If she truly had terrible and dangerous views, and had the global platform to spread them, does that nullify some of the good she did?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
This is exactly the issue with the most vocal of the atheist brigade. The motives of a lot of them seems to the bolded bit of your post.
I agree, there's a difference between skepticism or critiquing something and just being an asshole. It seems like a lot of atheists go out of their way to be dicks
Whether he stepped foot into a calcutta slum or not does not invalidate any of the statements he has ever made on the subject and the contracy to pouplar belief actions that Mother Theresa has done. I don't really see the relevance to your point. Are his statements lies because he's never stepped foot into a calcutta slum? The Kray twins also helped a lot of people who desperately needed it.
So, say, if you have a simple infection, and I chop off your limb to 'save your life', instead of taking you for an operation, while having the means, that counts as helping?
Fuxk me, educate yourself on the man's career before making such a ridiculous post. His views are so strong because he was a war-journo in N. Ireland, Libya, Iraq.
"Dedicated his life to winding people up on the internet"... Seriously, wtf?!
If he can indulge in hyberbole, why can't I?
At least she didn't touch kids.
Sorry if I offended any religious types.
Sorry if I offended any religious types.
She did good? You seriously don't have a clue. I had the opportunity to visit the "houses' she and the other sisters ran. It was useless. Helping the poor? All they got was some soup and a dingy place to sleep in. None of the money (millions of dollars) was ever utilized in the upliftment of the people. For diseases, the treatment was fecking 'prayer'. This god damn woman went to the US for her own treatment on the money being donated by the good samaritans. Elevated to sainthood. Nothing but farce, but then, religion is a farce.
And criminals.
I left that bit out. It is sad that criminals and dictators were giving money, it is even worse that people donating their own hard earned money to this charlatan thought it was being put to good use.
So she took in the destitute and the dying but only gave them food and not the world class healthcare so readily available in India? She came to Bengal in the late 1930s shortly before Churchill - now there's a genuine villain - killed 3 million Indians through the Bengal famine. Then there were the religious riots which ripped the city apart. In this context of violence, injustice and squalor, yes, a bit of soup and a roof would've been helpful.
Obviously we shouldn't absolve her for her views or the misuse of donations and God knows who even deserves a sainthood - but the vitriol has gone too far because I think she did help the city of Kolkata.
Too far? Too far??? When she is going to be a saint in the largest religion in the world, the vitriol obviously hasn't gone too far. More like not far enough.
Not to derail the current convo, but Churchill shouldn't take all the blame, Marathi, Gujarati and Punjabi's have to take some blame for blocking supplies from other parts of India.
Do you think Churchill helped the world by taking on the Nazis?
Then the vitriol should be directed at the Church rather than her, surely?
That was intended.Literally
True but definitely has to take substantial blame. Also since we're debating undeserved recognition, he's a good name to bring up - after all, he was voted the greatest Briton ever despite being a proudly racist prick.
I ain't going to disagree with you there.
There were other houses and care centers which would have done a better job had the funds come their way like in the case of Teresa's care center. The condition of the poor never improved. All a hog wash.
From an Indian POV...he was a huge asshole, and his actions during the Bengal famine prove it.
The election of Attlee was a godsend. Ofcourse, that devolved into the farce of partition, but with Churchill in charge there would have been a long, very bloody mess. After all in 1946 even with independence on the horizon, there was a naval mutiny and widespread strikes by non-Congress/Gandhi forces (read: people who would shoot back).
@VP should have said 'self serving racist prick'. Thus not very different from godmen/women.
Doesn't really answer what was asked though
Churchill's 'world' didn't really encompass the entire humanity. So, no, to the question.
Of course he did well to fight Nazism. So did Stalin. But Poles aren't going to love him for it.*
Worth noting that both Stalin and FDR pushed for Churchill to accept Indian independence since the Congress leadership including Nehru and Gandhi had given a commitment that an independent India would fight with the Allies. But Churchill didn't want to see the sun set on Her Majesty's empire, or to cater to the demands of naked fakirs.
*Edit: before it is raised: not comparing what Stalin did there to what Churchill did in Bengal, don't know much at all about it. But I know he did typically Stalin things to them.
My point was that he was trying to balance the twisted pious practices of Mother Theresa against the good that she did in relative terms. You could apply that to Churchill, albeit on a much more pronounced scale. I was not trying to mount a defence of Churchill.
Sure, fair enough.
The problem with quite a lot of the posters in this thread is that they claim to know more than one another.
I've seen plenty of posts in this thread saying things like, 'It's amazing how people actually believe in this' or words to that affect. The simple answer is, nobody knows if a god exists, what happens after death, how we came to exist e.t.c. To say that people who believe in these things are more or less, stupid, isn't the right way to go about expressing your opinion.
I've seen plenty of posts in this thread saying things like, 'It's amazing how people actually believe in this' or words to that affect. The simple answer is, nobody knows if a god exists, what happens after death, how we came to exist e.t.c. To say that people who believe in these things are more or less, stupid, isn't the right way to go about expressing your opinion.
Ah, the classic "we're all equally ignorant" argument that ignores the difference between specific ("This is gods book, and these are are his* exact qualities") claims that are evidently stupid, and vague ("u wot m8 the universe don't make sense maybe something made it") claims.
*gods deffo a dude innit, it's not at all indicative that dick wielding arseholes made him up.
Last edited:
Why do people who are not religious care who gets mythical sainthood?
I think it goes back to the movement by folks like Hitchens to distinguish between atheism and antitheism. Atheists probably don't care, but antitheists do.
I'm sure many don't. The rest would be a mixture of academic interest, personal amusement or perhaps one more reason to point at the institution and say "see, they're complete fecking charlatans".
I've got absolutely no idea what you are talking about
Now there's something we can all believe.
God made the zika virus. Cnut.
It's not really about knowing more, it's about believing in less stupid things.
If you claim UFOs are real and I say I doubt it, I am not really saying that I know more than you.
I believe in God. Doesn’t prevent me from being a rational person. I think there is a fine difference between treating religion as a moral compass and taking a religion literally.
So basically you don't literally believe in God ?
I do, but for me it's a much more subtle force. I will not tell you, that God created Earth in 7 days and people were created overnight. I won’t tell you that evolution never happened or something.
I think we are something more than sum of luckily coincidences that develop a non-organic matter into humans with music, art and love.
so you are are a deist?