That it's acceptable for the American cancer society to erect billboards stating "rednecks can be hazardous to your health"?

Trivia:

While not exactly proven (correlation is not causation), the wide spread introduction of refrigeration for food storage probably was the reason behind the gross decline of GI Cancer as a major source of death before the 1930s...

"Until the late 1930s, stomach cancer was the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Now, stomach cancer is well down on this list. The reasons for this decline are not completely known, but may be linked to increased use of refrigeration for food storage. This made fresh fruits and vegetables more available and decreased the use of salted and smoked foods. Some doctors think the decline may also be linked to the frequent use of antibiotics to treat infections. Antibiotics can kill the bacteria called Helicobacter pylori (H pylori), which is thought to be a major cause of stomach cancer."

American Cancer Society...

The mechanism appears to have been the move away from pickling/smoking...and towards fruits/vegetables/etc which an in-home refrigerator let you use...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1971721/?page=1

Technically, a 'redneck' is any person who works outside and gets sunburnt on their neck...but it is clearly most often associated with rural farming southerners.
The American Cancer Society had a great campaign for a while in the south with a picture of a man from behind with a sunburnt neck and cowboy hat and a caption "rednecks can be hazardous to your health".

I've heard reports from several men who had sex before and after and said there was zero difference in sensation.

I circumcised my boys but not at all because of aesthetics, nor to "look like me", and especially not for any kind of religious reason.

We weren't dead-set against leaving them un-cut. In fact, we initially figured we'd just let them be natural.

One reason we decided to go ahead with it is we heard about lots of uncircumcised men have issues that require them to have it done later in life (e.g., phimosis, etc.), but the bigger reason was recent (at that time) studies showed strong evidence that circumcised men are at substantially lower risk for serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV and penile cancer (that results from HPV).

>> Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

Talk about misinformation from a bunch of barbarians.

It's more barbaric to be completely close-minded, backward-thinking, and ignorant as to why there might possibly exist valid reasons to provide your children an almost 100% chance to avoid a plethora of penis-related problems and life-threatening diseases for their entire life in exchange for what's really a very minor procedure when done soon after birth.

The reasons against it? "It's fucking barbaric." Because... why again? "It just is," I'm sure is the best possible response.

The reasons in favor of it? Don't be so glib. Read the research.

Science Daily from Jan 2010:

Other epidemiological studies have shown that male circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV acquisition in men.

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40 percent reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Dr. Ronald H. Gray, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Dr. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, which provided the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (non-oxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

HPV can also cause cancer of the penis in men. HPV infection is found in about half of all penile cancers. It’s more common in men with HIV and those who have sex with other men.

There is no approved screening test to find early signs of penile cancer. Because almost all penile cancers start under the foreskin of the penis, they may be noticed early in the course of the disease.

...

The 2 main risk factors for genital HPV infection in men are having many sex partners and not being circumcised.

The risk of being infected with HPV is strongly linked to having many sex partners.

Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of getting and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners.

What this was about is that they wanted to be one of the teams on their relay for life program. That's what they were turned down for. Instead of just donating the money without the recogniztion, which they had the option to do, they went to the press. I think that says a lot about their motivations.

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.
So everyone who gives to a charity non-anonomously "clearly" just wants a feather in their cap?
You are an imbecile.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.
So everyone who gives to a charity non-anonomously "clearly" just wants a feather in their cap?



You are an imbecile.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

Well, the reason the FBB was donating was to be listed as one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. That's what they were turned down for. Not only that, but they used to whole thing to garner publicity. So I am not feeling too much sympathy for them at this point.

I agree that the reason many people/organizations who donate large amounts of money is specifically to get on those lists. So yes, I am prepared to say that many on those lists are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps not all of them, but I would say probably the majority.

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Well, I think the problem that most believers have is that the stated goal of many atheists and atheists organizations is to remove religion from the public sphere or irradicate it entirely. The mouthpieces for the New Atheism say in no uncertain terms that people who have faith are pinheads and that religion is the worst thing to ever happen. It's certainly not a live and let live kind of attitude that is being promoted as representing atheism.

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Ahh, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Yes, and sadly, that is just scratching the surface. The bible for many seems to be book of allegory, filled with mere suggestions on how to live our lives, rather than the direct commands of God. That's why you'll find Christians in bars, Christians smoking weed, and Christians cheating on their taxes. More than that, false doctrine has invaded the church. A very popular one right now is the "Health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, which teaches that God only wants you to be rich, and people who are poor and suffering just don't have enough faith.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

That is the thing, that it is all being done for show. It is not about salvation, or sanctification; it is about sterling and silver. This is what is truly harmful, that the public face of Christianity is so far astray from the true teachings of the bible. Light years away from it in fact. The airwaves are saturated with false teachers, who proclaim that God is the great ATM in the sky, and if you only send in some money He'll give you the pin number. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, preaching a man-centered doctrine, to tickle the itching ears of people who seek out teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. "No, you don't need to change! God loves you the way you are!" The bible is not so kind to such people:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

haha, yes..some of these translations are very poor/strange. I prefer the ESV, it is probably the best modern literal translation. The KJV can be a good supplement, because although it used less accurate manuscripts, its archaic language preserved some of the meaning that the more modern translations may have glossed over. bible.cc is a good site for comparing verses. Here's a good sermon on Matthew 6:5-6

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813081634369


>> ^Ryjkyj:
The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."
We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!
Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.
Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray." <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

The story here is misleading. What this was about is that they wanted to be one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. They were making a large cash donation specifically to be listed as one of those teams. So, they could have donated anonymously if wanted to; this seems to be more about their image. And yes, I agree with you that those listed in the rolls probably had other motives. Charitable giving by organizations and corporations is definitely more political than anything else, as QM was saying.

Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.

I agree with you that public giving is a big part of how these charities are able to operate. It is good in that it gets money to those in need, but bad in my view because it is promoting that we do good works for selfish reasons, for mere appearance. It is a superficial generosity, and I am sure many people after giving a large donation to a charity are patting themselves on the back for it all year, feeling that their good person quota has been filled up.

My two main points are this. One, that their motivations were not purely altruistic, as was being implied. Two, that if by giving you are seeking to get glory from men, you will have received your reward.

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

Sadly, I think you're right. Probably not from the people at large, but definitely from large organizations and corporations. It's all about image in that world. The reason they make large donations is because it is an investment in their brand. If public recognition were outlawed, I'm sure it would leave many of them saying "Why bother?"

>> ^00Scud00:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.
According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Plenty of arrogant religionists, yes, but I expect to meet Christ Himself before finding a humble atheist.


I am a staunch atheist and have been for most of my life. I find it very difficult at times to take some christians seriously, but I don't, ever, voice that opinion out loud. I don't care if you pray at school, say "under god" in the pledge, hang a bronze age torture device from your mirror, have a Christmas tree or pray at a baseball game. I understand the society I live in and that I belong to one of the most hated and reviled "groups" in history. I have read the bible (hence why I am atheist) as well as many other religious book and texts. I am very well versed on religious topics, history and scripture, enough even to correct relatively religious people on their bible "facts".

I would consider myself a very "humble atheist", but if someone gets in my face about religion I won't back down and will bark right back.

Don't generalize a group of people because you may know a few bad apples. I certainly don't when it comes to believers.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!


Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

>> ^shinyblurry:

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.

According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

Either way, giving half a million dollars to an organization that tries to help people dying of cancer seems pretty damned humble.

I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.

And I don't know where you're from, but where I live, people who can admit that they don't have the whole truth, whether atheist or theist, are the exception rather than the rule.

As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!


>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There are good people on both "sides".
Just my observation, while there are many religious fundamentalists who are 100% certain of the existence of God, they are rather in the minority. Most believers are never really that sure, thus: faith.
Atheists, on the other hand, are almost always certain their conclusion is the right one, and that there can be no other possible correct conclusion.
In other words, religious people's certainty varies, while almost every atheist is a 'fundamentalist'.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Plenty of arrogant religionists, yes, but I expect to meet Christ Himself before finding a humble atheist.

In what way do you mean?


Either way, giving half a million dollars to an organization that tries to help people dying of cancer seems pretty damned humble.
And I don't know where you're from, but where I live, people who can admit that they don't have the whole truth, whether atheist or theist, are the exception rather than the rule.

It's actually more fair as a generalization. This is internets and this is VS. The main demographic here seems to be 18-34, pro-gay, anti-religion (or anti-organized religion) liberal atheists.

VS demographics do not reflect the majority of Americans' viewpoints on these issues. 85% of Americans identify with Christianity, just over half are conservative, and wherever gay issues are put to a vote instead of being snuck past, they lose.

Tymbrwulf is right, the negative publicity from taking "atheist money" may very well affect the bottom line for the charity.

>> ^bamdrew:

I see where you're coming from, but I think this is just as unfair a generalization as the other-way-around. I'm not religious, don't believe in God, and don't really think its something interesting to talk about... that said, I appreciate aspects (mostly the community), and go to church sometimes with friends. In other words I'm open to the concepts... and I don't wear these thoughts on my sleeve.
If your point is going from 'non-believer to believer' being a bigger jump than 'believer to non-believer', I can get behind that. My parent's didn't really push a certain religion on me, so I've always had the 'dubious outsider' perspective. I won't likely go from this position to a particular faith (which people are typically raised in) because they all look similarly bogus from my vantage point.
>> ^quantumushroom:
...
In other words, religious people's certainty varies, while almost every atheist is a 'fundamentalist'.

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:

Matthew 6:2-3

Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.


>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There are good people on both "sides".
Just my observation, while there are many religious fundamentalists who are 100% certain of the existence of God, they are rather in the minority. Most believers are never really that sure, thus: faith.
Atheists, on the other hand, are almost always certain their conclusion is the right one, and that there can be no other possible correct conclusion.
In other words, religious people's certainty varies, while almost every atheist is a 'fundamentalist'.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Plenty of arrogant religionists, yes, but I expect to meet Christ Himself before finding a humble atheist.

In what way do you mean?


Either way, giving half a million dollars to an organization that tries to help people dying of cancer seems pretty damned humble.
And I don't know where you're from, but where I live, people who can admit that they don't have the whole truth, whether atheist or theist, are the exception rather than the rule.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There are good people on both "sides".
Just my observation, while there are many religious fundamentalists who are 100% certain of the existence of God, they are rather in the minority. Most believers are never really that sure, thus: faith.
Atheists, on the other hand, are almost always certain their conclusion is the right one, and that there can be no other possible correct conclusion.
In other words, religious people's certainty varies, while almost every atheist is a 'fundamentalist'.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Plenty of arrogant religionists, yes, but I expect to meet Christ Himself before finding a humble atheist.

In what way do you mean?



Either way, giving half a million dollars to an organization that tries to help people dying of cancer seems pretty damned humble.

And I don't know where you're from, but where I live, people who can admit that they don't have the whole truth, whether atheist or theist, are the exception rather than the rule.