God is not great: How religion poisons everthing

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:45 am

The Uk is more advanced. I would love to live there. I'm looking forward to the movie "Sicko" even though it's going to depress me. Maybe I shouldn't see it.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:52 am

I'd be depressed if I had to sit thru a Michael Moore film too...

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:23 am

Richest nation in the world, 47 million with no insurance. Thanks Christians!

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:37 am

garyb wrote:atheism is more about disavowal of anything rather than the avowal of anything. it is pure negativity

Woah - missed that on first read. Atheism can only be negative from your point of view - it assumes that a belief in a god is the natural state we find ourselves in. However, my position is "here i am, here's the world, isn't it great" until someone comes along and says it was all done by god, i say "who?" and then i am labelled as not believing in god. It's a bit like being labelled Gentiles by the Jews, it assumes that Judaism is the norm. Do YOU consider youself a Gentile gary? Of course not as i don't - which is why i hate the label atheist because of the baggage associated with it.

There's no one atheist view of the world, no doctrine i subscribe to but i do have my own moral standards (which i admit may come from a Christian background seeing as this is a Christian country), but i don't need a godhead and promises of an afterlife to keep me in check - i can do that all on my own thank you.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:10 am

Richest nation in the world, 47 million with no insurance. Thanks Christians!

You have to be putting me on. Are you some sort of militant christian operative planted here to make atheists look stupid?

No Insurance? Blame Christians!
No Retirement fund? Blame Christians!
Stomach hurt? Blame Christians!
Cat get run over by a bus? Blame Christians!
No ability to discern reality from your own demented fantasy? Blame Christians!

Christians.. When blaming anyone else just wont do...

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:20 am

actually, mexico is far richer than the united states. so is congo, they just don't allow anyone to have the wealth. personally, i never want to be subject of the state, even if it means a more "primitive" existance. braincell, you can have the 100's of thousands of suveilance cameras and new laws restricting speech in the UK. i'll stay an american, thanks.

Mr. A, once again, i wasn't refering to you or anyone in particular, i was responding to the wiki post.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:09 pm

Oh come on manfriday, there is no need for personal insults you bastard!

Let there be charity (as long as it is in the name of jesus) Do I hear an AMEN???

Every sane person knows the christian right is behind the election of all republicans and their criminal agenda which includes invading countries they don't like and killing more than 60,0000 innocent people and counting.

Oops there were no weapons of mass destructions. Oops it wasn't in self defense. Oh well too late now let's just keep fighting!

Grayb:

I stick to my assertion that the UK is a better place and besides most of the electronic music that is any good comes from there.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:56 pm

Erm, there's really no essential differences in society between the US and the UK.

Our government is just as into the butchery in Iraq, the vast majority of the country is just as backward and stupid (what you call 'trailer trash' in the states we refer to as 'chavs' over here).

What you're seeing has NOTHING to do with the Church and EVERYTHING to do with the state.

I would guarantee that if the Church became less powerful in the US that you would not suddenly find yourself in some kind of beautiful utopia. If you think that you would, you are profoundly deluded.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:56 pm

Every sane person knows the christian right is behind the election of all republicans and their criminal agenda which includes invading countries they don't like and killing more than 60,0000 innocent people and counting.

The "christian right" was not really a political 'force to be reckoned with' until the reagan years. You can thank Jerry Falwel for that, but the way.
And of course none of that has anything at all to do with the lack of health insurance in America.

If you think the issue of Heathcare in America, with all it's complexities can be summed up by blaming the lousy Christians, you really are a dolt.
You'd be far better off blaming the lousy lawyers.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:08 pm

healthcare, shmelthcare.
the central government doesn't give anything good to the masses.

bring back the days of the personal doctor with the bag that made housecalls, cared about their patients and charged sliding rates that even the poor could afford.

insurance has raised the price of healthcare to where it's not affordable without insurance. that sounds like most of the money is tied up by the insurance companies. why reward them by making it state sanctioned? talk about a pork barrell......

also, THERE IS NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT GEORGE BUSH EXCEPT FOR THE FALSE REPORTS ON FOX TV. GWB WORSHIPS MOLECH AT THE BOHEMIAN GROVE. THIS IS PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED. THERE ARE PHOTOS OF HIM THERE GIVING A SPEECH AT A "LAKESIDE TALK" IN THE GROVE"S OWN ANNALS.

but all that's off topic. none of this has anything to do with christians. the churches have DEFINITELY been guilty of horrible abuses of humanity at the top levels(which are at the state levels and above, since most religions are state religions), and for this i can see being against religions in general. being against local churches or parishoners or suggesting that that's where the trouble starts is a wrong as blaming "intellectuals" or any other target group.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:19 pm

Government is not the answer to everything. Surely the corporations don't give a damn about public welfare. Needless death to please stock holders!I All highways will be toll roads owned by corporations. All decent schools available to only the wealthy. I don't want people to die because they can't afford medical treatment. Gary, it is a sick system and it is failing badly and you want it to continue this way. Shame on you Gary, and Manfriday because you don't care about people other than yourselves!

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:59 pm

Our 'world famous' NHS is crumbling. Sad to say but it's true. It's been fucked to the eyeballs with more and more layers of beaurocracy, middle management and hangers on.

If you want any decent kind of healthcare here in the UK you have to go private. Otherwise you have to put up with very long waiting lists and very very dirty hospitals (a friend of mine picked up a permanent infection in a London hospital).

Do you realise how much extra tax would have to be paid to provide public healthcare in the US?

I would be absolutely gobsmacked if the US population voted for that much extra tax.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:01 pm

Maybe it would be better if they didn't pay for breast implants in the UK!

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:05 pm

Err what the f**k are you talking about?

I have to say you're bang out of line telling Gary and Manfriday they should be 'ashamed'.

And you can't answer my statement of fact without some bullshit joke?

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:28 pm

Read this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/hea ... etic.shtml

You know, you really ought to research these things before making accusations. It wasn't a joke, it was a fact and I demand an apology but maybe facts are not what theists need to prove things... ok how about this: GOD TOLD ME!

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:33 pm

Hey Mr. Researcher,

Can you please point out to me what exactly in that article states that breast implants are performed on the free NHS service?

On the other hand it does clearly state this:

"If your GP does give you a referral, it's unlikely that your surgery will be carried out on the NHS, unless it's for important health or psychological reasons."

You're a very poor researcher, Mr. Researcher

You wasted 5 minutes of my life and I demand them back.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:49 pm

No problem, perhaps this will enlighten you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2851377.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 472844.stm

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:54 pm

Braincell, you're digging a deeper hole for yourself.

One of the articles is about ONE NHS trust offering a 10% discount on cosmetic surgery operations.

What this is ACTUALLY for is to generate more funds by offering a 10% discount. Read the article. You can try and prove anything by extracting one or two convenient half-truths from an article but this does not change the reality.

The other article is about saving money on therapy because the cosmetic surgery option is cheaper.

Please stop trying to talk shit about things you know nothing about.

The basic fact of the matter is that is really is NOT cosmetic surgery operations that are making the NHS go bust.

This is why I called 'bullshit' on your 'fact'.

It would be nice if you could answer the important point of my post before talking shit.

So I ask again:

Do you really think that the US population would pay for a public health service?

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:03 pm

Part of the problem, say the critics, is that the NHS spends too much money on elective treatments: cosmetic surgery, breast enlargement and sex therapy. The main doctors' organization, the BMA, is calling for a more focused approach. It wants a clear statement of what the NHS should and should not provide for free at the taxpayer's expense.

Dr. Laurence Buckman, co-author of a report on the issue:

Laurence Buckman: There's quite a lot of plastic surgery, I think, that we couldn't really argue was life-saving or indeed dealing with disfigurement. And I think that could certainly be made less available to some. We're trying to ration things that don't matter rather than things that do.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/show ... 06074.html

I don't think that darkrezin authored a report on the issue therefore his comments are not so significant.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:08 pm

Braincell, NHS funding in the UK is dictated by areas. Each area gets a quota of the available cash and they have to manage their operations within that budget. Some areas have lower than average incidences of certain types of condition, which frees up the cash for other things. It's a question of management and the way that the cash is distributed. In an ideal world surplus cash from one area would go to another that needs it, but this does not happen.

This is NOT the same as saying 'breast implants are making the NHS go bust'.

Apart from anything else, the articles you're talking about include ALL plastic surgery - from treatment for burns and other injuries to more 'luxury' treatments such as breast implants. Just because it says 'breast implants are a type of plastic surgery' does NOT mean that all the money is going to breast implant operations.

Just FYI, the real reason the NHS is going bust is due to excessive layers of middle management (to manage the funds available - pretty ironic huh?) My dad is a doctor who formerly worked for the NHS (now retired), and I'm likely to trust his opinion a lot more than some half-baked sensationalist articles, thanks.

To return to topic:

Do you really think that the US population would pay for a public health service (if the evil christians allowed it to happen)?

I answered your points so I think it's only fair that you answer mine.

You have constantly dodged this question, which is connected to the point I made in an earlier post:

I would guarantee that if the Church became less powerful in the US that you would not suddenly find yourself in some kind of beautiful utopia. If you think that you would, you are profoundly deluded.

Again this point was unanswered. What a surprise.