Atheism’s sexual misconduct problem

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m atheist. I’m fine with PP pointing out sexual misconduct by atheists. It’s vastly outstripped by religious sexual misconduct, but any sexual misconduct is reprehensible and should have a harsh light shone on it. I’m not like the religious folks who try to hide their sexual abusers. Show the atheists who are sexual abusers. Let everyone know who they are. Don’t be like the religious people who defend sexual abuse by their leaders.

Only outstripped because there are vastly fewer atheists than believers. It would be interesting to see percentages of each group who are sexual abusers.

Also, if you read the links, two atheist organizations did try to hide a sexual abuser. Also, Sam Harris defended the leading atheist physicist who sexually abused women.

I do agree that the lesson here is that people suck. It’s just straight-up hypocrisy to claim some people suck more than others.

So your concern isn’t really sexual abuse, it’s that people talk about the avalanche of abuse by religious leaders. Your position is horrifying, but I suppose it is completely inline with how religions elevate sexual abusers, so I guess it doesn’t surprise me.

Wow, what a terrible deflection right there. Of course I’m concerned about both religious and atheist abuse—I never said otherwise. You, however, seem determined to sweep the high percentage of atheist abuse under the rug.

No, I am fine publicizing and spreading the news about atheist abusers. I’m not like you. I don’t defend sexual abuse by religious OR atheist leaders.

Please stop with the BS and lies. Not a single religious person on this thread has defended religious abusers.

You atheists, however, keep trying to deflect from atheist abuse with funky stats and deflections about religion.

So the atheists are deflecting, but starting a spinoff thread about atheist abuse because the LDS thread was unfair is... what, exactly?

OP here. Stop lying, I never said the LDS thread was “unfair.” I’ve condemned religious abuse several times on this thread. Also, I’m not LDS or Catholic.

Some (not all) of you atheists clearly have a double standard, and this thread highlights it. Post something about atheist abuse and you get accused of cherry picking, being stupid (why can’t we get rid of these trolls?), you have to wade through multiple whataboutisms regarding religion, some pretty innumerate comparisons about shares of abusers in different groups, and more.

There's a huge difference here that you're missing. People who say "I'm a catholic" are affiliated with a belief system that was started by and is propogated by the catholic institutions. They believe in a very narrow set of stories and codes that are perpetuated by the same priests that abuse kids. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. It isn't a belief system in and of itself. Now, maybe these atheist instutitions are full of BS and child molesters. I have no idea. As an atheist, I have never heard of these people. The reason is simple: atheists don't in theory share any beliefs or values. They only share one thing: a lack of belief in a god. So, there really is no need for an "atheist organization" or an "atheist belief system," and if you say there is an "atheist problem with sexual misconduct", nobody has any idea what you're talking about because it's just some random ass fringe organization

[Anonymous]

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

The better question is why are the wealthy and well educated less religious? Why are most scientists less religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am not white.

DP. Are you a "prominent atheist?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than be buried on the LDS thread, this topic deserves it’s own thread.

We can kick it off with this: David Thorstad, a prominent atheist, founded the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) to advocate for pedophilia and pederasty.

Maybe we should say "men's sexual misconduct problem" Just because they are atheists' doesn't make it better or worse. It is all terrible. At least the atheists' probably isn't saying they are "good Christian people" ie the aren't hypocrites but, it is still awful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The better question is why are the wealthy and well educated less religious? Why are most scientists less religious?

Religion is for the poor who are looking forward to the better life when they die. Rich people are already enjoying the good life.

[Anonymous]

The offended Evangelical or Catholic who wrote this thread wants it so badly to be true. They crave some semblance of validation. It’s reminiscent of Donald Trump’s projection. “Accuse others of doing what you do.” Frankly it’s pathetic. Look at all the investigations and lawsuits. How many are against religious organizations. How many priests have been shielded. It’s pretty gross you actually attend and organization with that sort of morality.

[Anonymous]

I guess if a child molestor wears a blue shirt I have to stop wearing blue shirts now. That's about how meaningful it is to say some random atheist dude molested kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The better question is why are the wealthy and well educated less religious? Why are most scientists less religious?

Religion is for the poor who are looking forward to the better life when they die. Rich people are already enjoying the good life.

Sure.

That or they are better educated and less likely to buy stories about arks saving all the animals, or that wearing mixed fibers is wrongs, or trying to basically apply knowledge from the Bronze Age to an age with electric cars and AI. But yes, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are any of the organizations these people are associated with as powerful or wealthy as the Mormon or Catholic Churches? Like yeah atheists can be predators and rapists but there’s no Church of Atheism.

If your point is that powerful orgs cover up misbehavior, well American Atheists covered it up too until BuzzFeed forced them to act. Then Silverman used the atheist old boys network to land another well-paying job with a different atheist group.

You almost sound like you’re excusing atheist sexual misconduct because there are fewer of you. It might be better to notice that, with just a handful of national atheist/humanist orgs, two of them employed this creep.

American Atheists isn't a "powerful" organization. LOL.

Weak sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Organized religion (including Atheism) is evil. Full stop.

Atheism isn't an "organized religion". It's not organized at all.

There are some small groups who have formed to do their own thing, but there is zero organization overall.

Atheism is a religion, like off is a tv channel.

WTH is off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Organized religion (including Atheism) is evil. Full stop.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m atheist. I’m fine with PP pointing out sexual misconduct by atheists. It’s vastly outstripped by religious sexual misconduct, but any sexual misconduct is reprehensible and should have a harsh light shone on it. I’m not like the religious folks who try to hide their sexual abusers. Show the atheists who are sexual abusers. Let everyone know who they are. Don’t be like the religious people who defend sexual abuse by their leaders.

Only outstripped because there are vastly fewer atheists than believers. It would be interesting to see percentages of each group who are sexual abusers.

Also, if you read the links, two atheist organizations did try to hide a sexual abuser. Also, Sam Harris defended the leading atheist physicist who sexually abused women.

I do agree that the lesson here is that people suck. It’s just straight-up hypocrisy to claim some people suck more than others.

So your concern isn’t really sexual abuse, it’s that people talk about the avalanche of abuse by religious leaders. Your position is horrifying, but I suppose it is completely inline with how religions elevate sexual abusers, so I guess it doesn’t surprise me.

Wow, what a terrible deflection right there. Of course I’m concerned about both religious and atheist abuse—I never said otherwise. You, however, seem determined to sweep the high percentage of atheist abuse under the rug.

No, I am fine publicizing and spreading the news about atheist abusers. I’m not like you. I don’t defend sexual abuse by religious OR atheist leaders.

Please stop with the BS and lies. Not a single religious person on this thread has defended religious abusers.

You atheists, however, keep trying to deflect from atheist abuse with funky stats and deflections about religion.

So the atheists are deflecting, but starting a spinoff thread about atheist abuse because the LDS thread was unfair is... what, exactly?

OP here. Stop lying, I never said the LDS thread was “unfair.” I’ve condemned religious abuse several times on this thread. Also, I’m not LDS or Catholic.

Some (not all) of you atheists clearly have a double standard, and this thread highlights it. Post something about atheist abuse and you get accused of cherry picking, being stupid (why can’t we get rid of these trolls?), you have to wade through multiple whataboutisms regarding religion, some pretty innumerate comparisons about shares of abusers in different groups, and more.

There's a huge difference here that you're missing. People who say "I'm a catholic" are affiliated with a belief system that was started by and is propogated by the catholic institutions. They believe in a very narrow set of stories and codes that are perpetuated by the same priests that abuse kids. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. It isn't a belief system in and of itself. Now, maybe these atheist instutitions are full of BS and child molesters. I have no idea. As an atheist, I have never heard of these people. The reason is simple: atheists don't in theory share any beliefs or values. They only share one thing: a lack of belief in a god. So, there really is no need for an "atheist organization" or an "atheist belief system," and if you say there is an "atheist problem with sexual misconduct", nobody has any idea what you're talking about because it's just some random ass fringe organization

Exactly -- well put, PP. OP, if your goal is to establish that atheists have a double standard when it comes to their affiliated organization concealing child abuse allegations, your argument is fatally undercut by the fact that we don't have an affiliated organization.

But to the extent that it makes you feel better, I, as an atheist, hereby condemn any individual atheists who molest kids. I also condemn and call for the dismantling of any atheist organization that promotes, perpetuates or conceals child abuse. Bust it up and salt the earth. So, there you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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