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 do churchs get to stay open and work from within because they are more deserving than atheist organizations? Can you answer that simple question? Just please tell us if a church should ever close if it is accused of massive amounts of molestation. So many churchs were. Should they close? Or is it just atheist leaning organizations?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

+1

I think that “lying troll” is how that PP says “you are accurate but I don’t like the accuracy.”

Show us where churches are mentioned. Oh wait, churches were never mentioned, you and pp both lied about that.

Meanwhile, it’s plain as the nose on your face that you’re desperately trying to derail so you don’t have to talk about atheist sexual abuse. Disgusting.

This is where the church’s are mentioned:

The scale is orders of magnitude worse than whatever you accuse gross azz nambla of doing.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117362904/southern...doj-investigation-sexual-abuse

An independent inquiry on Tuesday said it had concluded there were about 216,000 victims of sexual abuse carried out by the French Catholic Church’s clergy between 1950 and 2020.://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp...x-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

In total, 150,000 children from Canada's First Nations tribes were placed in 139 schools run under government contract — most by the Catholic Church — over a 150-year period.

A 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission report prompted by the harrowing tales of survivors concluded that "[children] were abused, physically and sexually, and they died in the schools in numbers that would not have been tolerated in any school system anywhere in the country.":https://www.npr.org/2022/07/25/1113498723/pope-fra...al-schools-indigenous-children

Or 30,000 children in Ireland: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...lic-schools-child-abuse-claims

Or here’s 1000 more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-chu...ch-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html

Your dishonesty continues to amaze. You were talking about a specific post, as we can all see. Not about the church in general. Stop trying to derail this thread about atheism and start your own thread about religion.

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.

+1

I think that “lying troll” is how that PP says “you are accurate but I don’t like the accuracy.”

Show us where churches are mentioned. Oh wait, churches were never mentioned, you and pp both lied about that.

Meanwhile, it’s plain as the nose on your face that you’re desperately trying to derail so you don’t have to talk about atheist sexual abuse. Disgusting.

Okay, let’s talk about atheist sexual abuse. Name a case. Did Dawkins sexually abuse anyone? You keep getting so amped to talk about the rampant sexual abuse but you’re not delivering the goods. Where are your atheist abusers?

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.

+1

I think that “lying troll” is how that PP says “you are accurate but I don’t like the accuracy.”

Show us where churches are mentioned. Oh wait, churches were never mentioned, you and pp both lied about that.

Meanwhile, it’s plain as the nose on your face that you’re desperately trying to derail so you don’t have to talk about atheist sexual abuse. Disgusting.

This is where the church’s are mentioned:

The scale is orders of magnitude worse than whatever you accuse gross azz nambla of doing.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117362904/southern...doj-investigation-sexual-abuse

An independent inquiry on Tuesday said it had concluded there were about 216,000 victims of sexual abuse carried out by the French Catholic Church’s clergy between 1950 and 2020.://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp...x-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

In total, 150,000 children from Canada's First Nations tribes were placed in 139 schools run under government contract — most by the Catholic Church — over a 150-year period.

A 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission report prompted by the harrowing tales of survivors concluded that "[children] were abused, physically and sexually, and they died in the schools in numbers that would not have been tolerated in any school system anywhere in the country.":https://www.npr.org/2022/07/25/1113498723/pope-fra...al-schools-indigenous-children

Or 30,000 children in Ireland: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...lic-schools-child-abuse-claims

Or here’s 1000 more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-chu...ch-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html

Anonymous wrote:Here, folks. Ignore the derailers who don’t want to talk about atheist abuse, and learn some actual facts about it.

Anonymous wrote:The head of the American Atheists group assaulted two women. AA covered it up until hours before BuzzFeed released an article on him.

“He physically pressed me to the wall and began to kiss me forcefully, grabbed my breasts and put his hand into my leggings,” she writes in the complaint delivered to American Atheists along with pictures she says are of bruises she suffered at Silverman’s hands.

The encounter ended, she recounted, when she made it clear she did not consent.

The second allegation relates to a 2012 incident at the annual convention of the Secular Student Alliance, an organization for secular college students, in Columbus, Ohio. Rose St. Clair, then a college student and SSA member who hoped for an internship at American Atheists, related that she met Silverman at a bar, became intoxicated and accepted his invitation to his hotel room.

“I don’t believe I was in a position to be able to give consent. I was very intoxicated,” St. Clair told BuzzFeed. She maintains they had unprotected sex.

“I felt my interest in working for the organization was used as a way for him to have power so that I would have sex with him,” St. Clair said.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/17/america...sexual-misconduct-allegations/

Terrible. The organization should be disbanded, as I support the disbanding of all organizations that support and promote sexual abuse by their leaders. Can you say the same, PP? Or do you think this organization should be “reformed from within” like you think religious organizations that support pedophiles should be?

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?

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.

Lol. Sounds like you’re unhappy that the evidence is lopsided and not in the way you’d like, so all of a sudden it’s “derailing” to point that out. Goal post moving at its finest.

Again, Dawkins doesn’t lead sht. He wrote like three books that did well with the public and then caused a stir when he literally said “mild pedophilia is okay”. A normal person, even an atheist, can see that that’s gross. He does not lead atheism, and it’s pathetic you’re so poorly informed to think that.

And then you have nambla, but you can’t even give us an example of them being in the news or even their membership count. I agree with you they should be disbanded. And then you give one more example of “Harris’”, and he is also not a leader of atheism. Because there really are no leaders. I mean maybe the executive director of the humanist society could be considered something of a champion for atheism, but really I’m just annoyed that you have such a pas poor set of taking points. Really you have nothing of substance to undergird your argument. It’s fluff.

And then you get petulant when I bring up the millions of kids molested by the church and you can’t handle it. The real problem is the church and not this nebulous foe of pedophole atheists which you have not properly quantified or proven. So do better okay?

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.

+1

I think that “lying troll” is how that PP says “you are accurate but I don’t like the accuracy.”

Show us where churches are mentioned. Oh wait, churches were never mentioned, you and pp both lied about that.

Meanwhile, it’s plain as the nose on your face that you’re desperately trying to derail so you don’t have to talk about atheist sexual abuse. Disgusting.

Here, folks. Ignore the derailers who don’t want to talk about atheist abuse, and learn some actual facts about it.

Anonymous wrote:The head of the American Atheists group assaulted two women. AA covered it up until hours before BuzzFeed released an article on him.

“He physically pressed me to the wall and began to kiss me forcefully, grabbed my breasts and put his hand into my leggings,” she writes in the complaint delivered to American Atheists along with pictures she says are of bruises she suffered at Silverman’s hands.

The encounter ended, she recounted, when she made it clear she did not consent.

The second allegation relates to a 2012 incident at the annual convention of the Secular Student Alliance, an organization for secular college students, in Columbus, Ohio. Rose St. Clair, then a college student and SSA member who hoped for an internship at American Atheists, related that she met Silverman at a bar, became intoxicated and accepted his invitation to his hotel room.

“I don’t believe I was in a position to be able to give consent. I was very intoxicated,” St. Clair told BuzzFeed. She maintains they had unprotected sex.

“I felt my interest in working for the organization was used as a way for him to have power so that I would have sex with him,” St. Clair said.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/17/america...sexual-misconduct-allegations/

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.

+1

I think that “lying troll” is how that PP says “you are accurate but I don’t like the accuracy.”

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.

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?

Ad hominem attacks? Getting desperate it seems.