Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, priests have been diddling kids for centuries and here we have a focus on a handful of random perverts under umbrella of atheism.
I don't care what you believe, but keep your hands off minors.

The Catholic Church systematized hiding child rape from secular authorities. I wonder if there is any organization in history responsible for more child abuse than the Church?

It’s been said before, but there are many more Catholics than atheists. And although there are fewer atheists, the number of atheist sexual abusers is surprisingly high, starting with that disgusting Thorstad man-boy love guy, passing Richard “mild pedophilia isn’t so bad” Dawkins, Sam Harris defending the atheist physicist who abused women, and the two national atheist orgs who knowingly employed that sexual predator. So on a percentage basis, atheists aren’t as clean as you’d like to think.

Since you’re just going to double down on nonsense and it Sounds like you pulled some anecdotal stuff out of your ass to deflect from this the church this topic should be moot. I just want to reiterate this thread is stupid and your beliefs are idiotic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Yes, we can all see it. We can see how the religious PP said that sexual abuse by Dawkins and NAMBLA is “morally worse.” Let’s hope that post stays up a long, long time, because it’s a master class in how religions protected child abusers.

As someone who was abused in the church, it’s absolutely sickening.

That was an atheist talking, you idiot. She was talking about the moral relativity of a church telling her not to seek help for her depression vs. atheist sexual abuse.

Are you the poster who claimed that pointing out atheist sexual abuse is “cherry picking”? Maybe you should turn your outrage on yourself.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Don’t use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Atheism is a belief without evidence to support that belief. It's very close to a religion. Agnosticism is the absence of religion because there is no belief that requires faith.

Atheism is a belief without evidence to support that evidence? Atheism more so just rests on the observable world. Its rests on observable reality. It’s not close a religion. Religion rests on fantastical beliefs.

That's agnosticism. Atheism takes it a step further and insists there is no god which is not a provable thesis anymore than there is a god. That makes it a belief.

I guess if you’re a creationist like Ken Hamm who desperately wants to label atheists and associate atheism with a religion so it can be criticized like a religion than yes. Atheism is not all a religion. I see a lot of Christian people trying to categorize atheism as being close to a religion or as a religion, but it’s not. It’s simply the absence of religion and is observable reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Yes, we can all see it. We can see how the religious PP said that sexual abuse by Dawkins and NAMBLA is “morally worse.” Let’s hope that post stays up a long, long time, because it’s a master class in how religions protected child abusers.

As someone who was abused in the church, it’s absolutely sickening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, priests have been diddling kids for centuries and here we have a focus on a handful of random perverts under umbrella of atheism.
I don't care what you believe, but keep your hands off minors.

The Catholic Church systematized hiding child rape from secular authorities. I wonder if there is any organization in history responsible for more child abuse than the Church?

It’s been said before, but there are many more Catholics than atheists. And although there are fewer atheists, the number of atheist sexual abusers is surprisingly high, starting with that disgusting Thorstad man-boy love guy, passing Richard “mild pedophilia isn’t so bad” Dawkins, Sam Harris defending the atheist physicist who abused women, and the two national atheist orgs who knowingly employed that sexual predator. So on a percentage basis, atheists aren’t as clean as you’d like to think.

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

I like the clever, but transparent attempt from (what I can only assume to be a believer in organized religion) to attempt to copt the identity politics movement to critique atheism. Are you trying to tie atheists to white supremacy? What is your point other than to muddy the waters of discussion with irrelevance. Are you genuinely offended that many prominent white atheists are white or you trying to be fake woke to serve your religious agenda?

I guess I would retort with why are so many people from 3rd world countries or those with poor human rights statistics into organized religion? Many countries with the best quality of life and equality among all folks have the lowest levels of religion. Look at the Nordic countries. They’re doing pretty well. Pakistan not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Atheism is a belief without evidence to support that belief. It's very close to a religion. Agnosticism is the absence of religion because there is no belief that requires faith.

Atheism is a belief without evidence to support that evidence? Atheism more so just rests on the observable world. Its rests on observable reality. It’s not close a religion. Religion rests on fantastical beliefs.

That's agnosticism. Atheism takes it a step further and insists there is no god which is not a provable thesis anymore than there is a god. That makes it a belief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a stupid thread. Some people with brown hair have been bad people therefore everyone with brown hair is responsible for those bad acts?

If you can’t distinguish between bad acts of people abd bad acts of institutions what is the point of the thread?

The thread points out the hypocrisy of the daily Catholic and Christianity bashing that goes on here.

Only in your head

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Atheism is a belief without evidence to support that belief. It's very close to a religion. Agnosticism is the absence of religion because there is no belief that requires faith.

Atheism is a belief without evidence to support that evidence? Atheism more so just rests on the observable world. Its rests on observable reality. It’s not close a religion. Religion rests on fantastical beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Lying histrionically is still lying. Everybody can see what those posters were talking about and how you’re lying about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I as an atheist condemn these people any any organization that supports or enables them.

As I should.

Do you agree Catholics? Will you do the same?

I, as an atheist, condemn them too and ask the same question of Catholics and people of any religion.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Atheism is a belief without evidence to support that belief. It's very close to a religion. Agnosticism is the absence of religion because there is no belief that requires faith.

Anonymous wrote:Lol, priests have been diddling kids for centuries and here we have a focus on a handful of random perverts under umbrella of atheism.
I don't care what you believe, but keep your hands off minors.

The Catholic Church systematized hiding child rape from secular authorities. I wonder if there is any organization in history responsible for more child abuse than the Church?

Lol, priests have been diddling kids for centuries and here we have a focus on a handful of random perverts under umbrella of atheism.
I don't care what you believe, but keep your hands off minors.