Christopher Hitchens: Mother Teresa of Calcutta

[Realitywins]

It's not justified though. Hell, it's not even close to being "justified".

Human science doesn't even know for sure why some people are gay. There are plenty of diseases that we don't know the cure for. We don't know where other life exists in the universe or whether or not it's visited Earth.

That's three rather obvious examples of matters where human science has been unable to confirm a solution. If we can't even solve those mysteries, how exactly are we supposed to say there's no God?

Unqualified arrogance doesn't make a strong case.

Science is investigating all those mysteries. Science is not investigating whether or not there is a god. This is because rational people know there is no point in wasting time, intellect and money on mythology. Lighten up, I was having fun with the arrogance bit. :roll:

 

[Realitywins]

There are no "known" facts. There's merely speculation.

You are right, but not the way you think. There are no facts to support the existence of any given god. There are no facts to support very much in the bible. There are no facts supporting the suggestion ol' Josh (the English word for the Aramaic Yeshuah/Joshua) ever existed. Therefore and because of the total absence of any other evidence there is any truth to the myth of upon which the xian faith (faith! Get it? Faith not Fact) has been built mythology is all which is left for the believers. That is not speculation, that is fact. Hard, scientific, historic fact. Hard historic fact you may not like, but which remains even in the face of your disbelief just as your faith remains myth despite your belief.

 

[Tigerace117]

Science is investigating all those mysteries. Science is not investigating whether or not there is a god. This is because rational people know there is no point in wasting time, intellect and money on mythology. Lighten up, I was having fun with the arrogance bit. :roll:

In other words, "rational people" are stupid enough to leap to huge conclusions without solid evidence backing their position. Noted.

 

[Cryptic]

The Indian government honored her with a state funeral and also declared a day of mourning though she was not Indian born and was a member of a small religious minority:CNN - India to give Mother Teresa state funeral - September 6, 1997

When it comes to India, I"ll take the opinion of the democratically elected Indian government over chumps like Hitchens any day.

 

[Tigerace117]

You are right, but not the way you think. There are no facts to support the existence of any given god. There are no facts to support very much in the bible. There are no facts supporting the suggestion ol' Josh (the English word for the Aramaic Yeshuah/Joshua) ever existed. Therefore and because of the total absence of any other evidence there is any truth to the myth of upon which the xian faith (faith! Get it? Faith not Fact) has been built mythology is all which is left for the believers. That is not speculation, that is fact. Hard, scientific, historic fact. Hard historic fact you may not like, but which remains even in the face of your disbelief just as your faith remains myth despite your belief.

There is a good deal of evidence to say that Jesus existed. As we've already discussed, your position on the matter is one only held by the extreme fringe of scholarship.

Your entire case is based on a poorly supported pre conclusion. You have already come to a conclusion and now are trying to work backwards to support it, rather than coming to a conclusion after reviewing the evidence.

 

[Realitywins]

In other words, "rational people" are stupid enough to leap to huge conclusions without solid evidence backing their position. Noted.

Now you have it wrong. It is the religious who, without any evidence whatsoever, conclude there is a great sky daddy looking down upon them and making entries on their file for every little misdemeanor. It is the religious people who claim their sky daddy is all benevolent, yet ignore the fact millions of children are starving, being beaten, murdered and raped even in the buildings dedicated to the sky daddy. It is religious people who dedicate themselves to a book which promotes, women-hating, child abuse, murder, rape, pillaging, genocide among other atrocities and turn a blind eye to that fact. It is religious people who pray to the sky daddy for a hole-on-one or touchdown and ignore the homeless on their streets, the abusers in their churches.

Rational, intelligent people don;t look up, they look forward and deal with the reality they behold instead of the dreams they hope will be delivered by some entity no-one sane has ever heard from or seen.

 

[Tigerace117]

Now you have it wrong. It is the religious who, without any evidence whatsoever, conclude there is a great sky daddy looking down upon them and making entries on their file for every little misdemeanor. It is the religious people who claim their sky daddy is all benevolent, yet ignore the fact millions of children are starving, being beaten, murdered and raped even in the buildings dedicated to the sky daddy. It is religious people who dedicate themselves to a book which promotes, women-hating, child abuse, murder, rape, pillaging, genocide among other atrocities and turn a blind eye to that fact. It is religious people who pray to the sky daddy for a hole-on-one or touchdown and ignore the homeless on their streets, the abusers in their churches.

Rational, intelligent people don;t look up, they look forward and deal with the reality they behold instead of the dreams they hope will be delivered by some entity no-one sane has ever heard from or seen.

You are doing the exact same thing you accuse the religious of--- making a giant leap with no proof.

Nobody knows why God doesn't swoop down and create a paradise on earth. Perhaps whatever diety is up there would rather humans have the ability to choose, for better or worse. It doesn't mean there's no God anymore than me not leaving crumbs around an anthill for the ants means I don't exist.

Atheists have committed all of the acts you have listed and more. There is no "moral high ground" for you to go to.

"Rational, intelligent people" aren't stupid enough to jump to conclusions with no evidence like you do.

 

[Realitywins]

There is a good deal of evidence to say that Jesus existed. As we've already discussed, your position on the matter is one only held by the extreme fringe of scholarship.

Your entire case is based on a poorly supported pre conclusion. You have already come to a conclusion and now are trying to work backwards to support it, rather than coming to a conclusion after reviewing the evidence.

No one in the history of the xian faith has ever presented any evidence to support the historicity of josh which either wasn't forged, deliberately mis-interpreted in support of the unfounded claim or relied entirely upon the bible, which is not an historical document and which wasn't written until well after the alleged time. Had such evidence been provided, xianity would not be called a "faith". There is no other conclusion anyone with an open, rational mind looking at the history and the facts, can arrive at.

 

[Tigerace117]

No one in the history of the xian faith has ever presented any evidence to support the historicity of josh which either wasn't forged, deliberately mis-interpreted in support of the unfounded claim or relied entirely upon the bible, which is not an historical document and which wasn't written until well after the alleged time. Had such evidence been provided, xianity would not be called a "faith". There is no other conclusion anyone with an open, rational mind looking at the history and the facts, can arrive at.

You mean "somebody with a completely closed mind and a bias the size of Trump's ego" could come to, because you've clearly shown that you are far from some kind of rational observer.

You also completely misunderstand the concept of Jesus' existence--- it certainly supports Christianity's case, but it doesn't prove that he was divine-- just that there was a preacher named Jesus, or rather the equivalent.

 

[Realitywins]

You are doing the exact same thing you accuse the religious of--- making a giant leap with no proof.

Nobody knows why God doesn't swoop down and create a paradise on earth. Perhaps whatever diety is up there would rather humans have the ability to choose, for better or worse. It doesn't mean there's no God anymore than me not leaving crumbs around an anthill for the ants means I don't exist.

Atheists have committed all of the acts you have listed and more. There is no "moral high ground" for you to go to.

"Rational, intelligent people" aren't stupid enough to jump to conclusions with no evidence like you do.

Again, and I am repeating myself, but you seem a tad slow on getting the point. You are right. There is no proof josh existed, no proof of your god. If there were you'd provide it and be pope.

You are the one who said one had to believe in god to have a moral base. I merely pointed out your god doesn't have a moral base. It is irellevent what unbelievers do, it is what believer do, and think and believe which what screws up your case because clearly there is no moral base in you book of lies.

Unbelievers have been moral, charitable, empathic, kind, considerate, generous long before your silly beliefs were stolen from the pagans.

There is no paradise on earth because your god doesn't exist. But if he did, according to your bible, it would be a foul, murderous, hate-fueld POS.

 

[Tigerace117]

Again, and I am repeating myself, but you seem a tad slow on getting the point. You are right. There is no proof josh existed, no proof of your god. If there were you'd provide it and be pope.

You are the one who said one had to believe in god to have a moral base. I merely pointed out your god doesn't have a moral base. It is irellevent what unbelievers do, it is what believer do, and think and believe which what screws up your case because clearly there is no moral base in you book of lies.

Unbelievers have been moral, charitable, empathic, kind, considerate, generous long before your silly beliefs were stolen from the pagans.

There is no paradise on earth because your god doesn't exist. But if he did, according to your bible, it would be a foul, murderous, hate-fueld POS.

As usual, you once again show your gullibility and inability to understand basic concepts.

Of course it matters what "unbelievers" do. You are the one who wanted to list all the bad things people do. Believing or not believing apparently makes no difference, and it especially doesn't mean that non belief makes one special or smarter than anybody else

Unbelievers have been genociding each other long before the beginning of Christianity.

Yet another massive leap to a faulty conclusion noted.

 

[Realitywins]

You mean "somebody with a completely closed mind and a bias the size of Trump's ego" could come to, because you've clearly shown that you are far from some kind of rational observer.

You also completely misunderstand the concept of Jesus' existence--- it certainly supports Christianity's case, but it doesn't prove that he was divine-- just that there was a preacher named Jesus, or rather the equivalent.

Prove it.

 

[Realitywins]

As usual, you once again show your gullibility and inability to understand basic concepts.

Of course it matters what "unbelievers" do. You are the one who wanted to list all the bad things people do. Believing or not believing apparently makes no difference, and it especially doesn't mean that non belief makes one special or smarter than anybody else

Unbelievers have been genociding each other long before the beginning of Christianity.

Yet another massive leap to a faulty conclusion noted.

Denial, is not evidence nor it is argument. Again, unbelievers have never claimed to have a sky daddy which has provided then with a moral compass. They just have a moral compass. Your moral compass on the other hand is filled with hate, murder, rape, child abuse.

 

[Gathomas88]

Was Hitchens right about Mother Teresa?

"Give a man a reputation as an early riser, and he can sleep 'til noon." - Mark Twain

Did she help to make the communities in which she worked better or worse?

I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that she did the latter.

 

[Tigerace117]

Denial, is not evidence nor it is argument. Again, unbelievers have never claimed to have a sky daddy which has provided then with a moral compass. They just have a moral compass. Your moral compass on the other hand is filled with hate, murder, rape, child abuse.

And apparently so is that of unbelievers. So once again, your attempt to secure the moral high ground has gone crashing down in flames.

 

[Realitywins]

Did she help to make the communities in which she worked better or worse?

I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that she did the latter.

Then you'll believe anything. Be careful, there are people out there who will take advantage of your naivete. Some of them wear funny collers and while clothed in dresses are actually men. Don't be fooled!:roll:

 

[Gathomas88]

Then you'll believe anything. Be careful, there are people out there who will take advantage of your naivete. Some of them wear funny collers and while clothed in dresses are actually men. Don't be fooled!:roll:

Sooo... To be clear, you're arguing that the presence of affordable food and healthcare - where none had previously been available - in the most desperately impoverished parts of Calcutta, somehow made life worse for the people living there, simply because the providers of said care happened to be ebbbbiiiillll Papists?

Do feel free to explain. :roll:

 

[Manc Skipper]

Did she help to make the communities in which she worked better or worse?

I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that she did the latter.

She provided substandard care for the dying poverty-stricken while doing nothing to alleviate the causes of the poverty.

Your incredulity notwithstanding.

Mother Teresa's Sad, Disturbing Legacy Isn't What You Think It Is

 

[Gathomas88]

She provided substandard care for the dying poverty-stricken while doing nothing to alleviate the causes of the poverty.

:roll:

Again, she provided care, PERIOD, in places where none had previously been available. Whether or not a bunch of fat, spoiled rotten, snobbish Westerners think it was "up to par" is, quite frankly, irrelevant. She did the best she could with what limited resources she had available, which was more than anyone else even tried to do at the time, or even really today.

I'm sorry, but this sort of criticism is akin to heckling someone for trying put out a fire with a bucket of water, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing at all. It is beyond weak and unreasonable.

No, for that matter, throwing hordes of condoms at people doesn't count as "alleviating the causes of poverty." It's just a thinly veiled form of modern, quasi-Imperialistic, Western Left Wing racism aimed at making sure there are fewer "brown people" around to feel guilty about - Basically the lazy sequel to "the white man's burden" ideology of yesteryear.

 

[Manc Skipper]

She took people in to watch them die with inadequate treatment from untrained volunteers in appalling conditions for the "glory" of their coming to terms with their dying (and converting them to Catholicism)

 

[Gathomas88]

She took people in to watch them die with inadequate treatment from untrained volunteers in appalling conditionsfor the "glory" of their coming to terms with their dying (and converting them to Catholicism)

And again, what was the rest of the world doing at this time? What is the rest of the world doing today? :roll:

Jack, and ****.

At least Mother Teresa had the gumption to get down "in the trenches" with the people suffering and actually try to make a difference.

Was it perfect? With the scant funds she had available, absolutely not. There was no Earthly way it could have been.

However, she did make a genuine effort to make life better for the people she lived among. In many regards, she even succeed. That counts for something, regardless of whether the militant anti-theists of the world (who, again, sat idly by and did absolutely nothing) like it or not.

I'm sorry that your irrational and selfish bigotry against Christianity and the Catholic Church prevents you recognizing the obvious in this regard, but it will not change the facts.

 

[Manc Skipper]

And again, what was the rest of the world doing at this time? What is the rest of the world doing today? :roll:

Jack, and ****.

At least Mother Teresa had the gumption to get down "in the trenches" with the people suffering and actually try to make a difference.

Was it perfect? With the scant funds she had available, absolutely not. There was no Earthly way it could have been.

However, she did make a genuine effort to make life better for the people she lived among. In many regards, she even succeed. That counts for something, regardless of whether the militant anti-theists of the world (who, again, sat idly by and did absolutely nothing) like it or not.

I'm sorry that your irrational and selfish bigotry against Christianity and the Catholic Church prevents you recognizing the obvious in this regard, but it will not change the facts.

She got down with a motley collecton of despots and dictators, selling them redemption. Cash, no questions asked. (Of which precious little made it to the trenches.)

"" ...[FONT=&quot]Keating’s $1.25 million donation alone would seem large enough to lift all of those in her care out of poverty, but [/FONT]one volunteer said[FONT=&quot] that “even when bread was over at the soup kitchens, none was bought unless donated.” In one incident, after running up an $800 tab at a grocery store to feed people at her charity, Mother Teresa refused to get out of line until someone else paid.[/FONT]The German magazine Stern estimated that only seven percent of the millions of dollars Teresa received was used for charity. But seven percent of what total figure, exactly? The world will never know, since the new leader of Missionaries of Charity, Nirmala Joshi, said that the donations were “countless,” and there was only one person with the actual numbers: God. “God knows,” Joshi said. “He is our banker.”... "

Funds were not "Scant", except where they were needed.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Gathomas88]

She got down with a motley collecton of despots and dictators, selling them redemption. Cash, no questions asked. (Of which precious little made it to the trenches.)

A) Prove it.

B) As anyone who's even remotely familiar with countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or etca can tell you, to a certain extent, the above's simply what's required to run an establishment in the Third World. Nothing gets done without the local despot or warlord's go-ahead. If you try to ignore them, you wind up dead, or worse.

Absolutely none of that changes the fact that Mother Teresa lowered herself to the level of abject squalor so that she could devote her life to helping people desperately in need. In doing so, she improved the quality of life of tens of thousands of people.

I mean... I'm sorry, but you do realize how completely tone deaf all of your blustering comes off, right?

You live in one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, and have never lifted a finger in your life to help any of the impoverished people of India. Where in the Hell do you get off criticizing someone who dived head first into that cause just because you disliked their faith, or a few of their methods?

Did Mother Teresa leave India a better place than she found it; yes, or no?

 

[Gathomas88]

She got down with a motley collecton of despots and dictators, selling them redemption. Cash, no questions asked. (Of which precious little made it to the trenches.)

"" ...[FONT="]Keating’s $1.25 million donation alone would seem large enough to lift all of those in her care out of poverty, but [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html"]one volunteer said[/URL][FONT="] that “even when bread was over at the soup kitchens, none was bought unless donated.” In one incident, after running up an $800 tab at a grocery store to feed people at her charity, Mother Teresa refused to get out of line until someone else paid.[/FONT][/COLOR]The German magazine [I]Stern[/I] estimated that only [I]seven[/I] percent of the millions of dollars Teresa received was used for charity. But seven percent of what total figure, exactly? The world will never know, since the new leader of Missionaries of Charity, Nirmala Joshi, said that the donations were “countless,” and there was only one person with the actual numbers: God. “God knows,” Joshi said. “He is our banker.”... "

Funds were not "Scant", except where they were needed.
[COLOR=#484848][FONT="][/FONT]

In other words, a lot of empty hear-say with no hard evidence to back it up.

Clearly, Mother Teresa was living in the lap of luxury at the French Riviera the whole time! She was just really, REALLY good at hiding it! :roll:

 

[Celebrity]

:roll:

Again, she provided care, PERIOD, in places where none had previously been available. Whether or not a bunch of fat, spoiled rotten, snobbish Westerners think it was "up to par" is, quite frankly, irrelevant. She did the best she could with what limited resources she had available, which was more than anyone else even tried to do at the time, or even really today.

I'm sorry, but this sort of criticism is akin to heckling someone for trying put out a fire with a bucket of water, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing at all. It is beyond weak and unreasonable.

No, for that matter, throwing hordes of condoms at people doesn't count as "alleviating the causes of poverty." It's just a thinly veiled form of modern, quasi-Imperialistic, Western Left Wing racism aimed at making sure there are fewer "brown people" around to feel guilty about - Basically the lazy sequel to "the white man's burden" ideology of yesteryear.

The type of scrutiny which would matter in case the level of care she provided was brought into question is that of a medical professional, such as a doctor. You seem to think trying is automatically better than nothing, which is only the case if one never fails. I'm a little bit surprised that she was canonized, but then again, I wasn't in Calcutta. Politically, it's in the church's best interest to canonize her, rather than add it to another one of mankind's deplorable acts of mass murder in the name of Christ. I suppose that any inadequate care which resulted in fatalities couldn't be called murder, since she wasn't killing, but baptizing them.

It helps to think critically about canonization, including the scrutiny of the devil's advocate.