Oh, Thank you, Your Ass-Holiness....

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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.

---

---

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='127372' dateline='1302630885']

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.

---

---

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.