Atheism’s sexual misconduct problem

[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.

Yes, answer this question.

The church (many different offshoots as well) systematically, and have a well documented, history of downplaying, discrediting victims, and shuffling around pedophile priests to other parishes, where they repeat offend. This is not a secret. Read some of the cases from the massive investigations of the last few years. So many priests were simply quietly moved from one church to another. There was so much forgiveness from senior clergy so as not to embarrass the church. It only took massive pressure and media attention for any real transparency.

So you come on here bashing nambla, which we are all aware is disgusting and shouldn’t exist, but you won’t say the same about pedophile hiding Catholicism, or Ted Haggard harboring, or all the other church related stuff? Why won’t you disavow an organization with such a poor track record and so much damage done to some many children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Reading and derailment fail. 1. People have answered your questions about churches at least a dozen times on this thread. Go back and read them.
2. This isn’t a thread about religion, there are already plenty of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are no atheist leaders. We don't have a Head of Atheism. Some people have organizations where they talk about atheism, apparently, but that's their own thing. And yes, if those organizations support or conceal child abuse, they should be dismantled and disavowed.

[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 you want to preserve child-molesting organizations when they are religious organizations. Got it. Well, we aren’t going to agree on moral matters, that is for sure.

I fully support cancellation of Dawkins, Silverman, and Harris, of course, but you already knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Reading and derailment fail. 1. People have answered your questions about churches at least a dozen times on this thread. Go back and read them.
2. This isn’t a thread about religion, there are already plenty of those.

So in summary, yes.

[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.

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?

No, I don't pre-read then before you post them.

I have condemned any child sexual abuse on this thread at least as many times as you have spoken against the religious. Those were posts pages ago. Did you not read them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dawkins is an author of atheist books and he also said mild pedophilia is okay. That doesn’t make him the leader of the atheist movement. You so badly want that to be true, and you keep harping on it like a broken record, but it simply isn’t. He is not the pope. The pope on the other hand leads a millions strong organization that definitely has a clear and concrete history of child molestation to the tune of hundreds (maybe millions through the centuries) of children and yet you can’t simply disavow the pedastry of the church and agree that it should be disbanded. Why is that? Because you’re a zealot and your attempts at deflection are transparent and don’t stand up to scrutiny.

[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.

Yes, answer this question.

The church (many different offshoots as well) systematically, and have a well documented, history of downplaying, discrediting victims, and shuffling around pedophile priests to other parishes, where they repeat offend. This is not a secret. Read some of the cases from the massive investigations of the last few years. So many priests were simply quietly moved from one church to another. There was so much forgiveness from senior clergy so as not to embarrass the church. It only took massive pressure and media attention for any real transparency.

So you come on here bashing nambla, which we are all aware is disgusting and shouldn’t exist, but you won’t say the same about pedophile hiding Catholicism, or Ted Haggard harboring, or all the other church related stuff? Why won’t you disavow an organization with such a poor track record and so much damage done to some many children?

She answered it. She supports keeping organizations intact that support pedophilia so long as they are called “churches.” It is a morally disgusting position of course, but that is her belief.

[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.

Yes, answer this question.

The church (many different offshoots as well) systematically, and have a well documented, history of downplaying, discrediting victims, and shuffling around pedophile priests to other parishes, where they repeat offend. This is not a secret. Read some of the cases from the massive investigations of the last few years. So many priests were simply quietly moved from one church to another. There was so much forgiveness from senior clergy so as not to embarrass the church. It only took massive pressure and media attention for any real transparency.

So you come on here bashing nambla, which we are all aware is disgusting and shouldn’t exist, but you won’t say the same about pedophile hiding Catholicism, or Ted Haggard harboring, or all the other church related stuff? Why won’t you disavow an organization with such a poor track record and so much damage done to some many children?

OMFG.

1. Atheist sexual misconduct isn’t just about NAMBLA. Stop hiding behind NAMBLA, it’s cowardly and dishonest.

2. Multiple people including me have condemned religious pedophilia on this thread. Despite the fact that this isn’t a thread about religious abuse and there are plenty of DCUM threads about religious abuse already.

3. If you really want to talk about religion and abuse, stop trying to derail this thread and instead start yet another thread on that. See if you get any takers who think discussing the issue with dishonest trolls would be a productive use of their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dawkins is an author of atheist books and he also said mild pedophilia is okay. That doesn’t make him the leader of the atheist movement. You so badly want that to be true, and you keep harping on it like a broken record, but it simply isn’t. He is not the pope. The pope on the other hand leads a millions strong organization that definitely has a clear and concrete history of child molestation to the tune of hundreds (maybe millions through the centuries) of children and yet you can’t simply disavow the pedastry of the church and agree that it should be disbanded. Why is that? Because you’re a zealot and your attempts at deflection are transparent and don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Puhleeze, could you be any more dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, answer this question.

The church (many different offshoots as well) systematically, and have a well documented, history of downplaying, discrediting victims, and shuffling around pedophile priests to other parishes, where they repeat offend. This is not a secret. Read some of the cases from the massive investigations of the last few years. So many priests were simply quietly moved from one church to another. There was so much forgiveness from senior clergy so as not to embarrass the church. It only took massive pressure and media attention for any real transparency.

So you come on here bashing nambla, which we are all aware is disgusting and shouldn’t exist, but you won’t say the same about pedophile hiding Catholicism, or Ted Haggard harboring, or all the other church related stuff? Why won’t you disavow an organization with such a poor track record and so much damage done to some many children?

She answered it. She supports keeping organizations intact that support pedophilia so long as they are called “churches.” It is a morally disgusting position of course, but that is her belief.

Are you proud of being a lying troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, answer this question.

The church (many different offshoots as well) systematically, and have a well documented, history of downplaying, discrediting victims, and shuffling around pedophile priests to other parishes, where they repeat offend. This is not a secret. Read some of the cases from the massive investigations of the last few years. So many priests were simply quietly moved from one church to another. There was so much forgiveness from senior clergy so as not to embarrass the church. It only took massive pressure and media attention for any real transparency.

So you come on here bashing nambla, which we are all aware is disgusting and shouldn’t exist, but you won’t say the same about pedophile hiding Catholicism, or Ted Haggard harboring, or all the other church related stuff? Why won’t you disavow an organization with such a poor track record and so much damage done to some many children?

OMFG.

1. Atheist sexual misconduct isn’t just about NAMBLA. Stop hiding behind NAMBLA, it’s cowardly and dishonest.

2. Multiple people including me have condemned religious pedophilia on this thread. Despite the fact that this isn’t a thread about religious abuse and there are plenty of DCUM threads about religious abuse already.

3. If you really want to talk about religion and abuse, stop trying to derail this thread and instead start yet another thread on that. See if you get any takers who think discussing the issue with dishonest trolls would be a productive use of their time.

You kicked off this thread with a focus on nambla, so I’m not “hiding behind” anything. Got any more super great example of atheist pedophiles? Let’s hear em? Hitler? Mussolini? We’re all breathless waiting for you to expound on the millions of atheist pedophiles.

I mean we’re over in reality, presenting you endless tangible and verified cases of church led pedophilia, but would really like to see what aces up your sleeve you’ve got. We all agree Dawkins is a piece of sht, I guess. His comment was gross, but at least there is no proof he actually molested a child unlike all the priest stories in the news linked in includes in previous threads, but please post your atheist figures. We’ll wait. Or we’re you just starting a thread with a shoddy example because you’re playing 4d chess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, answer this question.

The church (many different offshoots as well) systematically, and have a well documented, history of downplaying, discrediting victims, and shuffling around pedophile priests to other parishes, where they repeat offend. This is not a secret. Read some of the cases from the massive investigations of the last few years. So many priests were simply quietly moved from one church to another. There was so much forgiveness from senior clergy so as not to embarrass the church. It only took massive pressure and media attention for any real transparency.

So you come on here bashing nambla, which we are all aware is disgusting and shouldn’t exist, but you won’t say the same about pedophile hiding Catholicism, or Ted Haggard harboring, or all the other church related stuff? Why won’t you disavow an organization with such a poor track record and so much damage done to some many children?

She answered it. She supports keeping organizations intact that support pedophilia so long as they are called “churches.” It is a morally disgusting position of course, but that is her belief.

Are you proud of being a lying troll?

She’s not a lying troll. That poster indicated it’s “better to work from within” when comes to church and pedophila rather than to disband them if they are rotten enough, which from all the hiding of perverts, cover ups, abuse of power and the like, would be the best course of action. I’m sorry you don’t like to hear that, but that poster has not directly called for disavowing and closing church’s with pedophile problems, so there is a double standard.

[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: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.

Dawkins is an author of atheist books and he also said mild pedophilia is okay. That doesn’t make him the leader of the atheist movement. You so badly want that to be true, and you keep harping on it like a broken record, but it simply isn’t. He is not the pope. The pope on the other hand leads a millions strong organization that definitely has a clear and concrete history of child molestation to the tune of hundreds (maybe millions through the centuries) of children and yet you can’t simply disavow the pedastry of the church and agree that it should be disbanded. Why is that? Because you’re a zealot and your attempts at deflection are transparent and don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Puhleeze, could you be any more dishonest.

Great response. You are debate team captain for today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, answer this question.

The church (many different offshoots as well) systematically, and have a well documented, history of downplaying, discrediting victims, and shuffling around pedophile priests to other parishes, where they repeat offend. This is not a secret. Read some of the cases from the massive investigations of the last few years. So many priests were simply quietly moved from one church to another. There was so much forgiveness from senior clergy so as not to embarrass the church. It only took massive pressure and media attention for any real transparency.

So you come on here bashing nambla, which we are all aware is disgusting and shouldn’t exist, but you won’t say the same about pedophile hiding Catholicism, or Ted Haggard harboring, or all the other church related stuff? Why won’t you disavow an organization with such a poor track record and so much damage done to some many children?

OMFG.

1. Atheist sexual misconduct isn’t just about NAMBLA. Stop hiding behind NAMBLA, it’s cowardly and dishonest.

2. Multiple people including me have condemned religious pedophilia on this thread. Despite the fact that this isn’t a thread about religious abuse and there are plenty of DCUM threads about religious abuse already.

3. If you really want to talk about religion and abuse, stop trying to derail this thread and instead start yet another thread on that. See if you get any takers who think discussing the issue with dishonest trolls would be a productive use of their time.

You kicked off this thread with a focus on nambla, so I’m not “hiding behind” anything. Got any more super great example of atheist pedophiles? Let’s hear em? Hitler? Mussolini? We’re all breathless waiting for you to expound on the millions of atheist pedophiles.

I mean we’re over in reality, presenting you endless tangible and verified cases of church led pedophilia, but would really like to see what aces up your sleeve you’ve got. We all agree Dawkins is a piece of sht, I guess. His comment was gross, but at least there is no proof he actually molested a child unlike all the priest stories in the news linked in includes in previous threads, but please post your atheist figures. We’ll wait. Or we’re you just starting a thread with a shoddy example because you’re playing 4d chess?

I kicked off this thread with a focus on the two atheist orgs that employed the predator, Dawkins, Harris, and then NAMBLA1. Everybody can read the first page of the thread, so you should probably stop lying.

Stop trying to derail this thread to talk about religion. There are already plenty of threads talking about religious abuse, or start your own new one. You look dishonest again, and pathetic.