Atheism’s sexual misconduct problem

[Anonymous]

Huh. I’m an atheist and had no idea there were atheist “groups”. I mean, what’s the point? Get together and talk about how we don’t believe in gods? Super weird. I can see that OP is trying to paint atheists as sex criminals but it’s quite a stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop lying. The poster never mentioned churches. She probably knew better than to engage too deeply with lying trolls.

The poster never answered the question of whether church’s should be closed from pedophila. Should church’s that hide pedophiles be closed? It’s really simple. Nambla should close if it’s caught molesting. The church in many of its parishes was caught with staff that molested millions of children. Why should they be allowed to stay open and “work from within”? It’s a very simple question. Explain the dichotomy to me so I can understand. Discuss why one is more deserving pf staying open than the other? And justify it with reason please.

Ask your question about churches on a thread about churches. This is a thread about the many atheist sexual abusers.

Okay so you have 3 individual people, and the nambla, but you provided no actual examples of any of them being credibly accused of molestation. What else you got?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh. I’m an atheist and had no idea there were atheist “groups”. I mean, what’s the point? Get together and talk about how we don’t believe in gods? Super weird. I can see that OP is trying to paint atheists as sex criminals but it’s quite a stretch.

Op just got flustered when posters pointed out that there are millions of credible cases of molestation stemming from organized religion, but has not provided any example of documented molestations from atheists, but merely alluded to Richard Dawkins saying a perverted thing. And then said nambla. This is such a stupid thread. It’s all sizzle and no steak. Step it up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to recap the majority atheist response on this thread.

1. Dawkins may have sold millions of books and delivered hundreds of lectures, but he lectures to people directly instead of through an organization so his support for pedophilia isn’t my problem.

Nope. The atheist response to Dawkins has been: that guy is gross and his support for pedophilia is horrible. F that guy. However, no, he's not our leader, because we don't have one.

2. Harris and Silverman: crickets

I don't know who they are, but if they support or conceal child abuse, F those guys too. But again, not our leadership as we have no leadership.

3. NAMBLA—the only case any of you feel comfortable talking about

Burn that to the ground, but also, I don't see how that's relevant to atheism generally. But, to the extent that it is, denounced.

4. I wanna talk about the Catholic Church instead of atheist abusers! Talking about atheist abusers makes widdle me uncomfortable! Waaaaahhhh!

So far, you've mentioned...3 guys? And I think upthread someone said something about the leader of the American Atheist Association engaging in sexual misconduct (also denounced, along with the Association if they new about it, but I don't know that group of people and they don't speak for atheists, because, again, no one does). So, 4 guys? That's your evidence of a sexual misconduct problem? Do you have any evidence that atheists are more likely to engage in sexual misconduct than theists are? Because if you do, I haven't seen it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to recap the majority atheist response on this thread.

1. Dawkins may have sold millions of books and delivered hundreds of lectures, but he lectures to people directly instead of through an organization so his support for pedophilia isn’t my problem.

2. Harris and Silverman: crickets

3. NAMBLA—the only case any of you feel comfortable talking about

4. I wanna talk about the Catholic Church instead of atheist abusers! Talking about atheist abusers makes widdle me uncomfortable! Waaaaahhhh!

1) Dawkins is not an atheist abuser because he was never accused of anything. Not sure what you are talking about. He also is not the head of an atheist organization.

2. Did they molested anyone?

3. Are there any documented cases of nambla members molesting anyone? Can you provide that information? If so, close the organization. If not, atheists still disavow it. It’s gross. Just because the person who started it was atheist does not make it some kind of atheist church.

4. I provided you many verified instances of millions of children being molested by church’s. You did not provide a single example of an atheist molestation, and we are all still waiting. You talk fluff but have not provided anything.

1. Dawkins says he was groped in school by his teachers and it wasn’t so bad, so he supports pedophilia. You can’t possibly argue that nobody listens to Dawkins.

2. I provided documented cases of Silverman and the prominent atheist physicist that Harris defended. Others provided instances of abuse in secular institutions like schools and sports.

3. NAMBLA’s whole purpose is to promote man-boy love. If you think that’s OK, with or without documented instances, you’re disgusting.

4. Stop trying to derail this thread by talking about priests. Start your own thread so you don’t look like a dishonest discussant. I realize this thread is uncomfortable for you, but you can ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to recap the majority atheist response on this thread.

1. Dawkins may have sold millions of books and delivered hundreds of lectures, but he lectures to people directly instead of through an organization so his support for pedophilia isn’t my problem.

Nope. The atheist response to Dawkins has been: that guy is gross and his support for pedophilia is horrible. F that guy. However, no, he's not our leader, because we don't have one.

2. Harris and Silverman: crickets

I don't know who they are, but if they support or conceal child abuse, F those guys too. But again, not our leadership as we have no leadership.

3. NAMBLA—the only case any of you feel comfortable talking about

Burn that to the ground, but also, I don't see how that's relevant to atheism generally. But, to the extent that it is, denounced.

4. I wanna talk about the Catholic Church instead of atheist abusers! Talking about atheist abusers makes widdle me uncomfortable! Waaaaahhhh!

So far, you've mentioned...3 guys? And I think upthread someone said something about the leader of the American Atheist Association engaging in sexual misconduct (also denounced, along with the Association if they new about it, but I don't know that group of people and they don't speak for atheists, because, again, no one does). So, 4 guys? That's your evidence of a sexual misconduct problem? Do you have any evidence that atheists are more likely to engage in sexual misconduct than theists are? Because if you do, I haven't seen it.

Stop trying to hide behind the lack of atheist organizations. True, you don’t have a lot of organizations or leaders.

But the ones you have are riddled with sexual predators. To the extent you have organizations, they hired Silverman. To the extent you have leaders, they either support pedophilia (Dawkins) or defend pedophiles (Sam Harris).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to recap the majority atheist response on this thread.

1. Dawkins may have sold millions of books and delivered hundreds of lectures, but he lectures to people directly instead of through an organization so his support for pedophilia isn’t my problem.

2. Harris and Silverman: crickets

3. NAMBLA—the only case any of you feel comfortable talking about

4. I wanna talk about the Catholic Church instead of atheist abusers! Talking about atheist abusers makes widdle me uncomfortable! Waaaaahhhh!

1) Dawkins is not an atheist abuser because he was never accused of anything. Not sure what you are talking about. He also is not the head of an atheist organization.

2. Did they molested anyone?

3. Are there any documented cases of nambla members molesting anyone? Can you provide that information? If so, close the organization. If not, atheists still disavow it. It’s gross. Just because the person who started it was atheist does not make it some kind of atheist church.

4. I provided you many verified instances of millions of children being molested by church’s. You did not provide a single example of an atheist molestation, and we are all still waiting. You talk fluff but have not provided anything.

1. Dawkins says he was groped in school by his teachers and it wasn’t so bad, so he supports pedophilia. You can’t possibly argue that nobody listens to Dawkins.

2. I provided documented cases of Silverman and the prominent atheist physicist that Harris defended. Others provided instances of abuse in secular institutions like schools and sports.

3. NAMBLA’s whole purpose is to promote man-boy love. If you think that’s OK, with or without documented instances, you’re disgusting.

4. Stop trying to derail this thread by talking about priests. Start your own thread so you don’t look like a dishonest discussant. I realize this thread is uncomfortable for you, but you can ignore it.

OP, darlin', you're not going to hang every incident of misconduct in every "secular institution" on atheists. Sorry. That just doesn't scan.

You listed 3-4 dudes, and NAMBLA. Is that all you have?

[Anonymous]

Stop trying to hide behind the lack of atheist organizations. True, you don’t have a lot of organizations or leaders.

But the ones you have are riddled with sexual predators. To the extent you have organizations, they hired Silverman. To the extent you have leaders, they either support pedophilia (Dawkins) or defend pedophiles (Sam Harris).

Riddled? Again - you listed 4 guys. That's not "riddled."

There are some a$$holes in atheism. They suck. But the problem with your argument, OP, is you have no way of connecting those sh!tballs to atheism generally. A couple of peripheral organizations that don't claim to speak for all atheists, aren't seen by others as speaking for all atheists, and who are unknown to most atheists isn't going to get you there.

I bet some atheists are smelly, too. But that doesn't mean atheism has a smelly problem. *shrug*

[Anonymous]

Yeah, unlike an actual organization, we’ll never know how many teachers took Dawkin’s advocacy of pedophlia to heart.

That doesn’t make it any less pernicious. In fact, it’s more pernicious. The Catholic bishops are now publishing numbers (and I completely condemn the pedo priests).

But atheist leaders like Dawkins, Silverman and Harris have no accountability at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh. I’m an atheist and had no idea there were atheist “groups”. I mean, what’s the point? Get together and talk about how we don’t believe in gods? Super weird. I can see that OP is trying to paint atheists as sex criminals but it’s quite a stretch.

At least our services would be short. "Hi everyone! Still no god, right? Cool. Have a great week!"

[Anonymous]

David Thorstadt was, at various times, a socialist, a gay activist, and a Pentecostal, in addition to being in NAMBLA. are you trying to suggest that all people who are Pentacostals or socialists are pedophiles? You can’t tar the whole group because of the horrific activities of some. This is like saying that redheads or men with mustaches have a pedophilia problem.

Any organization that has a history of enabling or hiding sex offenders is a problem (Catholic church and the US military come to mind).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh. I’m an atheist and had no idea there were atheist “groups”. I mean, what’s the point? Get together and talk about how we don’t believe in gods? Super weird. I can see that OP is trying to paint atheists as sex criminals but it’s quite a stretch.

At least our services would be short. "Hi everyone! Still no god, right? Cool. Have a great week!"

LOL. I’m in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, unlike an actual organization, we’ll never know how many teachers took Dawkin’s advocacy of pedophlia to heart.

That doesn’t make it any less pernicious. In fact, it’s more pernicious. The Catholic bishops are now publishing numbers (and I completely condemn the pedo priests).

But atheist leaders like Dawkins, Silverman and Harris have no accountability at all.

*strokes chin thoughtfully* ah yes. It is the very lack of suspicious evidence that is itself suspicious! By Jove, you've cracked it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, unlike an actual organization, we’ll never know how many teachers took Dawkin’s advocacy of pedophlia to heart.

That doesn’t make it any less pernicious. In fact, it’s more pernicious. The Catholic bishops are now publishing numbers (and I completely condemn the pedo priests).

But atheist leaders like Dawkins, Silverman and Harris have no accountability at all.

Thus all the denials about Dawkins not being a pope. Sure, he sells millions of books, but nobody actually pays attention to him or his support for pedophilia.

There’s no accountability in atheism. You guys are furiously trying to distance yourself from Dawkins.

Tell us: do you support canceling Dawkins, Harris and Silverman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, unlike an actual organization, we’ll never know how many teachers took Dawkin’s advocacy of pedophlia to heart.

That doesn’t make it any less pernicious. In fact, it’s more pernicious. The Catholic bishops are now publishing numbers (and I completely condemn the pedo priests).

But atheist leaders like Dawkins, Silverman and Harris have no accountability at all.

Again: not leaders. Just guys. Who appear to be d!cks.