This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Why Are They Rejecting Atheist Generosity?

Why Are They Rejecting Atheist Generosity? - Comments

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 1 by Rich Wiltshir

Before I read the whole article, my instinct was to say

"because they're just dicks, though I must admit that I have big reservations about giving business of any sort (I even refuse to pay the 'voluntary entrance fee' when visiting cathedrals and the like), so, perhaps I can understand a religoon organisation being shy about accepting cash that gives some passive credibility to an insight which is diametrically opposed to theirs."

But, having read the article fully and considered motivations, behaviours, (dis)courtesy and integrity, not to mention the cowardly deceptive manner in which they've tried to convince you of something that basic, rational questions enearthed as false (big surprise!)... despite considering all this, I think the answer to your question

"Why are they rejecting Atheist Generosity?"

Is because they're just dicks.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:26:13 UTC | #868631

Stephen of Wimbledon's Avatar Comment 2 by Stephen of Wimbledon

This seems to me to be a clear-cut case of discrimination.

If someone representing a religious group, a gay group, or an ethnic group were treated this way, they would be telephoning their lawyers right now.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:28:34 UTC | #868632

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 3 by wisnoskij

Surprising, but also surprising that people still think that donating to Cancer is a worthy cause. Does anyone have any idea how many billions of dollars had been thrown at the cancer problem with no real improvement in survivability?

I think by now they have enough money, if they cannot do it with what they already have gotten then it is simply never going to happen.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:29:45 UTC | #868633

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 5 by Ignorant Amos

As recently as "This Morning" I watch a article on the fight against cancer...

On This Morning we've done live breast exams, mass mammograms and a whole lot in between but today we are doing something we've never done before as we kill cancer cells LIVE.

Eric Lockeyear has been suffering with skin cancer for over 22 years and endured years of excruciating surgery until he started receiving Photodynamix Therapy (PDT) in 2003.

PDT is an alternative method of treating certain forms of cancer (not malignant melanomas), which works by shutting down the supply of oxygen (in the blood) to the targeted tumours in the cells.

Today dermatological surgeon Dr Raj Mallipeddi will treat Eric live on the show, while Dr Chris tells us how this revolutionary procedure could be rolled out across the country.

So contrary to what wisnoskij has to say, the results of the research are real and work.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:49:08 UTC | #868640

Sjoerd Westenborg's Avatar Comment 6 by Sjoerd Westenborg

@ Wisnoskij

Could you say that to those who survived cancer recently because of the past decade of research please? Would love to see the reception you get...

I agree however with comments below the original article that fund raising has become a bigger business that the research itself, let alone the efficiency of organisations like this. Luckily smaller, more idealistic groups have a much higher efficiency and I suggest to everyone to donate to groups like this. Sites like Kiva even let you track the results of your money a bit.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:50:41 UTC | #868641

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 7 by Stevehill

When the (unashamedly blasphemous!) show "Jerry Springer - The Opera" was touring the UK, fundie Christians were picketing theatres. The cast offered to donate the entire proceeds of a show to Maggies, a UK cancer charity, well over £10,000. The charity refused to accept it in view of the controversy.

I'll donate to cancer charities, but not that one.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:53:42 UTC | #868644

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 8 by wisnoskij

@Ignorant Amos Yes, and you expect a organization that is paid to fight cancer is going to say: "Ya, we are completely failing, stop sending us your money". No they said exactly what any organization in their position, disregarding that facts, would do. They said it is working, but more then ever keep sending us your money.

If you actually look (http://cancer2000.net/introduction/cancer_death_rates_m.jpg) at some statistics (http://cancer2000.net/introduction/cancer_death_rates_f.jpg), you would know how idiotic you sound.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:53:45 UTC | #868645

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 9 by Tyler Durden

Comment 3 by wisnoskij :

Surprising, but also surprising that people still think that donating to Cancer is a worthy cause. Does anyone have any idea how many billions of dollars had been thrown at the cancer problem with no real improvement in survivability?

Cancer Survivors—United States, 2007 - from the CDC:

The number of cancer survivors in the United States increased from 3 million in 1971 to 9.8 million in 2001 and 11.7 million in 2007—an increase from 1.5% to 4% of the U.S. population. Cancer survivors largely consist of people who are 65 years of age or older and women. Many people with cancer live a long time after diagnosis; more than a million people were alive in 2007 after being diagnosed with cancer 25 years or more earlier.

Why Is the Number of Cancer Survivors Increasing?

The number of cancer survivors is growing for several reasons, including doctors' ability to find cancer earlier, diagnose cancer more accurately, and treat cancer more effectively. Also, better follow-up care after cancer treatment, fewer deaths from other causes, and an aging U.S. population contribute to the large number of cancer survivors.

This would be a real improvement in survivability.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:53:49 UTC | #868646

some asshole's Avatar Comment 10 by some asshole

So? Screw the ACS. Seriously, why the hell would you struggle to donate money to an organization with this kind of attitude? There are so many organizations that would fawn all over FBB, whether it was $500,000 or $5,000.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:56:05 UTC | #868647

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 11 by DocWebster

Hell, my dad has bladder cancer and doctor said not to worry about it. They just harvest the growths as they come up and he keeps on truckin'. Any cancer used to be a death sentence and now it is increasingly becoming an out-patient procedure performed in a clinic. That being said, the ACS is definitely sounding like it needs to feel some hunger pangs so maybe it's priorities will be worked out.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:59:35 UTC | #868650

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 12 by wisnoskij

And I am not saying that absolutely no progress had been, but if it has been made it is minuscule.

"As recently as "This Morning" I watch a article on the fight against cancer..." Yes, every 5 days someone comes out with a perfectly working, awesome Cancer cure, or has made huge strides inwards one and in a week they will start testing this new wonder drug. But that is part of the point I am trying to make, we have been 1 month from curing cancer for the last 30 years, and yet more people die from cancer now then they did pretty much in all of human history.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:59:39 UTC | #868651

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 13 by Tyler Durden

Comment 8 by wisnoskij :

If you actually look (http://cancer2000.net/introduction/cancer_death_rates_m.jpg) at some statistics...

And did you read the Disclaimer on that site?

This site should only be considered as a learning and teaching aid and is intended only as an educational site. Information contained here should not be used for patient management and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with practicing medical professionals.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:02:27 UTC | #868652

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 14 by Sean_W

You didn't meet the criteria, what more do you want?

That Vogons should be other than Vogon?

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:08:41 UTC | #868653

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 15 by wisnoskij

@Tyler Durden I am not going to say that it is 100% of the way I am going to put it in a second but statistics like you are showing can be hard to interpret for several reasons.

As the quote even says a lot of it is due to identifying cancer patients earlier, but that does not mean that spotting these patients earlier made then live longer (just that we were able to add then to the list of survivors). And then their is the "fewer deaths from other causes", meaning we have increased out knowledge of medicine in other areas and been able to save cancer patients lives to allow them to live longer and add to this list (but this doe snot come from donating money to cancer research). Also this number is directly linked to how many people per capita get cancer in the first place, and I believe that has gone up (which is only another failure of the cancer researchers).

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:10:51 UTC | #868656

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 16 by wisnoskij

@Tyler Durden And I am doing none of those things, I never suggested that any of us should stop seeing a doctor because I showed you some graphs....

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:12:25 UTC | #868657

Linda Ward's Avatar Comment 17 by Linda Ward

I am an active lender @ KIVA but do not fund loans as part of any group. It is quite heartening though to see that Atheists, Agnostics are at top the list of those with affiliation that are eager to help share money through micro-finance.

KIVA is not a charity.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:18:30 UTC | #868659

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 18 by wisnoskij

Comment 17 by Linda Ward :

I am an active lender @ KIVA but do not fund loans as part of any group. It is quite heartening though to see that Atheists, Agnostics are at top the list of those with affiliation that are eager to help share money through micro-finance.

KIVA is not a charity.

Just looked it up and you are right, apparently the average interest rate for these loans are almost 25%. With that piece of knowledge it seems more like a international criminal enterprise then a charity (I think rates that high are actuality illegal in some countries).

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:24:57 UTC | #868661

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 19 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 8 by wisnoskij

@Ignorant Amos Yes, and you expect a organization that is paid to fight cancer is going to say: "Ya, we are completely failing, stop sending us your money". No they said exactly what any organization in their position, disregarding that facts, would do. They said it is working, but more then ever keep sending us your money.

Ah another conspiracy theorist....a lot of them about on RD.net these days. Here, have some light reading on the subject....."OncoLink Library"

If you actually look (http://cancer2000.net/introduction/cancer_death_rates_m.jpg) at some statistics (http://cancer2000.net/introduction/cancer_death_rates_f.jpg), you would know how idiotic you sound.

No harm to ya, but you are the one sounding "idiotic" here on this site and not for the first time may I add .......

"Bowel & Cancer Research (B&CR) focuses on translational research to foster a direct link between clinically relevant studies and improvements in treatments for patients, in contrast with more basic scientific research concentrating upon understanding disease processes. Translational research transfers the lessons learnt at the laboratory bench directly to the operating theatre or the patient bedside in the form of new diagnostic techniques or treatments. However, this type of research is both costly and time consuming due to the stringent ethical and legal monitoring which governs studies involving tissue taken from patients - or indeed the patients themselves - in the case of surgical innovations."

More propaganda I suppose you'll say?

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:31:42 UTC | #868663

sbooder's Avatar Comment 20 by sbooder

It seems a clear cut case! Just start a charity funding group for people of no faith and vote each year which charity to give the kitty to (if they will take it of course), I really do not need someone to walk round a field for 24 hours (in relay or not) to stimulate the desire to give £25 a year.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:34:50 UTC | #868664

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 21 by Ignorant Amos

Just looked it up and you are right, apparently the average interest rate for these loans are almost 25%. With that piece of knowledge it seems more like a international criminal enterprise then a charity (I think rates that high are actuality illegal in some countries).

Less than a lot of credit cards and a far cry less than...

Representative APR 4214%
*See representative example

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:40:01 UTC | #868667

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 22 by Steve Zara

Comment 15 by wisnoskij

Also this number is directly linked to how many people per capita get cancer in the first place, and I believe that has gone up (which is only another failure of the cancer researchers).

No, it's because of increased health. Cancer is typically a disease of the old. Significantly increased life span means that more people get cancer. It's entirely expected. Also, more people today are dying of cancer than ever before. That's because there are more people. More people are contracting the terminal disease called life.

Although I have had dear friends die of cancer, I have also seen the amazing success of cancer screening and treatments. For example, with screening, a tendency to bowel cancer can become a manageable condition, with regular removal of pre-cancerous growths which typically pre-date the cancer by 5-10 years. Other cancers have now become entirely manageable, such as non-melanoma skin cancers. Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Childhood Leukaemia have become diseases that are more cured than not. With far better diagnosis, we now know that some cancers can be typically relatively harmless and nothing more is needed than keeping a check on things, such as some late-life prostate cancers.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:44:14 UTC | #868669

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 23 by Tyler Durden

Comment 15 by wisnoskij :

Also this number is directly linked to how many people per capita get cancer in the first place, and I believe that has gone up (which is only another failure of the cancer researchers).

According to William B. Coleman & Gregory J. Tsongalis in Molecular Pathology: The Molecular Basis of Human Disease (2009), the most significant risk factor for developing cancer is old age.

How, in the name of Zeus' butthole, is growing old a failure of cancer researchers?

If anything, cancer researchers actively help with prevention, and increased risk:

Physical Exercise and Reduced Risk of Breast Cancer in Young Women - The Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI):

"After adjustment for potential confounding factors, we found that the average number of hours spent in physical exercise activities per week from menarche to 1 year prior to the case patient‘s diagnosis was a significant predictor of reduced breast cancer risk (two-sided P for trend <.0001). The odds ratio (OR) of breast cancer among women who, on average, spent 3.8 or more hours per week participating in physical exercise activities was 0.42 (95%confidence limits [CLs] = 0.27, 0.64) relative to inactive women."

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:03:52 UTC | #868672

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 24 by wisnoskij

"Ah another conspiracy theorist"

I don't see how that is a conspiracy theory, it is just basic marketing. I am not saying that the cancer organizations are undertaking a unified and concerted effort to hide cancer statistics, i am saying they are there for anyone to see. I am not saying that the cancer organizations are hiding their inability to produce results because they want to continue making money, i am simply saying that of course all of their official statements will be positive and employ a minimum of advertising acumen. i am not even trying to say that they have never produced any positive results, but the promised results of continued financial support have been infinity higher then their actual results over the last 30 years. And I would easy say that if you give 10 million dollars to cancer researcher or take it away it will have no effect on any advances or lack there of.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:05:40 UTC | #868673

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 25 by Steve Zara

Comment 24 by wisnoskij

You seem evidence-immune. Considerable evidence for the dramatic success of cancer research and treatment has been posted in response to you, and you have not taken any notice. This site is supposed to be for rational discussion, which means engaging with what is said to you. Simply repeatedly asserting the same thing post after post is little different from preaching, which is really not a good idea here.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:09:02 UTC | #868674

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 26 by wisnoskij

@ Tyler Durden and Steve Zara Of course, I never said that growing old is a failure of cancer research. And everything thing I said I stand behind, but Steve is right to point out this ADDITIONAL point that does not disprove or replace anything I have said.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:09:43 UTC | #868675

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 27 by wisnoskij

@ Steve ZaraP: Where is this evidence, where is the proof that after decades of intense throwing money at the problem and research we have made huge strides and yet it is still a huge cause of death and basically the leading cause of worry to everyone in the West. At the best the results I have seen can be called a low-moderate amount of success.

If we have gotten such huge successes in cancer research then why when i go to a mainstream site like (www.cancer.ca) Do I see titles like "Cancer: the leading cause of death in the country" And statistics like: Current estimates of new cases and deaths

In 2010:
There will be an estimated 173,800 new cases of cancer – an increase of 2,800 from last year.
There will be an estimated 76,200 deaths from cancer – an increase of 900 from last year.

And this is after 10s of billions of dollars per year in funding. If we are making such huge strides then i can only assume that without this research we would of gone extinct by now, because even with it we seem to only be barely holding on to barley above fully blown plague style epidemic levels.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:22:57 UTC | #868679

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 28 by Tyler Durden

Comment 24 by wisnoskij :

And I would easy say that if you give 10 million dollars to cancer researcher or take it away it will have no effect on any advances or lack there of.

Oh good grief.

Your opinion here is worthless. Nobody cares what you think, only what you can show with evidence-based reasoning. For example:

Irish Cancer Society commits €1.2 million to supporting the next generation of cancer researchers in Ireland - 19 Nov 2010

This year’s Research Scholars and Fellows are based at hospitals and universities in Galway, Cork and Dublin, and have all started work on their exciting new research ideas. The research projects range from identifying ways of detecting colon cancer earlier; to investigating the biochemical pathways that protect cancer cells from chemotherapy; and analysing commonly-used medications in the population to identify if they might also have a benefit in preventing or treating cancer:

  • Research Scholar, Lisa Vincenz, is starting experiments in the biochemistry laboratory in NUI, Galway to find out how some cancer cells can be protected from chemotherapy drugs. The aim of her PhD research is to find strategies to interfere with these protective mechanisms in order to sensitise the cancer cells to chemotherapy.

  • Based in University College Cork, William Landry is also commencing his PhD in cancer research and his research scholarship is looking at how by-products of the cell’s normal activity (called reactive oxidants) actually benefit cancer cells. He is specifically looking at how reactive oxidants increase the survival of leukaemia cells, leading to a more aggressive disease and poorer clinical outcome.

  • Research Fellow, Dr Gregor Kijanka, has been working at RCSI then Dublin City University for the past three years and recently discovered a group of cancer specific antibodies that are only found in patients with colon cancer and not in disease-free patients. This discovery paves the way for a potential blood test which can identify patients at early stages of colon cancer, and his Irish Cancer Society research fellowship enables Dr Kijanka to continue this important research.

  • and:

    The Irish Cancer Society is the single largest voluntary funder of cancer research in Ireland and has invested €22 million in cancer research since its establishment. The Society has witnessed considerable success from the research it has funded to date. More than 650 important research findings have been published in over 250 international journals, contributing substantially to the worldwide knowledge of cancer research. Through research funded by the Irish Cancer Society, major advances have been made in the areas of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and leukaemia amongst others.

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:24:18 UTC | #868680

    Daisy Skipper's Avatar Comment 29 by Daisy Skipper

    @wisnoskij

    My first thought after reading your posts was that you should shut up until you have something to contribute to the conversation. But there are likely other misinformed people like yourself lurking in silence.

    So thanks for speaking up and giving well informed people (like Steve, Tyler and IA) the chance to educate you.

    At the very least, if someone is going to take a hard-line view that opposes current research or scientific consensus then the duty is on that person to actually read the studies/stats they quote and be able to articulate a reasonable counter argument.

    I am highly suspicious of any layperson that references a study... they are usually just quoting the title or perhaps the abstract.

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:37:11 UTC | #868682

    Corylus's Avatar Comment 30 by Corylus

    Comment 24 by wisnoskij :

    I am not saying that the cancer organizations are hiding their inability to produce results because they want to continue making money, i am simply saying that of course all of their official statements will be positive and employ a minimum of advertising acumen.

    OK - let's falsify that 'all official statements will be positive'...

    Here (in their statistics on survival trends) Cancer Research UK states openly...

    Cancer Survival - Cancers with no improvement

    For a small group of cancers there were small falls in survival between 1986 and 1999...

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:46:34 UTC | #868686