Atheism’s sexual misconduct problem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

Okay, Dawkins is as bad as all the religious organizations that supported child abusers and the religious sexual abusers. I agree with you. He is a terrible person. NAMBLA is also terrible and should be disallowed and its members prosecuted. In fact, I fully support the complete disbanding and dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, caused, or contributed to sexual abuse, and the full prosecution of the members who committed abuse.

Now, if you truly are against child sexual abuse, please say the same thing. Please commit to supporting the complete dissolution of any organizations that supported, hid, or otherwise caused child sexual abuse, and the prosecution of its members.

But you won’t, because you actually support child sexual abuse in religious organizations, which is vile. Your refusal to support the complete dissolution of any child-molesting organizations is despicable. You are disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually kind of nice to see a religious poster being open about how religious organizations are equivalent to NAMBLA. That’s unusually honest. Usually they want to hide the history of sexual abuse in religious organizations.

OP here. Thanks. But I need to correct you (again—please stop with the distortions already).

It’s equivalent to atheism in general. Including the two atheist orgs who hired that predatory sleazeball and secular organizations like the Boy Scouts, schools, and sports.

What's this nonsense about the Boy Scouts being secular? The Boy Scouts has a religious component. They even have a "duty to god" requirement. https://troopleader.scouting.org/information-duty-to-god/

Did you not know that?

It's one reason I've always felt uncomfortable about it as an organization. My kid doesn't need this:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God…

Sorry, he has no "obligation to god."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

I have no idea who Dawkins is.

--atheist who doesn't spend any time thinking about atheism or religion at all. Living my best spiritual-free life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually kind of nice to see a religious poster being open about how religious organizations are equivalent to NAMBLA. That’s unusually honest. Usually they want to hide the history of sexual abuse in religious organizations.

OP here. Thanks. But I need to correct you (again—please stop with the distortions already).

It’s equivalent to atheism in general. Including the two atheist orgs who hired that predatory sleazeball and secular organizations like the Boy Scouts, schools, and sports.

What distortions? You are the one accurately observing that religious organizations are like NAMBLA. I agree with you. In fact I think you’ve made a very spot-on assessment. I also agree with you that Boy Scouts are like NAMBLA. We agree.

Churches, NAMBLA, and Boy Scouts are all organizations that have promulgated child sexual abuse and protected abusers in their ranks. That’s a fact that we agree upon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

Okay, Dawkins is as bad as all the religious organizations that supported child abusers and the religious sexual abusers. I agree with you. He is a terrible person. NAMBLA is also terrible and should be disallowed and its members prosecuted. In fact, I fully support the complete disbanding and dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, caused, or contributed to sexual abuse, and the full prosecution of the members who committed abuse.

Now, if you truly are against child sexual abuse, please say the same thing. Please commit to supporting the complete dissolution of any organizations that supported, hid, or otherwise caused child sexual abuse, and the prosecution of its members.

But you won’t, because you actually support child sexual abuse in religious organizations, which is vile. Your refusal to support the complete dissolution of any child-molesting organizations is despicable. You are disgusting.

DP. Agreed.

Dawkins is terrible. NAMBLA is horrific. Any organization -- including religious ones -- that has systematically covered up the abuse of children is vile.

So, you sign into that as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually kind of nice to see a religious poster being open about how religious organizations are equivalent to NAMBLA. That’s unusually honest. Usually they want to hide the history of sexual abuse in religious organizations.

OP here. Thanks. But I need to correct you (again—please stop with the distortions already).

It’s equivalent to atheism in general. Including the two atheist orgs who hired that predatory sleazeball and secular organizations like the Boy Scouts, schools, and sports.

NP - “atheism in general” isn’t a thing. If that’s what your central argument is based around, it’s a non-starter. Atheists, by definition, are not members of organized religions. Boy Scouts isn’t an atheist organization solely because it’s secular, for example. You’re not making the point you think you’re making.

Trying to claim atheists “aren't organized” is such a red herring and it’s not winning you any arguments. We’re talking about the behavior of individual atheist leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

Okay, Dawkins is as bad as all the religious organizations that supported child abusers and the religious sexual abusers. I agree with you. He is a terrible person. NAMBLA is also terrible and should be disallowed and its members prosecuted. In fact, I fully support the complete disbanding and dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, caused, or contributed to sexual abuse, and the full prosecution of the members who committed abuse.

Now, if you truly are against child sexual abuse, please say the same thing. Please commit to supporting the complete dissolution of any organizations that supported, hid, or otherwise caused child sexual abuse, and the prosecution of its members.

But you won’t, because you actually support child sexual abuse in religious organizations, which is vile. Your refusal to support the complete dissolution of any child-molesting organizations is despicable. You are disgusting.

I’ve said many, many time on this thread that church sexual abuse is terrible. I called it “horrific” just a page ago. Even though I’m not Catholic or LDS or whoever else and this isn’t my wheelhouse.

How many times do I need to say this? I already suspected you don’t read posts that don’t support your existing biases, and this confirms it.

By contrast, it’s taken pages to get even one of you to say Dawkins might not be a solid citizen, and at least one of you is still going with “Dawkins who? not my problem.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

Okay, Dawkins is as bad as all the religious organizations that supported child abusers and the religious sexual abusers. I agree with you. He is a terrible person. NAMBLA is also terrible and should be disallowed and its members prosecuted. In fact, I fully support the complete disbanding and dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, caused, or contributed to sexual abuse, and the full prosecution of the members who committed abuse.

Now, if you truly are against child sexual abuse, please say the same thing. Please commit to supporting the complete dissolution of any organizations that supported, hid, or otherwise caused child sexual abuse, and the prosecution of its members.

But you won’t, because you actually support child sexual abuse in religious organizations, which is vile. Your refusal to support the complete dissolution of any child-molesting organizations is despicable. You are disgusting.

DP. Agreed.

Dawkins is terrible. NAMBLA is horrific. Any organization -- including religious ones -- that has systematically covered up the abuse of children is vile.

So, you sign into that as well?

K
See my post immediately above. I’ve agreed multiple times. Do you not read other peoples’ posts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

Okay, Dawkins is as bad as all the religious organizations that supported child abusers and the religious sexual abusers. I agree with you. He is a terrible person. NAMBLA is also terrible and should be disallowed and its members prosecuted. In fact, I fully support the complete disbanding and dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, caused, or contributed to sexual abuse, and the full prosecution of the members who committed abuse.

Now, if you truly are against child sexual abuse, please say the same thing. Please commit to supporting the complete dissolution of any organizations that supported, hid, or otherwise caused child sexual abuse, and the prosecution of its members.

But you won’t, because you actually support child sexual abuse in religious organizations, which is vile. Your refusal to support the complete dissolution of any child-molesting organizations is despicable. You are disgusting.

I’ve said many, many time on this thread that church sexual abuse is terrible. I called it “horrific” just a page ago. Even though I’m not Catholic or LDS or whoever else and this isn’t my wheelhouse.

How many times do I need to say this? I already suspected you don’t read posts that don’t support your existing biases, and this confirms it.

By contrast, it’s taken pages to get even one of you to say Dawkins might not be a solid citizen, and at least one of you is still going with “Dawkins who? not my problem.”

You are avoiding the question. Do you support the immediate and complete dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, or otherwise tolerated child sexual abuse? Yes or no question and it’s a straightforward one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men (people?) who want to tell other people how to think and behave also are often sexually coercive.

In other news, water is wet.

Men gonna men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

Okay, Dawkins is as bad as all the religious organizations that supported child abusers and the religious sexual abusers. I agree with you. He is a terrible person. NAMBLA is also terrible and should be disallowed and its members prosecuted. In fact, I fully support the complete disbanding and dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, caused, or contributed to sexual abuse, and the full prosecution of the members who committed abuse.

Now, if you truly are against child sexual abuse, please say the same thing. Please commit to supporting the complete dissolution of any organizations that supported, hid, or otherwise caused child sexual abuse, and the prosecution of its members.

But you won’t, because you actually support child sexual abuse in religious organizations, which is vile. Your refusal to support the complete dissolution of any child-molesting organizations is despicable. You are disgusting.

I’ve said many, many time on this thread that church sexual abuse is terrible. I called it “horrific” just a page ago. Even though I’m not Catholic or LDS or whoever else and this isn’t my wheelhouse.

How many times do I need to say this? I already suspected you don’t read posts that don’t support your existing biases, and this confirms it.

By contrast, it’s taken pages to get even one of you to say Dawkins might not be a solid citizen, and at least one of you is still going with “Dawkins who? not my problem.”

You are avoiding the question. Do you support the immediate and complete dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, or otherwise tolerated child sexual abuse? Yes or no question and it’s a straightforward one.

“Deflection” must be your middle name. But to answer your new question, it depends on the institution: in some cases it’s better to work from change from inside, while in other cases dissolution is warranted, like NAMBLA, which only exists to promote man-boy love.

I also support cancelling Dawkins and Harris for their support of pedophila or pedophiles, and that Silverman guy at the two atheist orgs. Although true to your dishonest rhetorical style, you didn’t ask about them

[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?

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.

Fck dawkins! What is your odd obsession with this one person who isn’t the leading anything in the atheist movement????

No one cares about fking dawkins except you!

We care about the hundreds of thousands of kids molested by priests which is orders of magnitude worse than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Equivalent to atheists in general, you mean. Why you guys keep trying to discount abuse in schools, sports, the Boy Scouts, the atheist orgs who hired that sexual predator, and Dawkins is a mystery. But those remain as facts.

* and families. The only thing atheists have to help them is that nobody collects stats on the religion, or lack thereof, of abusers in these secular organizations. But these are secular organizations.

Stats on atheism “the religion”. Lol must be Covid fog brain around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. There were no actual purchasers for Dawkins’ best-selling books. People turn off their TVs when he comes on. Nobody attends his many, many lectures.

You people are despicable, trying to downplay his role in atheism in order to wave your hands at his support for pedophila.

Okay, Dawkins is as bad as all the religious organizations that supported child abusers and the religious sexual abusers. I agree with you. He is a terrible person. NAMBLA is also terrible and should be disallowed and its members prosecuted. In fact, I fully support the complete disbanding and dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, caused, or contributed to sexual abuse, and the full prosecution of the members who committed abuse.

Now, if you truly are against child sexual abuse, please say the same thing. Please commit to supporting the complete dissolution of any organizations that supported, hid, or otherwise caused child sexual abuse, and the prosecution of its members.

But you won’t, because you actually support child sexual abuse in religious organizations, which is vile. Your refusal to support the complete dissolution of any child-molesting organizations is despicable. You are disgusting.

I’ve said many, many time on this thread that church sexual abuse is terrible. I called it “horrific” just a page ago. Even though I’m not Catholic or LDS or whoever else and this isn’t my wheelhouse.

How many times do I need to say this? I already suspected you don’t read posts that don’t support your existing biases, and this confirms it.

By contrast, it’s taken pages to get even one of you to say Dawkins might not be a solid citizen, and at least one of you is still going with “Dawkins who? not my problem.”

You are avoiding the question. Do you support the immediate and complete dissolution of any organizations that have supported, hidden, or otherwise tolerated child sexual abuse? Yes or no question and it’s a straightforward one.

“Deflection” must be your middle name. But to answer your new question, it depends on the institution: in some cases it’s better to work from change from inside, while in other cases dissolution is warranted, like NAMBLA, which only exists to promote man-boy love.

I also support cancelling Dawkins and Harris for their support of pedophila or pedophiles, and that Silverman guy at the two atheist orgs. Although true to your dishonest rhetorical style, you didn’t ask about them

So the church gets unlimited passes essentially. Let me guess “it’s always better to work for change from within” if it’s the particular brand of religion that you happen to believe. Lol.

It’s comically disgusting that people tithe money to child molesters, but hey they want to buy their place in heaven, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Fck dawkins! What is your odd obsession with this one person who isn’t the leading anything in the atheist movement????

No one cares about fking dawkins except you!

We care about the hundreds of thousands of kids molested by priests which is orders of magnitude worse than anything else.

You’re being completely dishonest when you say Dawkins doesn’t “lead” anything. He may not lead an organization, but millions of people have read his books or heard his lectures, including the talk where he said mild pedophilia was ok.