Are Atheists Indifferent About Childhood Leukemia?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Can we have a show of hands, please? How many of you have heard something like, “God can’t exist if little kids with leukemia exist!” These people think they’re making a serious intellectual point but, in reality, they are only exposing their contempt for the world — especially its poor and suffering. They're sneering at the suffering of small children, using it as a weapon against those of faith and then glibly sitting down to eat bon-bons."

[snip]

"Atheism has never motivated its practitioners to assist anyone, ever. Atheists simply don’t care about the poor enough to assist even one small child with leukemia. Otherwise we’d be up to our hips in atheist hospitals. And, just for the record, the Catholic Church operates 125,000 hospitals and clinics around the world."

[snip]

"Next time an atheist brings up the suffering of small children, ask him about all of the hospitals that he and other atheists have built. Catholics continue to build and finance hospitals around the world every time we drop a dollar in the weekly collection basket. But, alas―and to their chagrin―there are no atheist hospitals anywhere."

From The Reason Why So Many Hospitals Have ‘Saint’ in the Name

Is this a fair and valid argument?

 

[Sunstone]

Apples and oranges. Atheists contribute to hospitals, charities, etc. but not as a body, not as atheists -- except in rare instances.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yeah, I would imagine that if there were groups of organized atheists, they would be just as charitable as any other group with comparable financial resources. Even if they didn't care, they wouldn't want to look like jerks.

 

[viole]

"Can we have a show of hands, please? How many of you have heard something like, “God can’t exist if little kids with leukemia exist!” These people think they’re making a serious intellectual point but, in reality, they are only exposing their contempt for the world — especially its poor and suffering. They're sneering at the suffering of small children, using it as a weapon against those of faith and then glibly sitting down to eat bon-bons."

[snip]

"Atheism has never motivated its practitioners to assist anyone, ever. Atheists simply don’t care about the poor enough to assist even one small child with leukemia. Otherwise we’d be up to our hips in atheist hospitals. And, just for the record, the Catholic Church operates 125,000 hospitals and clinics around the world."

[snip]

"Next time an atheist brings up the suffering of small children, ask him about all of the hospitals that he and other atheists have built. Catholics continue to build and finance hospitals around the world every time we drop a dollar in the weekly collection basket. But, alas―and to their chagrin―there are no atheist hospitals anywhere."

From The Reason Why So Many Hospitals Have ‘Saint’ in the Name

Is this a fair and valid argument?

Even if it were true, that would have not any relevance towards making God more plausible. Therefore, not metaphysically relevant.

That is becoming a mantra. I think theists are getting more interested in the belief, and what "positively" can derive from it, than in the actual existence of what it is believed in.

Or maybe they have always been more interested that someone believes, not matter how ridiculous her belief is, as long as its plausibility is comparable. And that is why Muslims or Hindus are not exactly on par with Atheists, when judged by Christians (and vice-versa).

You know, like: I know I believe in nonsensical things, but you are not much better.

Of course, they cannot do that with atheists, and that could explain the slight animosity towards us.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Certainly not with that attitude. Couchpotato activism certainly affects atheists as much as anyone. And I've certainly seen my fair share of atheists who talk about the malignancy of religion and do nothing to actually aid their community.
However, there's some pretty HUGE flaws with this argument.
Firstly comparing a wealthy international organization with a disunited group of individuals with the only commonality of not having belief in something.
Secondly, criticizing based on the existence of Leukemia as an argument against an omnibenevolent deity won't work very well if your argument is essentially 'We (people, not said deity) are doing more than you (people, not said deity.)' It's kind of missing the point. From said atheist perspective, the point of contention is the inactivity of the deity, not the activity of worshipers.
Third, way to take a negative us vs. them bent and miss an opportunity to encourage positive community service and working together towards a lofty goal: Helping kids with leukemia. The way that this is phrased makes it more like holier-than-thou bragging, which is the very same thing as 'weaponizing' the plight of the suffering.
Lastly, I don't believe there is a god. This is directly relational to my belief that in order for **** to get fixed on this planet, we humans need to do it ourselves. I believe it can't happen any other way. However, unlike this article, I do not care who is doing it with me. I will happily work with Catholic or any other religious or non-religious charity group, and I won't name it for me or atheism.
That's not what it should be about. Stop bickering and help people, imo.

 

[SomeRandom]

What about the Ronald Mcdonald charities? Aren't they religiously neutral at best?
Also the Leukemia foundation in Australia does not make any connection known to any religious ties, that I know of. Very active in combating Leukemia as a charity. Like the World's Greatest Shave thing they constantly host.
There's two active charities from the top of my head who are at the very least religiously neutral, that I'm aware of.

In saying that, I'm not sure religious affiliation has much to do with supporting or not supporting things like helping sick kids. Nor should it be weaponized to use for any one side. That's kind of scummy.

 

[Nakosis]

"Can we have a show of hands, please? How many of you have heard something like, “God can’t exist if little kids with leukemia exist!” These people think they’re making a serious intellectual point but, in reality, they are only exposing their contempt for the world — especially its poor and suffering. They're sneering at the suffering of small children, using it as a weapon against those of faith and then glibly sitting down to eat bon-bons."

[snip]

"Atheism has never motivated its practitioners to assist anyone, ever. Atheists simply don’t care about the poor enough to assist even one small child with leukemia. Otherwise we’d be up to our hips in atheist hospitals. And, just for the record, the Catholic Church operates 125,000 hospitals and clinics around the world."

[snip]

"Next time an atheist brings up the suffering of small children, ask him about all of the hospitals that he and other atheists have built. Catholics continue to build and finance hospitals around the world every time we drop a dollar in the weekly collection basket. But, alas―and to their chagrin―there are no atheist hospitals anywhere."

From The Reason Why So Many Hospitals Have ‘Saint’ in the Name

Is this a fair and valid argument?

Is it fair to say that religious folks, without being told so by God would have no compassion for the sick and poor?

You generally don't choose your feelings. It's just how you feel, for better or worse. I'd imagine that the feelings Atheists might have run the same gamut that religious folks have.

To answer the question of how many hospitals built by atheists, at least in the US...

Robert Ingersoll's response to the question, "What hospitals have Atheists built?" is surprisingly relevant over a hundred years later. Despite European Christians being on the American continent for hundreds of years, they have been lacking in providing the medical charity they are credited for. The answer to the question "How many American hospitals have Atheists built?" is "All of them." Of the 13% of religious hospitals, all of them are maintained by public funds. Those public funds are not paid for exclusively by the religious, they certainly aren't supported by American churches. If the religious hospitals were to be truly religious and separated from secular governmental subsidies they would collapse. The question that the Christian apologist should be asked is, "Where are all the truly religious hospitals?" Slapping a Catholic or Methodist label upon a hospital wall isn't sufficient enough to create a truly independent, private religious hospital free from Atheist support.

HOW MANY HOSPITALS HAVE ATHEISTS BUILT? | The Rational Response Squad

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What about the Ronald Mcdonald charities? Aren't they religiously neutral at best?

Many if not most charities are secular - Doctors Without Borders, the ACLU, Goodwill Industries, The Nature Conservancy, Kiva, Freedom From Religion Foundation, etc.. And of course, many governments, who do the heavy lifting tending to the sick and the poor.

The difference is that atheists are not trying to promote atheism, nor do they identify themselves with their atheism, so they have no inclination to put "Atheist Hospital of Chicago" on a building like the various denominations do (Lutheran Hospital, Methodist Hospital, Baptist Hospital).

I think that the author's disdain for atheists shines brightly through. He apparently resents the theodicy argument, which he takes as an indictment of his god rather than an argument against its existence, and retaliated with the argument.that if the word atheist doesn't appear on hospitals, atheists are indifferent to the plight of children with leukemia. I perceived it as just more demonization of atheists - a mean-spirited smear.

One of the great benefits of being an atheist is that when some doe-eyed child dies of leukemia in the next few minutes or hours, and one will, we have the comfort of knowing that it was just rotten luck and due to the malice or indifference of a god that could have intervened but sat idly by and watched instead.

 

[SomeRandom]

Many if not most charities are secular - Doctors Without Borders, the ACLU, Goodwill Industries, The Nature Conservancy, Kiva, Freedom From Religion Foundation, etc.. And of course, many governments, who do the heavy lifting tending to the sick and the poor..

Indeed. Religion does not have a monopoly on charitable activities or charity itself. Basic human decency is often enough to get a person to at least quietly support a charity.

The difference is that atheists are not trying to promote atheism, nor do they identify themselves with their atheism, so they have no inclination to put "Atheist Hospital of Chicago" on a building like the various denominations do (Lutheran Hospital, Methodist Hospital, Baptist Hospital).

Yeah, I always saw that as a bit of an ego trip. Like boasting of your good deeds Not particularly Christ like in my view.

I think that the author's disdain for atheists shines brightly through. He apparently resents the theodicy argument, which he takes as an indictment of his god rather than an argument against its existence, and retaliated with the argument.that if the word atheist doesn't appear on hospitals, atheists are indifferent to the plight of children with leukemia. It's just more demonization of atheists - another smear.

Agreed. The entire argument is smothered in an air of smug superiority all the while trying desperately to equate atheism with immorality.

One of the great benefits of being an atheist is that when some doe-eyed child dies of leukemia in the next few minutes or hours, and one will, we have the comfort of knowing that it was just rotten luck and due to the malice or indifference of a god that could have intervened by watched instead.

Well whatever philosophy best suits you, I suppose. I'm not particularly an atheist, at least not in the sense that the Abrahamics usually use. But that viewpoint is not entirely exclusive to atheism, just FYI.

 

[shmogie]

Even if it were true, that would have not any relevance towards making God more plausible. Therefore, not metaphysically relevant.

That is becoming a mantra. I think theists are getting more interested in the belief, and what "positively" can derive from it, than in the actual existence of what it is believed in.

Or maybe they have always been more interested that someone believes, not matter how ridiculous her belief is, as long as its plausibility is comparable. And that is why Muslims or Hindus are not exactly on par with Atheists, when judged by Christians (and vice-versa).

You know, like: I know I believe in nonsensical things, but you are not much better.

Of course, they cannot do that with atheists, and that could explain the slight animosity towards us.

Ciao

- viole

I am amused about your particular idea of what ridiculous, is. You don´t find the idea that everything created itself from nothing ridiculous at all, but rather seriously scientifically plausible. However, an intelligent creator outside of space and time is ridiculous. I am not sure that your ideas about ridiculousness aren´t in and of themselves, ridiculous. My absurdity is no
more absurd than yours

 

[Stevicus]

From The Reason Why So Many Hospitals Have ‘Saint’ in the Name

Is this a fair and valid argument?

First, I'd examine the claim that the Catholic Church is actually running these hospitals. At least as far as the hospitals around here which are considered Catholic hospitals, they are owned by the Carondelet Health Network, which is a subsidiary of a non-profit company called Ascension: Ascension (company) - Wikipedia

Ascension is the world’s largest Catholic health system[1] and the largest non-profit health system in the US [2][3] with facilities in 23 states and the District of Columbia.

...

Ascension Health (now known as Ascension) was created on November 1, 1999, by the union of the Daughters of Charity National Health System that was based in St. Louis, Missouri, and the Sisters of St. Joseph Health System that was based in Nazareth, Michigan.[7] In December 2002, Carondelet Health System, which was based in St. Louis, Missouri, joined Ascension Health.

...

In January 2012, Ascension Health began operating as a subsidiary under a new organizational structure and a new parent holding company, Ascension, led by Anthony R. Tersigni, EdD, FACHE, former President and CEO of Ascension Health.[8] In 2012, Alexian Brothers Health System joined Ascension.[9] In 2013, Marian Health System joined Ascension.[10] He was the top earning CEO of a Not-For-Profit Hospital per IRS data from 2014, as 1. Anthony Tersigni at $17,565,552

So, the CEO of the "non-profit" company which owns our local Catholic hospitals made over $17.5 million in 2014. Wow. Is some of his salary coming from those weekly collection baskets?

These hospitals don't work for free either. They're not charities by any measure. Have your insurance card ready and be prepared for a humongous bill.

There are many more secular hospitals in the area, including a rather fine university hospital which is much larger and offers more services than the Catholic hospitals. I don't think there's any specific "atheist hospital," although that would sound kind of weird anyway.

(However, a case can be made for university hospitals, considering that some people see universities as spreading "atheistic" doctrine, among other things. So, maybe we can say that university hospitals qualify as "atheist hospitals.")

But as far as arguments go, I don't think it really means much. I suppose whoever wrote this article could just as easily castigate other religious bodies which don't have as many hospitals as the Catholics. In fact, at least in my area, there are no other religious hospitals.

From the article linked in the OP:

In other words, instead of asking why God doesn’t cure every child, atheists should be asking themselves why they aren’t helping any child.

Atheists pay taxes to the State, which has programs in place for helping children. The Church doesn't pay any taxes, and despite whatever charitable works they do provide, it obviously isn't enough since the State has had to implement its own social welfare and healthcare funds to help children and others who need it. And if they happen to go to a Catholic hospital, then part of the hospital fees will come from State money paid partly by atheist taxpayers.

 

[shmogie]

First, I'd examine the claim that the Catholic Church is actually running these hospitals. At least as far as the hospitals around here which are considered Catholic hospitals, they are owned by the Carondelet Health Network, which is a subsidiary of a non-profit company called Ascension: Ascension (company) - Wikipedia



So, the CEO of the "non-profit" company which owns our local Catholic hospitals made over $17.5 million in 2014. Wow. Is some of his salary coming from those weekly collection baskets?

These hospitals don't work for free either. They're not charities by any measure. Have your insurance card ready and be prepared for a humongous bill.

There are many more secular hospitals in the area, including a rather fine university hospital which is much larger and offers more services than the Catholic hospitals. I don't think there's any specific "atheist hospital," although that would sound kind of weird anyway.

(However, a case can be made for university hospitals, considering that some people see universities as spreading "atheistic" doctrine, among other things. So, maybe we can say that university hospitals qualify as "atheist hospitals.")
Ah, the Church is composed of people, everyone of which pays taxes. There are fine University hospitals that exist as part of religious universities
But as far as arguments go, I don't think it really means much. I suppose whoever wrote this article could just as easily castigate other religious bodies which don't have as many hospitals as the Catholics. In fact, at least in my area, there are no other religious hospitals.

From the article linked in the OP:



Atheists pay taxes to the State, which has programs in place for helping children. The Church doesn't pay any taxes, and despite whatever charitable works they do provide, it obviously isn't enough since the State has had to implement its own social welfare and healthcare funds to help children and others who need it. And if they happen to go to a Catholic hospital, then part of the hospital fees will come from State money paid partly by atheist taxpayers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, the CEO of the "non-profit" company which owns our local Catholic hospitals made over $17.5 million in 2014. Wow. Is some of his salary coming from those weekly collection baskets? These hospitals don't work for free either. They're not charities by any measure. Have your insurance card ready and be prepared for a humongous bill.

I was a medical intern and resident for three years at a Catholic hospital in Long Beach California called St. Mary's Medical Center (one of those Saint hospitals the article refers to), staffed by nuns called the Sisters of Charity. It was also called a non-profit, but we admitted no uninsured or underinsured patients, all of which were transported to the local county (public) hospital in Torrance, Harbor General, where Uncle Sam footed the bill, not the Sisters of Charity.

Those of us in training provided 70-80 hours of medical care a week for a stipend, making the hospital very appealing to admitting doctors, who took fewer calls and came in less frequently because we were there, and our mentors, also local physicians in private practice, were unpaid volunteers.

I wouldn't be so proud about that. That's just business, not a burden for childhood leukemia.

 

[shmogie]

I was a medical intern and resident for three years at a Catholic hospital in Long Beach California called St. Mary's Medical Center (one of those Saint hospitals the article refers to), staffed by nuns called the Sisters of Charity. It was also called a non-profit, but we admitted no uninsured or underinsured patients, all of which were transported to the local county (public) hospital in Torrance, Harbor General, where Uncle Sam footed the bill, not the Sisters of Charity.

Those of us in training provided 70-80 hours of medical care a week for a stipend, making the hospital very appealing to admitting doctors, who took fewer calls and came in less frequently because we were there, and our mentors, also local physicians in private practice, were unpaid volunteers.

I wouldn't be so proud about that. That's just business, not a burden for childhood leukemia.

I was on the budget committee of a large (800 bed) university, non profit medical Center. The University was a Christian institution. To be accredited, we were required to provide care for medicare and medicaid patients. At the time, medicare reimbursement was about 50% and medicaid, less than that. We budgeted a net ¨profit¨ of 5%. Out of this we assumed all of the risk of catastrophic systems failure, unforseen overtime, and unbudgeted required new equipment purchases, and anything else unforseen that would arise not covered in the approved budgets of 102 departments

Our Medical staff, including residents, was just over 900, with many of the attendings being full professors in the School of Medicine. Your experience as a resident was also the experience of ours as far as hours goes.

In addition, The dental school and Medical school sent care teams and surgeons to poverty stricken areas of the world and country to provide service free of charge. I remember one year when the ophthalmology team did almost
700 surgeries in Africa.

With some Christian institutions it isn´t just business, they do what they are charged to do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Can we have a show of hands, please? How many of you have heard something like, “God can’t exist if little kids with leukemia exist!” These people think they’re making a serious intellectual point but, in reality, they are only exposing their contempt for the world — especially its poor and suffering. They're sneering at the suffering of small children, using it as a weapon against those of faith and then glibly sitting down to eat bon-bons."

[snip]

"Atheism has never motivated its practitioners to assist anyone, ever. Atheists simply don’t care about the poor enough to assist even one small child with leukemia. Otherwise we’d be up to our hips in atheist hospitals. And, just for the record, the Catholic Church operates 125,000 hospitals and clinics around the world."

[snip]

"Next time an atheist brings up the suffering of small children, ask him about all of the hospitals that he and other atheists have built. Catholics continue to build and finance hospitals around the world every time we drop a dollar in the weekly collection basket. But, alas―and to their chagrin―there are no atheist hospitals anywhere."

From The Reason Why So Many Hospitals Have ‘Saint’ in the Name

Is this a fair and valid argument?

Mother Teresa. She would never even dare step foot in one of her own hospitals for treatment.

 

[Srivijaya]

We have a ton of secular charities in the UK and people of all faiths and none donate and help. Broad-brushing atheists as heartless is about as lame as it gets. Compassion is an innate quality which some have more of than others - nothing to do with religion.

 

[Augustus]

Are Atheists Indifferent About Childhood Leukemia?

I'd say they are against it, ruins the flavour of the babies after all.

 

[Altfish]

"Can we have a show of hands, please? How many of you have heard something like, “God can’t exist if little kids with leukemia exist!” These people think they’re making a serious intellectual point but, in reality, they are only exposing their contempt for the world — especially its poor and suffering. They're sneering at the suffering of small children, using it as a weapon against those of faith and then glibly sitting down to eat bon-bons."

[snip]

"Atheism has never motivated its practitioners to assist anyone, ever. Atheists simply don’t care about the poor enough to assist even one small child with leukemia. Otherwise we’d be up to our hips in atheist hospitals. And, just for the record, the Catholic Church operates 125,000 hospitals and clinics around the world."

[snip]

"Next time an atheist brings up the suffering of small children, ask him about all of the hospitals that he and other atheists have built. Catholics continue to build and finance hospitals around the world every time we drop a dollar in the weekly collection basket. But, alas―and to their chagrin―there are no atheist hospitals anywhere."

From The Reason Why So Many Hospitals Have ‘Saint’ in the Name

Is this a fair and valid argument?

Of course atheists care about children with leukaemia and other incurable diseases.
I'm not sure who said it first but Stephen Fry famously said something like "Childhood cancer, what's that about?" in an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE. He was basically saying that if a loving god existed why would he allow childhood cancer.
It is an argument used by atheists to discredit god.

 

[Stevicus]

"Can we have a show of hands, please? How many of you have heard something like, “God can’t exist if little kids with leukemia exist!” These people think they’re making a serious intellectual point but, in reality, they are only exposing their contempt for the world — especially its poor and suffering. They're sneering at the suffering of small children, using it as a weapon against those of faith and then glibly sitting down to eat bon-bons."

I was thinking further on this point, and it occurred to me that atheists or other skeptics aren't necessarily questioning the possible existence of "God" as much as they're questioning many believers' assertions about "God" being some kind of generous, compassionate, all-loving being who has a divine plan worked out to perfection.

What if God actually exists, but is some kind of evil, malevolent, sadistic entity who just likes to make people suffer for his own personal amusement? Just like some twisted kid who likes to torture small animals. All the pablum about God being "good" is just so much propaganda. At least that would explain a lot of things.

 

[Cacotopia]

Sounds like a pissing contest to me. we have more christian things than atheists have nanna na na naaaa naaaa