Atheism’s sexual misconduct problem

[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.

But do you have to be an atheist to join? I’m certain they would welcome members of any religion. That gives the lie to the idea that it is an “atheist organization.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But do you have to be an atheist to join? I’m certain they would welcome members of any religion. That gives the lie to the idea that it is an “atheist organization.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

So the leading atheist sanctions pedophelia in schools. Is there a single one of you who wants to say this is maybe, possibly, not a great thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being rich does not mean you are happy or living a good life. Anyone who thinks that has never visited a 3rd world country. Although the people there have great hardship and suffering, they love their families and find joy in small things and are not materialistic.

Nobody will address the FBI and DOJ covering up systematic sexual abuse of Larry Nassar…

Sexual abuse occurs percentage wise highest in families. Not church.

Oh good lord, patronize much?


And no, nobody will address Nassar at all, just the poor churches.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1001325.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/405/696886.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1063204.page

DP. Thanks for the links to threads from 2018, 2021 and June 2022, but the age and rarity of these links compared to the daily church bashing hardly support your claim that Nassar gets equal treatment.

Your own words: Nobody will address the FBI and DOJ covering up systematic sexual abuse of Larry Nassar.

And in 30 seconds, I handed you links (there are more) disproving that statement.

You made the false claims here.

[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.

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.

Your napkin math for all the molestations is impressive. I mean you name 4 individual atheists and then talk about nambla as a problem but offer no concrete figures at all. Its clear you must have a PhD in stats from Harvard and didn’t just throw some sht together in 3 minutes. Did you get a chance to read the articles mentioning hundreds of thousands of molestations by priests? You should check them out. There are real numbers in them.

PP had faith that her math works out.

None of you atheists understand ratios or percentages, do you? I feel bad about your innumeracy.

I understands percentages and I also follow the news and provided 4 links in previous posts. Each link showed that hundreds of thousands of children were molested by clergy. And you seem to be fixated on how it’s only 3 or 4% of priests molesting kids, which is so gross and reflects so poorly on you that if it wasn’t sad it would be funny. And you basically throw out an assumption that “atheists” are worse without any sort of quantification or metrics. I provided you concrete evidence.

Part of me thinks you are defending your church at any cost because you believe God thinks that what you should do. Or you’re so indoctrinated that you feel a compulsive need to denigrate atheists at any cost through constant whataboutism and “facts” without evidence. You have no way of proving more atheists are child molesters other than your own opinion and sort of alluding that Richard Dawkins said something about pedophilia being okay. If this was a high school debate, your team would lose.

Can you talk about anyone the articles I sent that detail the investigations into churchs all over the globe and the hundred of thousands of poor children affected by trusting clergy? I bet you can’t because it’s too much of a logic pretzel and your own cognitive dissonance prevents you from acknowledging it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

How many kids have been abused as a result of that vs. how many boys have been raped by scout leaders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being rich does not mean you are happy or living a good life. Anyone who thinks that has never visited a 3rd world country. Although the people there have great hardship and suffering, they love their families and find joy in small things and are not materialistic.

Nobody will address the FBI and DOJ covering up systematic sexual abuse of Larry Nassar…

Sexual abuse occurs percentage wise highest in families. Not church.

Oh good lord, patronize much?


And no, nobody will address Nassar at all, just the poor churches.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1001325.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/405/696886.page

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1063204.page

DP. Thanks for the links to threads from 2018, 2021 and June 2022, but the age and rarity of these links compared to the daily church bashing hardly support your claim that Nassar gets equal treatment.

Your own words: Nobody will address the FBI and DOJ covering up systematic sexual abuse of Larry Nassar.

And in 30 seconds, I handed you links (there are more) disproving that statement.

You made the false claims here.

I’m a DP and that wasn’t my claim. Count several of us unimpressed by three dated links.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

So the leading atheist sanctions pedophelia in schools. Is there a single one of you who wants to say this is maybe, possibly, not a great thing?

Richard Dawkins is not “the leading atheist” and you saying it doesn’t make it true. He wrote several prominent books on atheism and is an egotistical prck. One person does not reflect atheism in total. His opinion, or whatever stupid comment he made, does not prove atheism promulgates child molestation. Let me dumb it down for you because you seem to like having a central masthead to castigate. Richard Dawkins is not our infallible pope figure. Understand?

Please read the articles I sent on the hundreds of thousands of provable cases of molestation and then re-examine your ideas and then come to us with better posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

How many kids have been abused as a result of that vs. how many boys have been raped by scout leaders?

Exactly. These are organization where men are placed in positions of power over children. In the case of the church, it’s sex starved men who have ultimate power over developing minds. In the past many gay men went into the priesthood as well because it was a sort of safe haven. I love gay people so I am not denigrating them, but really the whole concept of a guilt ridden religion that forces men into an unnatural state of celibacy out of piety is dangerous and breeds molestation. Obviously, perverts are also attracted to the scouts because they have power over young boys. Don’t even get me started on the antigay nature of the Boy Scouts ethos as well. I think both organization should be disbanded.

People should be able to worship God or not, but mainly operate on the Golden rule in general. I hate religions that are dogmatic and have weird stifling requirements like the Catholic Church. Those strict requirements are a recipe for molestation.

[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.

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.

Your napkin math for all the molestations is impressive. I mean you name 4 individual atheists and then talk about nambla as a problem but offer no concrete figures at all. Its clear you must have a PhD in stats from Harvard and didn’t just throw some sht together in 3 minutes. Did you get a chance to read the articles mentioning hundreds of thousands of molestations by priests? You should check them out. There are real numbers in them.

PP had faith that her math works out.

None of you atheists understand ratios or percentages, do you? I feel bad about your innumeracy.

I understands percentages and I also follow the news and provided 4 links in previous posts. Each link showed that hundreds of thousands of children were molested by clergy. And you seem to be fixated on how it’s only 3 or 4% of priests molesting kids, which is so gross and reflects so poorly on you that if it wasn’t sad it would be funny. And you basically throw out an assumption that “atheists” are worse without any sort of quantification or metrics. I provided you concrete evidence.

Part of me thinks you are defending your church at any cost because you believe God thinks that what you should do. Or you’re so indoctrinated that you feel a compulsive need to denigrate atheists at any cost through constant whataboutism and “facts” without evidence. You have no way of proving more atheists are child molesters other than your own opinion and sort of alluding that Richard Dawkins said something about pedophilia being okay. If this was a high school debate, your team would lose.

Can you talk about anyone the articles I sent that detail the investigations into churchs all over the globe and the hundred of thousands of poor children affected by trusting clergy? I bet you can’t because it’s too much of a logic pretzel and your own cognitive dissonance prevents you from acknowledging it.

Wow, where to start here.

Stats 101: if you’re talking about the prevalence of sexual abuse, you need to do it on a per capita (percentage) basis not a raw numbers basis. That’s really basic. This thread is about prevalence, per capita numbers are absolutely the only correct way to make this comparison.

Re the raw numbers in clergy abuse: I and others have said they’re terrible. We’ve said this multiple times. In my post that you’re quoting I used the word “horrific.” So you can stop already with the accusations that we’re “defending” this behavior or “don’t care.” That’s patently false and frankly makes you look dishonest.

Finally, I’m not Catholic or LDS, so I’m not “defending my church.” I’m just an onlooker who is sick of the bigotry and distortions that make this forum unusable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

So the leading atheist sanctions pedophelia in schools. Is there a single one of you who wants to say this is maybe, possibly, not a great thing?

Richard Dawkins is not “the leading atheist” and you saying it doesn’t make it true. He wrote several prominent books on atheism and is an egotistical prck. One person does not reflect atheism in total. His opinion, or whatever stupid comment he made, does not prove atheism promulgates child molestation. Let me dumb it down for you because you seem to like having a central masthead to castigate. Richard Dawkins is not our infallible pope figure. Understand?

Please read the articles I sent on the hundreds of thousands of provable cases of molestation and then re-examine your ideas and then come to us with better posts.

So, you still refuse to condemn Dawkins.

Also, you don’t care that the atheist who has published the most books and has the most speaking engagements condones pedophilia in schools.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

How many kids have been abused as a result of that vs. how many boys have been raped by scout leaders?

This is just sleazy. Now you’re relying on the fact that we’ll never know. Because nobody collects stats on the atheism or religion of school and familial abusers.

Also remarkable: you still haven’t condemned Dawkins or this particular statement of his.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

How many kids have been abused as a result of that vs. how many boys have been raped by scout leaders?

This is just sleazy. Now you’re relying on the fact that we’ll never know. Because nobody collects stats on the atheism or religion of school and familial abusers.

Also remarkable: you still haven’t condemned Dawkins or this particular statement of his.

I can almost guarantee that no parent heard what Dawkins said and told little Timmy that it's all ok. Meanwhile, we know what the scouts perpetrated thanks to extensive discovery and investigations

[Anonymous]

What’s interesting about this thread is that OP has mostly established that the Catholic Church is equivalent to NAMBLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has criticized Dawkins for supporting “moderate” pedophilia. Is he off-limits or something?

No one cares about Dawkins. He’s just some random dude. I only heard about him from the atheist bashers on DCUM.

Who said atheists take sexual abuse by atheists—in this case, the world’s most prominent atheist—seriously? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

Does anyone excuse his actions? Is he in a position to have power over children like a priest of a boy scout leader?

Dawkins was talking about his own experiences being groped by a teacher at boarding school and said it wasn’t so bad. He concluded from that that “mild” pedophila was OK. Do you think no teachers listened to that?

How many kids have been abused as a result of that vs. how many boys have been raped by scout leaders?

This is just sleazy. Now you’re relying on the fact that we’ll never know. Because nobody collects stats on the atheism or religion of school and familial abusers.

Also remarkable: you still haven’t condemned Dawkins or this particular statement of his.

I can almost guarantee that no parent heard what Dawkins said and told little Timmy that it's all ok. Meanwhile, we know what the scouts perpetrated thanks to extensive discovery and investigations

Wow this is despicable.

You totally sidestep the teacher issue and try to deflect to parents. As if any parent, ever, told their kids that being sexually abused was OK. Do you think you’re clever? Because this is kindergarten-level debate.

Still waiting for your condemnation of Dawkins and what he said. Why is this like pulling teeth?