Atheism’s sexual misconduct problem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

DP. Whooosh—that’s the sound of you missing the comparison between a particular church’s attitude towards depression and the atheist group NAMBLA’s institutionalized support of pedophelia. Or, you’re deliberately missing the particular comparison because you’re dishonest.

Wow. Doubling down on defending sexual abuse by religious leaders. I mean I’ve seen some vile things on DCUM but you and the original PP are the sickest that I can remember. Awful.

I guess this gives me some insight as to how religions perpetuate and protect abusers but it is stomach-turning.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Yes, we can all see it. We can see how the religious PP said that sexual abuse by Dawkins and NAMBLA is “morally worse.” Let’s hope that post stays up a long, long time, because it’s a master class in how religions protected child abusers.

As someone who was abused in the church, it’s absolutely sickening.

That was an atheist talking, you idiot. She was talking about the moral relativity of a church telling her not to seek help for her depression vs. atheist sexual abuse.

Are you the poster who claimed that pointing out atheist sexual abuse is “cherry picking”? Maybe you should turn your outrage on yourself.

So the master class continues. Here we have an outright liar who is trying to gaslight a sexual abuse survivor. The person who used the term “morally worse” is of course religious — we can all read — but in the typical way of religious sexual abuse defenders, attacking a sexual abuse victim and lying about what everyone can see is true is the method of choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are all prominent atheists white, heterosexual males?

I like the clever, but transparent attempt from (what I can only assume to be a believer in organized religion) to attempt to copt the identity politics movement to critique atheism. Are you trying to tie atheists to white supremacy? What is your point other than to muddy the waters of discussion with irrelevance. Are you genuinely offended that many prominent white atheists are white or you trying to be fake woke to serve your religious agenda?

I guess I would retort with why are so many people from 3rd world countries or those with poor human rights statistics into organized religion? Many countries with the best quality of life and equality among all folks have the lowest levels of religion. Look at the Nordic countries. They’re doing pretty well. Pakistan not so much.

DP. No need to co-opt identity politics when we can let a Black atheist speak for herself.

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/20...l-needed-in-organized-atheism/

“Far from being a refuge from religious tyranny, mainstream atheism is just another microcosm of American gender and racial hierarchies. … Defining ourselves, for ourselves, as Black lesbian poet Audre Lorde once said, we’re not content to sit back and let atheism be hijacked by gatekeeping patriarchs. But AAI’s appointment of Silverman foregrounds how the cult of charismatic white male atheist leadership makes mainstream atheism an untenable space for women of color, queer folks, and progressive white women pushing back against the ritual silencing of sexual abuse survivors and business-as-usual cosigning.”

As to your other point, you can’t claim causality between lack of religion leading to economic development. Most international economists (and I’m one) know it goes the other way around. Are you the poster on the other thread who thinks Joshua was a Christian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

DP. Whooosh—that’s the sound of you missing the comparison between a particular church’s attitude towards depression and the atheist group NAMBLA’s institutionalized support of pedophelia. Or, you’re deliberately missing the particular comparison because you’re dishonest.

Wow. Doubling down on defending sexual abuse by religious leaders. I mean I’ve seen some vile things on DCUM but you and the original PP are the sickest that I can remember. Awful.

I guess this gives me some insight as to how religions perpetuate and protect abusers but it is stomach-turning.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Yes, we can all see it. We can see how the religious PP said that sexual abuse by Dawkins and NAMBLA is “morally worse.” Let’s hope that post stays up a long, long time, because it’s a master class in how religions protected child abusers.

As someone who was abused in the church, it’s absolutely sickening.

That was an atheist talking, you idiot. She was talking about the moral relativity of a church telling her not to seek help for her depression vs. atheist sexual abuse.

Are you the poster who claimed that pointing out atheist sexual abuse is “cherry picking”? Maybe you should turn your outrage on yourself.

So the master class continues. Here we have an outright liar who is trying to gaslight a sexual abuse survivor. The person who used the term “morally worse” is of course religious — we can all read — but in the typical way of religious sexual abuse defenders, attacking a sexual abuse victim and lying about what everyone can see is true is the method of choice.

Go away, troll. We can all read and it’s obvious the comparison was between depression and sexual abuse.

Are you embarrassed about your cherry-picking comment?

Are you furious because somebody finally called out atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

DP. Whooosh—that’s the sound of you missing the comparison between a particular church’s attitude towards depression and the atheist group NAMBLA’s institutionalized support of pedophelia. Or, you’re deliberately missing the particular comparison because you’re dishonest.

Wow. Doubling down on defending sexual abuse by religious leaders. I mean I’ve seen some vile things on DCUM but you and the original PP are the sickest that I can remember. Awful.

I guess this gives me some insight as to how religions perpetuate and protect abusers but it is stomach-turning.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Yes, we can all see it. We can see how the religious PP said that sexual abuse by Dawkins and NAMBLA is “morally worse.” Let’s hope that post stays up a long, long time, because it’s a master class in how religions protected child abusers.

As someone who was abused in the church, it’s absolutely sickening.

That was an atheist talking, you idiot. She was talking about the moral relativity of a church telling her not to seek help for her depression vs. atheist sexual abuse.

Are you the poster who claimed that pointing out atheist sexual abuse is “cherry picking”? Maybe you should turn your outrage on yourself.

So the master class continues. Here we have an outright liar who is trying to gaslight a sexual abuse survivor. The person who used the term “morally worse” is of course religious — we can all read — but in the typical way of religious sexual abuse defenders, attacking a sexual abuse victim and lying about what everyone can see is true is the method of choice.

Go away, troll. We can all read and it’s obvious the comparison was between depression and sexual abuse.

Are you embarrassed about your cherry-picking comment?

Are you furious because somebody finally called out atheists?

There's only one furious poster (Pot:kettle). No one else has had any issue with atheist abusers being called out. On the contrary, they've condemned them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

DP. Whooosh—that’s the sound of you missing the comparison between a particular church’s attitude towards depression and the atheist group NAMBLA’s institutionalized support of pedophelia. Or, you’re deliberately missing the particular comparison because you’re dishonest.

Wow. Doubling down on defending sexual abuse by religious leaders. I mean I’ve seen some vile things on DCUM but you and the original PP are the sickest that I can remember. Awful.

I guess this gives me some insight as to how religions perpetuate and protect abusers but it is stomach-turning.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Yes, we can all see it. We can see how the religious PP said that sexual abuse by Dawkins and NAMBLA is “morally worse.” Let’s hope that post stays up a long, long time, because it’s a master class in how religions protected child abusers.

As someone who was abused in the church, it’s absolutely sickening.

That was an atheist talking, you idiot. She was talking about the moral relativity of a church telling her not to seek help for her depression vs. atheist sexual abuse.

Are you the poster who claimed that pointing out atheist sexual abuse is “cherry picking”? Maybe you should turn your outrage on yourself.

So the master class continues. Here we have an outright liar who is trying to gaslight a sexual abuse survivor. The person who used the term “morally worse” is of course religious — we can all read — but in the typical way of religious sexual abuse defenders, attacking a sexual abuse victim and lying about what everyone can see is true is the method of choice.

Go away, troll. We can all read and it’s obvious the comparison was between depression and sexual abuse.

Are you embarrassed about your cherry-picking comment?

Are you furious because somebody finally called out atheists?

There's only one furious poster (Pot:kettle). No one else has had any issue with atheist abusers being called out. On the contrary, they've condemned them.

The “cherry picking” and “whatabout Catholics, huh, huh?” posters obviously had issues with being called out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

No, I’m the PP who said that sexual abuse is worse in a religious institution because there is greater potential for abuse and coverup. I was trying to distinguish between that and the heinousness of any particular instance of abuse. I definitely agree that a group of atheists luring young boys in to abuse then is as bad as priests doing the same; the difference is that with a religious you have an entire organization that includes family members, mentors, community members, etc who abusers can exploit into being complicit because of the power the institution has over them.

And yeah, anybody who said there are atheist organizations with as much power and control over the Mormon church, much less the Catholic Church, probably doesn’t understand the extent of the power of these organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

No, I’m the PP who said that sexual abuse is worse in a religious institution because there is greater potential for abuse and coverup. I was trying to distinguish between that and the heinousness of any particular instance of abuse. I definitely agree that a group of atheists luring young boys in to abuse then is as bad as priests doing the same; the difference is that with a religious you have an entire organization that includes family members, mentors, community members, etc who abusers can exploit into being complicit because of the power the institution has over them.

And yeah, anybody who said there are atheist organizations with as much power and control over the Mormon church, much less the Catholic Church, probably doesn’t understand the extent of the power of these organizations.

The National American Man-Boy Love Association, started by a prominent atheist, is a whole organization and community with power they exploit over young boys. In fact, unlike the church, exploiting power over young boys is the entire mission of NAMBLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are all prominent atheists white, heterosexual males?

I like the clever, but transparent attempt from (what I can only assume to be a believer in organized religion) to attempt to copt the identity politics movement to critique atheism. Are you trying to tie atheists to white supremacy? What is your point other than to muddy the waters of discussion with irrelevance. Are you genuinely offended that many prominent white atheists are white or you trying to be fake woke to serve your religious agenda?

I guess I would retort with why are so many people from 3rd world countries or those with poor human rights statistics into organized religion? Many countries with the best quality of life and equality among all folks have the lowest levels of religion. Look at the Nordic countries. They’re doing pretty well. Pakistan not so much.

DP. No need to co-opt identity politics when we can let a Black atheist speak for herself.

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/20...l-needed-in-organized-atheism/

“Far from being a refuge from religious tyranny, mainstream atheism is just another microcosm of American gender and racial hierarchies. … Defining ourselves, for ourselves, as Black lesbian poet Audre Lorde once said, we’re not content to sit back and let atheism be hijacked by gatekeeping patriarchs. But AAI’s appointment of Silverman foregrounds how the cult of charismatic white male atheist leadership makes mainstream atheism an untenable space for women of color, queer folks, and progressive white women pushing back against the ritual silencing of sexual abuse survivors and business-as-usual cosigning.”

As to your other point, you can’t claim causality between lack of religion leading to economic development. Most international economists (and I’m one) know it goes the other way around. Are you the poster on the other thread who thinks Joshua was a Christian?

Okay, but what is your point? What does that mean for atheism? Are you hoping to reduce the number of atheists by pointing out that many atheists are white? It just seems like a comical way to chip away at atheism, if that’s your aim. Or really what are you getting at? Please explain. Thnx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

No, I’m the PP who said that sexual abuse is worse in a religious institution because there is greater potential for abuse and coverup. I was trying to distinguish between that and the heinousness of any particular instance of abuse. I definitely agree that a group of atheists luring young boys in to abuse then is as bad as priests doing the same; the difference is that with a religious you have an entire organization that includes family members, mentors, community members, etc who abusers can exploit into being complicit because of the power the institution has over them.

And yeah, anybody who said there are atheist organizations with as much power and control over the Mormon church, much less the Catholic Church, probably doesn’t understand the extent of the power of these organizations.

The National American Man-Boy Love Association, started by a prominent atheist, is a whole organization and community with power they exploit over young boys. In fact, unlike the church, exploiting power over young boys is the entire mission of NAMBLA.

The Christian Faith, started by a prominent person who told people they were the son of God, is a whole organization and community with power they exploit over young boys. In fact, unlike atheism, exploiting power over young boys is the entire mission of a huge number of priests within the church.

[Anonymous]

Did Atheists buy Supreme Court seats and make man/boy legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did Atheists buy Supreme Court seats and make man/boy legal?

Huh? Who cares. Atheists founded NAMBLA with the exclusive mission of exploiting young boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

DP. Whooosh—that’s the sound of you missing the comparison between a particular church’s attitude towards depression and the atheist group NAMBLA’s institutionalized support of pedophelia. Or, you’re deliberately missing the particular comparison because you’re dishonest.

Wow. Doubling down on defending sexual abuse by religious leaders. I mean I’ve seen some vile things on DCUM but you and the original PP are the sickest that I can remember. Awful.

I guess this gives me some insight as to how religions perpetuate and protect abusers but it is stomach-turning.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Yes, we can all see it. We can see how the religious PP said that sexual abuse by Dawkins and NAMBLA is “morally worse.” Let’s hope that post stays up a long, long time, because it’s a master class in how religions protected child abusers.

As someone who was abused in the church, it’s absolutely sickening.

That was an atheist talking, you idiot. She was talking about the moral relativity of a church telling her not to seek help for her depression vs. atheist sexual abuse.

Are you the poster who claimed that pointing out atheist sexual abuse is “cherry picking”? Maybe you should turn your outrage on yourself.

So the master class continues. Here we have an outright liar who is trying to gaslight a sexual abuse survivor. The person who used the term “morally worse” is of course religious — we can all read — but in the typical way of religious sexual abuse defenders, attacking a sexual abuse victim and lying about what everyone can see is true is the method of choice.

Go away, troll. We can all read and it’s obvious the comparison was between depression and sexual abuse.

Are you embarrassed about your cherry-picking comment?

Are you furious because somebody finally called out atheists?

It’s weird that you think you’re “calling out atheists” and yet present no concrete evidence of molestations on a mass scale, the likes of which I could easily reproduce for you in 5 minutes. It’s like you want so badly to validate a poorly reasoned hypothesis.

I mean here are just a few of the massive scandals. In each of these cases the church fights tooth and nail to protect abusers, mainly clergy. The scale is orders of magnitude worse than whatever you accuse gross azz nambla of doing.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117362904/southern-baptists-doj-investigation-sexual-abuse

Or this https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/10/5/awful-truth-child-sex-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

Or this in Canada: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/25/1113498723/pope-francis-apology-canada-residential-schools-indigenous-children

Or 30,000 children in Ireland: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims

And you come in here with an organization with no roster or amount of members you can point to as your main source of evidence that atheists “are worse”.
It’s comical. The church is full of repressed men who rape children, and who are shielded by top level clergy, and then forgiven by their parish or flock, and you try to compare? This is the dumbest thread ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Atheists buy Supreme Court seats and make man/boy legal?

Huh? Who cares. Atheists founded NAMBLA with the exclusive mission of exploiting young boys.

I wonder how many catholic orphanages can trace their origins to similar motives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Atheists buy Supreme Court seats and make man/boy legal?

Huh? Who cares. Atheists founded NAMBLA with the exclusive mission of exploiting young boys.

Your own church is worse as evidence by the news link in the post above, the fact that the church shielded or shuffled around priests to different diocese, and that there has been no reckoning. So whatever point you keep trying to make isn’t really working. The church is the real source of sexual predators. It’s because of sexual repression. It’s disgusting that you keep giving money to an organization full of sexual
Predators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not reading all the comments but it’s worse when an acceptance of the abuse and a refusal to report abuse is tied to God—to your membership in the only community you have ever known, to going to heaven (and for Mormons that means being with your family after you die), and sometimes keeping your job (if you work for the church or BYU).

I was never in a situation involving but I did some messed up things to myself and others because I was brainwashed into thinking I had to. Like I believed that my depression was my fault and instead of getting out of bad situations I felt like a terrible person, things like that. It’s the same concept with abuse, your gut might tell you to report but you have handed over your idea of right and wrong to the institution, so you just do what the institution tells you to do.

I’m sorry for your situation. Some religions do tell you to fix your own mental issues, and that’s wrong.

To me it’s morally worse, though, when a small boy is lured into a pedophile situation by an atheist group like NAMBLA or Dawkins thinking “mild” pedophelia is acceptable (apparently Dawkins’ teachers groped him in boarding school and he thinks that was ok). To me, this is on the same level as pedo priests—worse, even, because NAMBLA is an organization with the sole purpose of promoting pedophelia.

I don’t mean worse as a moral matter, I mean worse in terms of potential for abuse.

Nice backpedaling. We can all read your defense of religious sexual abusers ourselves, thanks.

No, I’m the PP who said that sexual abuse is worse in a religious institution because there is greater potential for abuse and coverup. I was trying to distinguish between that and the heinousness of any particular instance of abuse. I definitely agree that a group of atheists luring young boys in to abuse then is as bad as priests doing the same; the difference is that with a religious you have an entire organization that includes family members, mentors, community members, etc who abusers can exploit into being complicit because of the power the institution has over them.

And yeah, anybody who said there are atheist organizations with as much power and control over the Mormon church, much less the Catholic Church, probably doesn’t understand the extent of the power of these organizations.

The National American Man-Boy Love Association, started by a prominent atheist, is a whole organization and community with power they exploit over young boys. In fact, unlike the church, exploiting power over young boys is the entire mission of NAMBLA.

The Christian Faith, started by a prominent person who told people they were the son of God, is a whole organization and community with power they exploit over young boys. In fact, unlike atheism, exploiting power over young boys is the entire mission of a huge number of priests within the church.

Huge number? About 3,000 priests worldwide have been investigated for sexual abuse. Today there are 415,000 priests worldwide, and obviously that number is higher if you include priests who were in parishes going back to the 1950s when some of these 3,000 cases happened.

You do the math.

Don’t twist my words; even 3,000 is horrific and way too much.

But in terms of percentages of each group, this actually seems like a smaller share than the number of prominent atheists with sexual abuse issues. Like Silverman, Thorstad, Harris defending the physicist, or Richard “a little pedophilia isn’t bad” Dawkins.