raison d'etre. You are fortunate enough to only see this part of me on my blog. Not that I want to boast, or feel the need to prove a point, but I do give a reasonable proportion of my income to charity. I have yet - and doubt I will - ever met an atheist who would refuse to give to any charity BECAUSE they are an atheist.
And do you seriously think that ONLY religious people will give money to a religious based charity?
BTW, here are some interesting bits of research.
$169 million is the estimated annual income of the Vatican. Although they have some amazing accountants that do a good job of hiding the wealth to even claim that last year they made a loss! Net worth is estimated in the region of hundreds of billions.
Where is some of this money spent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
(OK, that WAS a cheap shot at your 'molesting' comment, but since I am a teacher, I felt you needed it.)
Also, where is your evidence of the non religious NOT giving to charity? I have already supplied a small fraction of non religious charities (which I know that theists would happily donate to as well). I have tried to explain what a 'humanist' is and what we passionately care about. OUR inaction? Pardon me, but what have YOUR lot been doing for the last couple of hundred years? Certainly not improving the situation.
Here is an extract from the economist site which does a pretty good job of summarising my feelings.
"Three years ago Pope Benedict was willing for his council for health to consider whether condom use would be a “lesser evil” than allowing the spread of a deadly virus. Liberal cardinals had suggested that in a marriage where one partner is infected, condoms should be permitted. In Africa, as elsewhere, many Catholics simply ignore the Vatican’s view on condoms anyway."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13326176
OUR inaction? Pardon me, but what have YOUR lot been doing for the last couple of hundred years? Certainly not improving the situation.
ReplyDelete- - - - -
As you conceded earlier, the Christian/Church workers are the ones doing the brunt of helping the poor in Africa. Your groups are failing to get the condoms to the HIV people who are going to have sex.
If your own daughter wanted to have sex with someone with HIV, would you advise her to use a condom or to not have sex with that person?
Lets go back a few hundred years...
ReplyDeleteWow, not many atheists around! Looks like christianity had the 'moral stranglehold' on society. It was still rich on the donations it had bled from it's supporters. It wasn't socially acceptable to be an outspoken atheist. To put it bluntly, YOUR lot made life rather difficult for us. And, for any help that a humanist gave, the credit would have been taken by the church.
Church finances have a dreadful legacy of corruption and serving their own needs first. And even today I could give many modern examples of the abuse (financial this time) of its loyal followers. They have collected VAST sums of money and millions of followers with all good intentions. They ALONE had the power to change the world. Did they? Clearly not.
Since you obviously didn't read the previous posts, I'll try to make it more obvious - There is no established atheist central society (committed to world domination of course). We don't have huge stores of accumulated wealth that have been conned from brainwashed subjects. Atheists tend to be freethinkers and we might as well try to herd cats than appoint a leader to 'rule' us. Let's face it, if we did have all that cash, we wouldn't spend it on lavish buildings with all the expensive trappings in order to praise the almighty Darwin. (Ok, maybe a statue or two) Although I'm reasonably convinced it would be for the improvement of mankind. (Tackling poverty, education, medicine, you know, the stuff humanists care about!)
Have you ACTUALLY bothered to look at any humanist websites? I doubt you have, otherwise you wouldn't be implying the same ill-informed opinion that non religious people don't care.
Africa has many problems. Educating people WILL help them. There are annecdotal stories of men who won't use a condom because they have the idea of 'you wouldn't eat a sweet with a wrapper on'. It is estimated that half a million women are raped each year! (And of course they are certainly not allowed an abortion are they?) There is an ignorance among some that consider it their right not to use a condom. These ideas HAVE to be challenged. The church by all means should be helping these people lead better lives, and if christianity is for them, that is obviously fine. What it has NO right to do is to become judge and jury and ALLOW people to die.
The church claims that condoms alone will not stop the spread of AIDS. And, I concede, it won't. But at the very least it will potentially save many more millions of lives. The condoms are getting out there, I assure you. But when faced with a social disregard for condoms AND the f***ing stupid lie that condoms spread AIDS - well it's amazing that we save as many lives as we do!
You might find it interesting to see where condoms HAVE worked to tackle AIDS. Thailand. Coincidentally, this country did not have the interference from christian charities. Please, please read this one at least!
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Thai-Condom-Kings-NGO-Wins-Gates-Award-for-Anti-AIDS-Work-21200-1/
And, WOW! An 87% reduction in AIDS infections!
Kind of makes the pope look like an idiot? Oh, I forget, the pope is infallible! LOL
And your last point. On which I have to applaud you on a fine example of a 'loaded question' (Well done) ;-)
If I had a daughter, I would be pleased that she trusted me to ask this advice because she knew I wouldn't condemn her to eternity in hell and that would make me proud. (I wonder if the same could be said for a daughter of yours?)
Secondly, I would be surprised that she would be in this situation. Hey! Is this you making assumptions about atheists again? Tut tut. For the point you are trying to make, I'll just say that we will all quite happily have sex with anything... Happy?
Thirdly, I would have to assume that she would have made an educated decision already. She clearly would love this man. It would no doubt be heartbreaking for her to know that he has this incurable disease. She would most likely outlive him and watch his life fade away in the most cruelest of ways. No hope of a miracle, no turning back the clock. Inevitable death.
But seriously, no father really wants to think about their daughters having sex and quite naturally would advise not to do it. Even if it was George Clooney, Zak Efron, Brad Pitt and many others better looking than myself. I would want them to keep their paws off my daughter.
But if she was the freethinking, sensible, loving, person that I would have hoped to raise. Then my opinion would be use a condom if she was planning a long term relationship.
Once again, thanks for the continuing debate. I may sound angry at times. But I assure you, it's not aimed at you. :-)
Mr. Fish,
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of things to cover, and as time allows, I will...
You said, "Lets go back a few hundred years... Wow, not many atheists around! Looks like christianity had the 'moral stranglehold' on society."
- - - - - - -
You mean a time when sexually transmitted diseases were not evaporating various populations around the world? You mean back when divorce was unusual? Before Roe vs. Wade? You mean before the summer of love and the age of Aquarius?
"For the point you are trying to make, I'll just say that we will all quite happily have sex with anything... Happy?"
- - - - - -
I actually did not intend to imply that, but since you did mention a prior proclivity towards bishops...
I read up on the Thailand article at your behest. No doubt, condoms could create some desireable, temporary, results; however, with this strategy, AIDS will continue to affect many generations down the road. You may be equally interested in the approach to handling AIDS in some other areas, such as in the Philippines--
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=32737&wf=rsscol
You have to love the NY Times for being puzzled by it--
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/world/low-rate-of-aids-virus-in-philippines-is-a-puzzle.html?sec=health&&fta=y
"Have you ACTUALLY bothered to look at any humanist websites? I doubt you have, otherwise you wouldn't be implying the same ill-informed opinion that non religious people don't care."
- - - - - - - -
Humanist web sites?...not really, but I do think that non-religious people do care about many things and act nobly in many areas. It's only human, right? Some bad people do good things, and some good people do bad things....or, to be more diplomatic...some people do some things!
As for my own daughter, my advise would be simple...don't bet on a condom with your life. Wait until marriage.
It may be progressive these days to try to make the Pope look foolish, but just take a closer look at his history, education, and substantial work in the Church. He is not an idiot. You can disagree with his position and may not understand his motives, intentions, and long term goals, but he is not an idiot.
I enjoy our discourse as it edifies and strengthens each of us.
Welcome back! :-)
ReplyDeleteA few hundred years before scientists made amazing breakthroughs in medicine? When it was morally acceptable to treat women as inferior by not allowing them the vote; rape was the woman's fault; they were expected to stay at home to cook, clean and serve? The appalling treatment of girls in the Magdelene homes? When slavery of other races was accepted and endorsed by churches? When opposing religions were considered to be devil worshippers which would be itself enough to justify a war? Where church corruption was beyond the law? Where mental illness was considered a punishment from god? When human rights was not on the agenda? When empire building was more important then tackling poverty in the world? A much higher rate of infant mortality?
I could go on...
To be fair, we can all be accused of wearing rose tinted glasses sometimes.
But life wasn't better then. Unless you were one of the small minority who benefitted from it all.
I assume you claim is that 'morals' were better then? I would have to disagree.
STDs WERE prevailent in these times, Medicine and education (along with some preaching) has greatly reduced them to considerably lower levels. It seems that they are common today simply because people do talk about them to GPs and health warnings are public because they do no good otherwise.
The catholic opinion of condoms WILL only work in a catholic version of an ideal world. Unfortunately, with this pesky 'free will', we have our own ambitions, ideals, dreams that conflict with the dogma.
I realise that the pope's job is to save the 'metaphysical souls' and it is at the expense of actual lives which is why I consider him an 'idiot'.
Popes make mistakes. There are sadly many examples out there throughout history.
I think we both agree that, on the whole, the church does 'good'. It is my opinion that they should and could have done so much more. Maybe if they had, I would have been inspired, like many others with strong moral opinions, to become a member of such a church.
Peace :-)
The catholic opinion of condoms WILL only work in a catholic version of an ideal world. Unfortunately, with this pesky 'free will', we have our own ambitions, ideals, dreams that conflict with the dogma.
ReplyDelete- - - - -
Yes, obedience to Catholic teachings is looked at as oppressive, but many people who follow them live a good life and with less worry. People who follow their own will tend to suffer unnecessary consequences.
Don't get me wrong, I know of as many happy catholics as well as repressed catholics and even catholics who despair at the 'inhumanity' of the church sometimes.
ReplyDeleteBasically you could brutally summarise the catechism of the catholic church to 'Believe in god or suffer eternal torment'. It proclaims that everyone sins, always. Ok, it's good to have a moral ideal to live to, but IMHO it is a religion that glorifies in making people feel guilty.
But to your point, I agree, following your own will, CAN be selfish or it CAN be inspiring. However, following someone else's will is often far more harmful. :-(
it is a religion that glorifies in making people feel guilty.
ReplyDelete- - - - - -
Well, we are all guilty of sin but the Church does not leave it at that. There is redemption and forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
I like this line from an oldie but a goodie:
"Twas grace that taught my heart to fear and grace my fears relieved."
"There is redemption and forgiveness through Jesus Christ."
ReplyDeleteBut... if you are (quite reasonably) unconvinced by the existence of a 'one true god' (from the thousands of obviously false ones) then you do have the rather nasty threat of ETERNAL suffering.
Not 'you won't go to heaven' but actual torture, unimaginable pain, endless torment, for EVER!
Luckily enough, I'm sensible enough to ignore the wishful thinking of christians who believe that crap, so I don't lose any sleep over it.
Clearly I don't understand the morals of such a power of 'goodness' that would punish nice people, such as myself.
Cheers, and thanks for the comment. :-)
Clearly I don't understand the morals of such a power of 'goodness' that would punish nice people, such as myself.
ReplyDelete- - - - - -
There is a loophole, of course. Since you are such a nice person (the Pope may disagree), you have nothing to fear if you can live a sinless life. So...can you?
I lead a life in which I try to better myself, and hopefully leave a positive impact on the world. I'm a teacher because it means I believe every child deserves a the best chance in life. I'm a father who tries to provide a good role model. I'm a husband who dearly loves his wife.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the church I am still a 'sinner'. And since I am a godless 'fool' I WILL be thrown into the lake of fire. I'm stuffed, I cannot lead a sinless life. In fact, none of us can!
Mind you, I could always strap on some explosives and kill innocent people to reach paradise for myself and family if I really got desperate! (Do they REALLY think that works!)
But essentially, I have nothing to fear, since I don't believe in hell. (Exept the Isle of Sheppey off the Kent coast. A truly horrible place!)
But just for the sake of this point - if, in the unlikely event I am wrong, I would hope that whatever of the higher powers existed, it would have the kindness to admit it didn't put its case for existence forward very well. ;-)
BTW - Where exactly is this 'loophole' in the bible? I thought it was pretty clear what would happen to the likes of me and my rational friends.
Thanks for the comment. Look forward to a reply. :-)
I'm stuffed, I cannot lead a sinless life. In fact, none of us can!
ReplyDelete- - - - - - -
Righto, old chap! Now, what do we do about that? Carry on as usual eating our bangers and mash, minding the gap and all? Teachers don't live forever, you know.
How do feel about the ban on DDT and the effects of that in Africa?
Do you think the church had anything to do with that?
I will continue to lead as good a life as possible, helping others, setting an example, teaching kids, cracking jokes and when my time is up, I hope that I have made more people happier than I have annoyed. What more can I do? Pretend to be pious? ;-)
ReplyDeleteLive forever? I want to retire someday! LOL
DDT? Thanks for drawing that to my attention. It deserves some research. But that is close to suggesting we have to choose how Africans die. (I'm not suggesting that is your opinion, merely the brutal ethical choice it involves.)
Thanks again. :-)
But that is close to suggesting we have to choose how Africans die.
ReplyDelete- - - - - -
Yes, we would like as many of them as possible to die of old age.
Anyway, DDT was banned as a result of the free thinking environmentalist movement back in the 60's and 70's, causing more deaths in Africa than AIDS ever did. You should be more outraged by this than the Pope's recent statement (remember, he did not ban condoms- they are still available). But since the Pope is a high profile reminder of an atheist's disdain of religion, he attracts a disproportionate amount of criticism and mockery than the environmentalists who actually inflict real pain and death by way of supposedly "saving the planet".
Once again, you assume too much. I'm a humanist - human suffering is a terrible thing to behold. Just because I am an atheist, it doesn't mean that I will agree with how people use scientific discoveries.
ReplyDeleteDDT is an effective method of mosquito control.
The World Health Organisation (who you seem to hold in contempt) wanted a reversal in its ban back in 2006 in an attempt to combat malaria. After extensive scientific research, it is classed as 'mildly toxic' and poses considerably less risk than malaria infection.
Governments have these bans in place (and the last time I checked they are not run by atheists) so organisations and concerned people like us should make a fuss! Lets ignore your imaginary friend (who YOU believe created mosquitos in the first place) and unite in a common cause. :-)
Nice attempt at misdirection though. The pope is still a narrow minded f***wit. If he COULD ban condoms - we both know he would.
As always, genuine thanks for your comments. :-)
Lets ignore your imaginary friend (who YOU believe created mosquitos in the first place) and unite in a common cause. :-)
ReplyDelete- - - -
Rather, let's ignore your imaginary humility.
Okay let me fall for this...Yes, God made the evil mosquito which, if only people were encouraged to wear full bodied condoms by the Pope, would live to be upright, peaceful, and wonderfully generous humanists.
And another thing, if the Pope were able to ban condoms, you would be the first in line buying sandwich bags!
'Imaginary humility' Oooh. That hurts. :D
ReplyDeleteI'm still failing to see the point you are trying to make. If you mean (by that rather amusing extreme example) that scientific discoveries will save more lives than praying, then yes I agree with you. However I doubt that was the point you are aiming for...
I believe that all caring people are 'humanists' to some extent. Some people seem incapable of understanding that you don't need life controlling mythology to lead a good life.
I would however like to direct you to a website concerning logical arguments.
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
I'm hoping that you will avoid making such basic mistakes in future comments. Sorry if I sound patronising, but my imaginary humility took a real hit!
Thanks again!