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.

I mean if we’re being honest pedophilia is seen in so many places without an age of consent. Op which countries lead that and why? Do you think certain religions advocate for Chile marriage? Was a certain prophet married to a nine year old? Is there any age of consent in Afghanistan? What’s the age of consent in Kentucky? It’s 13 in some states. I think religion is more tied to pedophilia than atheism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering out loud: what if Catholics treated their sexual abuse scandals in the same contemptuous, mocking, dismissive way as the atheists here treat their sexual abuse problems?

What exactly is my sexual abuse problem?

The big problem is that OP is an obsessed perv.

I’m sure he “had” to do “research” of the man/child orgs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering out loud: what if Catholics treated their sexual abuse scandals in the same contemptuous, mocking, dismissive way as the atheists here treat their sexual abuse problems?

We took our problem very seriously and excommunicated all of the creepy pervs.

We don't even let them come to our weekly services. Ever.

AND we aren’t going to share our new secret handshake with them. Ever.

Anonymous wrote:Wondering out loud: what if Catholics treated their sexual abuse scandals in the same contemptuous, mocking, dismissive way as the atheists here treat their sexual abuse problems?

What exactly is my sexual abuse problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering out loud: what if Catholics treated their sexual abuse scandals in the same contemptuous, mocking, dismissive way as the atheists here treat their sexual abuse problems?

We took our problem very seriously and excommunicated all of the creepy pervs.

We don't even let them come to our weekly services. Ever.

Gosh this is the STRANGEST argument and analogy.

Let's look at the LDS example. So we have a man who was actively sexually molesting his child. He went to a clergy member about it. The clergy member sought advice from the church, and the church's lawyers said not to tell. Notably, the lawyers of this church have lobbied governments to make it so that clergy members don't have to report. So the abuse goes on for years and years.

Rather than looking at the actual crime her, look at what fostered it:

- religion influencing the law (and there is a huge history of this in the world, obviously, and a lot of it still remains)

a church directing abuse questions to individuals who protect the church legally rather than giving moral guidance

- a member of the clergy who would have reported if the church hadn't had the influence over him that they did.


How can you analogize this to NAMBLA? Does NAMBLA solicit confessions and tell people not to report? Does NAMBLA lobby successfully for exemptions to child abuse reporting laws? Does NAMBLA have members who are against pedophilia but feel compelled to foster it all the same?

Moreover, are there geographic communities were you are more likely to be a community leader if you're a member of NAMBLA? Do parents pressure their kids to be members of NAMBLA? Is the government full of NAMBLA members?

I do think atheist philosophy and child abuse is an interesting and useful conversation. Not many people know that Sartre and his fellow philosophers advocated (without success) for lowering age of consent laws. But the power of atheists *in their capacity as atheists* is nothing. It's actually going to make you less powerful. I just looked it up and right now there are two federal elected representatives who are atheists, and maybe 75 state representatives. And atheist lobbies advocate for things like birth control access (which is probably not going well) and not giving money to churches, not for things that foster abuse in their organizations.

Anonymous wrote:So, what do you guys want to talk about now?

Wait. Have we figured out the secret handshake yet? Was that already in the by-laws?

Anonymous wrote:Wondering out loud: what if Catholics treated their sexual abuse scandals in the same contemptuous, mocking, dismissive way as the atheists here treat their sexual abuse problems?

We took our problem very seriously and excommunicated all of the creepy pervs.

Anonymous wrote:Wondering out loud: what if Catholics treated their sexual abuse scandals in the same contemptuous, mocking, dismissive way as the atheists here treat their sexual abuse problems?

I'm fairly certain multiple atheist popes just excommunicated Dawkins. How many pedos have catholic popes excommunicated?

Anonymous wrote:So, what do you guys want to talk about now?

Who else should we excommunicate? I’m sure there are more douche bags out there.

Wondering out loud: what if Catholics treated their sexual abuse scandals in the same contemptuous, mocking, dismissive way as the atheists here treat their sexual abuse problems?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you guys want to talk about anything besides the problem of atheist sexual misconduct. Outta here….

Step 1 invent problem
Step 2 get mocked
Step 3 double down
Step 4 more mocking
Step 5 give up

So true.

Every time I see this thread pop back up on recent topics it reinforces to me just how dumb some people can be.

So, what do you guys want to talk about now?

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you guys want to talk about anything besides the problem of atheist sexual misconduct. Outta here….

There is no “atheist sexual misconduct problem”.

So there’s nothing to actually discuss.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you guys want to talk about anything besides the problem of atheist sexual misconduct. Outta here….

Step 1 invent problem
Step 2 get mocked
Step 3 double down
Step 4 more mocking
Step 5 give up