Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:The Vatican has sanctioned a Belgian bishop who resigned last year after admitting he had sexually abused his nephew, saying he can no longer act as a priest in public and may risk further church sanctions.
That will take care of everything all right!
Well according to Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion, child molestation is nothing more than an "embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience". So maybe the Priest should be allowed to work and not be sanctioned at all, according to DickDawk's warped views on morality of course.
Richard Dawkins was lucky that his encounter with a pedophile was so mild, if he had been subjected to the abuse that most victims undergo I'm sure his opinion would have been much different.
That said, Dawkins is one person, the church is a huge organisation that has pretty much institutionalised child abuse by it's systematic cover-ups, intimidation and buying off of victims.
P.s atheism is not a religion and R.Dawkins is not our jebus figure.
And creationism is STILL a crock of shit.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
(April 13, 2011 at 7:26 am)Tiberius Wrote: it is a book full of pathetic arguments written by a biologist with no formal training in philosophy.
It is odd you would think any argument that can possibly come from "philosophy" could conceivably be less pathetic than any that can come from biology.
April 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm (This post was last modified: April 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(April 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:
(April 12, 2011 at 9:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I disagree; I think his point is that he would defend a pedophile even if he were a victim because molestation is an embarrassing but harmless experience. But again, we all know very well that you guys would not go through such lengths to defend any priest if they had made remarks half this ambiguous or unclear. Be honest now.
This is a first for me. I actually believe the christian has a point on this one. He's right. I would rip the Pope a verbal new-one for saying the exact same words as Dawkins is quoted as saying. And honestly, fairly, his remarks are a bit ambiguous and subject to interpretation.
As much as I HATE telling a christian "you have a point" ... lets face it, the man does have a point, even if I disagree with his overall perspective. A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile, and I cannot count the multitude of times that I have ranted against the catholic church for overlooking and making-lite of child molestation .... and that is exactly what Dawkins does appear to be doing whether he is referring to just his own molestation or not.
That being said ... I don't really give a shit about Dawkins or the Church. Both are useless to me.
Thanks for being intellectually honest on this one. I am not a fan of the Catholic Church or Dawkins so it is easy for me to be hard on both for their views on child abuse. However, I would hope that if a Christian Reformer had the same views I would be equally as hard on them, and if I were not then someone would call me on it I hope.
(April 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:How are my views on the age of the Earth in anyway relevant to this discussion?
I decided that you were a flaming idiot several months ago. I really doubt that there will be any change in that depending on whatever issue you are blathering about.
You are a fucking fool.
Some things will not change.
Well you are hardly an intellectual force on this board, so what you think is as irrelevant to me as my views on the age of the earth are to this discussion. You should thank me actually, I make your boring threads interesting for others to read and respond to.
(April 12, 2011 at 10:00 pm)Skipper Wrote:
(April 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile, and I cannot count the multitude of times that I have ranted against the catholic church for overlooking and making-lite of child molestation .... and that is exactly what Dawkins does appear to be doing whether he is referring to just his own molestation or not.
That blog clearly says he was "fondled" (a rather mild form of child abuse). Lets stop even debating whether or not he is talking about himself and his own experience at the hands of a nonce of a teacher or child abuse in general in the paragraph from the god delusion that Waldorf quoted. In both the blog and the book he calls it embarrassing. He is talking about his own experience. If you or anyone can't see that, then I give up .
Should he really lie about how it affected him or be honest and say that overall it wasn't a serious incident and that he felt it was more embarrassing than harmful? He clearly dosen't condone or belittle paedophilia as his stance against what is done by priests in the name of the catholic church, his comments in the blog I posted and lack of any other piece of writing, video or audio that suggest he does, proves.
All he says is, he personally was fondled, it personally didn't affect him in the long run and he personally thought it was more embarrassing than harmful.
Wow, look at you. Could you imagine if a Catholic Bishop stood up there and said, "Well I just fondled the boy, and that's pretty mild as far as child abuse goes." I have the feeling you would be not so defensive of the Bishop. Any form of inappropriate touching is still a felony, which I think is serious. Teaching children about God's grace and judgment is not a crime in any free country, so the fact that Dawkins thinks that is worse than something that is a felony shows that maybe the molestation had more affect on his brain than he thinks.
(April 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm)SpatiumTempusque Wrote: Why is this douche bag back?
I was thinking the same thing. Figured he had finally had enough of getting his delusional arguments destroyed & low & behold he's back for more.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
April 13, 2011 at 1:42 pm (This post was last modified: April 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(April 13, 2011 at 7:26 am)Tiberius Wrote:
(April 12, 2011 at 9:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I think it's quite clear he is talking about molestation in general, and he would defend a molestor against the "mobs" even if he were a vicemt of one because it is an embarassing but otherwise harmless experience. How you can even attempt to defend Dawkins on this one is beyond me, I have heard of fan-boyism but c'mon.
Believe me, I'm as far from a fan-boy of Dawkins as you can possibly get. The God Delusion did nothing for me; it is a book full of pathetic arguments written by a biologist with no formal training in philosophy.
However, one thing Dawkins is not is a defender of child molestation; I think that is quite obvious from his actions and speeches against it in public. He has admitted on multiple occasions to being molested as a child (links are in this thread), so if you can't see that he was clearly referring to himself, you need to go and relearn English grammar.
The subject of the sentence in which Dawkins makes his remark is "I" (in other words, Dawkins himself). He is calling himself the victim, and his experience more embarrassing than harmful (something which he repeats in his blog post).
I will be honest; I am thinking you are right that Dawkins was speaking of his own experience. I was not aware that he was molested (until Skipper found that other information); I thought he was speaking hypothetically. I'll admit I was in error. However, I do not feel this makes Dawkins anymore consistent on the subject because it is obvious that he does not have a very realistic view of molestation (demonstrated by the fact he thinks it is less harmful than teaching children about God). He also has said on numerous occasions that criminals should not be punished because he is a determinist, but then he calls for the arrest and punishment of the pope. He is just not a consistent person, and it is sad he gets such a pass from so many atheists.
Well according to Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion, child molestation is nothing more than an "embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience". So maybe the Priest should be allowed to work and not be sanctioned at all, according to DickDawk's warped views on morality of course.
Richard Dawkins was lucky that his encounter with a pedophile was so mild, if he had been subjected to the abuse that most victims undergo I'm sure his opinion would have been much different.
That said, Dawkins is one person, the church is a huge organisation that has pretty much institutionalised child abuse by it's systematic cover-ups, intimidation and buying off of victims.
P.s atheism is not a religion and R.Dawkins is not our jebus figure.
And creationism is STILL a crock of shit.
You're behind on this duscussion Zen. I'll respond to your assertion with one of my own, atheism IS a religion, but that is for a different thread I am afraid.
(April 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:
(April 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm)SpatiumTempusque Wrote: Why is this douche bag back?
I was thinking the same thing. Figured he had finally had enough of getting his delusional arguments destroyed & low & behold he's back for more.
How come the atheists who have the least intellectual fortitude do the most trash talking on here? Where are the guys who actually know their stuff like theVOID, Adrian, and Sam? If there is any trash talking, it should be by them- not you sir.
April 13, 2011 at 1:51 pm (This post was last modified: April 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(April 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:
(April 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm)SpatiumTempusque Wrote: Why is this douche bag back?
I was thinking the same thing. Figured he had finally had enough of getting his delusional arguments destroyed & low & behold he's back for more.
The only thing that make his tulip life worth living seem to be the knowledge that he is wasting the time of those who are more evolved then he. So he will never stop coming back.
(April 12, 2011 at 9:34 pm)SpatiumTempusque Wrote: Why is this douche bag back?
I was thinking the same thing. Figured he had finally had enough of getting his delusional arguments destroyed & low & behold he's back for more.
The only thing that make his tulip life worth living seem to be the knowledge that he is wasting the time of those who are more evolved then he. So he will never stop coming back.
More evolved? Riiiight lol. You have spent over a month of your life on this website- you are absolutely right- you are wasting your time. However, considering I have only spent two days on this site, it is not me who is wasting your time.
April 13, 2011 at 2:03 pm (This post was last modified: April 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm by Anomalocaris.)
The turnip also seem to lack reading comprehension, an appearently very commonly deficiency amongst those who can aspire to no high light than a "literal" "interpretation" of the "bible", or "personal" "relationship" with "Jesus".
April 13, 2011 at 2:09 pm (This post was last modified: April 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
(April 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More evolved? Riiiight lol. You have spent over a month of your life on this website- you are absolutely right- you are wasting your time. However, considering I have only spent two days on this site, it is not me who is wasting your time.
Unlike SOME PEOPLE I know on this Forum I have learned VERY MUCH from the discussion. I suppose if I spent my time cherry picking just to piss people off, I would be wasting my time..but that isnt the case.
dumdorf Wrote:Well according to Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion, child molestation is nothing more than an "embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience". So maybe the Priest should be allowed to work and not be sanctioned at all, according to DickDawk's warped views on morality of course.
So you want to run things the way Dawkin wants them ran? Oh, thats right, since DickDawk is the "atheist Christ" then apparently we all line up behind him. Apparently an atheist cant be popular without him being called the "leader of everything atheist"
Sure..and I am just as sure that the Pope very much represents you, as well as the bannanna man over at "way of the master". So you must OBVIOUSLY think that bannanna's are an atheists nightmare then..right?
April 13, 2011 at 2:21 pm (This post was last modified: April 13, 2011 at 2:49 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(April 13, 2011 at 2:03 pm)Chuck Wrote: The turnip also seem to lack reading comprehension, an appearently very commonly deficiency amongst those who can aspire to no high light than a "literal" "interpretation" of the "bible", or "personal" "relationship" with "Jesus".
Actually I think it is Mr. Dawkins who needs to take a few lessons in writing clarity and sentence structure, I have seen multi-page discussions between even just atheists confused aobut what exactly he was trying to say in that passage.
Why did you put Bible and Jesus in quotes? Is taht not what they are really called? You are too much lol. I post on here because I like to learn what informed atheists think and believe, if I get some side chatter from the uninformed ones like you in the process I will survive.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
I have learned VERY MUCH from the discussion. I suppose if I spent my time cherry picking just to piss people off, I would be wasting my time..but that isnt the case.
