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!
April 12, 2011 at 7:58 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
I nearly fell for it;what's his name's comment about Dawkins is a strawman.
Plus I don't give a flying fuck about what Richard Dawkins says about anything outside of his discipline. The man is a clever debater and polemicist,but weak philosopher.
April 12, 2011 at 8:01 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2011 at 8:07 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(April 12, 2011 at 5:48 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
(April 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not only will I kindly give you the page number, I will also kindly give you the quote, and also kindly put it in bold for you.
Wel That IS very kind of you.
(April 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Somehow I have the feeling you will not kindly admit that I was right though...just a hunch. You'll find a way to justify DickDawk's views on the subject since he has become a Christ figure to the Atheistic religion.
Your requirements for a "christ figure" must be pretty low or generic for you to consider someone like Dawkins to be equal to your Christ. "Atheistic Religion"?!?! LMFAO..WUT?! Perhaps we should later discuss my bald hair color? "DickDawk"? I like playing with words too. I call a Vagina a "Va Jay Jay" and I call Jesus "Jebus".
(April 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: On page 355 (off of google books) of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
*Pulls out copy of "DickDawk's God Derusion" and blows dust off of it*
Damn, I remember not caring much for this book. It means something to Waldorf, so I guess I will go along
(April 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: "Nevertheless, it is clearly unjust to visit upon all pedophiles a vengeance appropriate to the tiny minority who are also murderers. All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience)."
I dont see it in my copy of my book. Damn, I guess I have to go over to google books. I prefer to have the real thing in my hand, and not some cut and paste crap from the net.
Quick question..did you read the book or did you get this cut and paste from some web site?
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle dipped in pig shit! He's right!! It is in there! Well, I guess that settles it Min.. you have gone against our Lord and Savior DickDawk's words. You must repent or lose your place in atheist nothingness and be sent to torment in Christian Heaven. May nothing have mercy on your non-existant soul.
The context of DickDawk's line of thinking is that he wants people to chill the fuck out and stop grabbing their pitch forks. He also points out that it is easy for people to concoct memories. He also points out that child murderers are worse than child molestors, and that the people going after these priests act as if they were murderers with the zeal they hunt them down with. Honestly Waldorf, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Could you be a bit more specific?
Waldorf 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.
Okay, now you are more specific..umm...What you say, and what you posted seem to agree, but when I read the entire page in context it seems like you just cherry picked.
Do you care to clarify?
I can tell you are one of those guys who replies before reading an entire person's post. I think it was pretty clear by my post that I was objecting to the fact that Dawkin's considers molestation an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience for a child. THis in itself would be ridiculous, but then he turns around and calls for the prosecution of the Pope for "Crimes against humanity"! What? Crimes against humanity? Only for covering up what he considers an "embarassing but otherwise harmless experience" for children? That's hardly seems like a crime against humanity. Dawkins is about as logically consistent as a black white-supremacist.
(April 12, 2011 at 6:03 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: Anyways, since the main issue has been the Church's obstruction of justice, cover-ups and lies, i don't see how this is of any relevance...
It's completely relevant! If atheists such as Dawkins really think molestation is not a serious issue then why do they act so outraged when the church covers it up? I will tell you why, it is becauset they hate religion and they will try and find any reason to attack it, even if it makes them look completely inconsistent in their views.
(April 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: On page 355 (off of google books) of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"Nevertheless, it is clearly unjust to visit upon all pedophiles a vengeance appropriate to the tiny minority who are also murderers. All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience)."
He is speaking about his own experiences. He says he attended three boarding schools who all employed "pedophilic" teachers, and that he was a victim of one of them, yet the experience was more embarrassing than harmful, and he would come to their defense if they were hounded like child murderers.
How you can take what he wrote about his own experiences and think it applies to his general thinking about molestation is quite beyond me.
April 12, 2011 at 9:00 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2011 at 9:05 pm by Skipper.)
How is anyone reading what Dawkins wrote as anything but a comment on his own experience at the hands of one of his teachers? It's CLEARLY not how he views child molestation but a comment on his own personal experience "as the victim of one", which was " an embarrassing but other wise harmless experience".
(April 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: On page 355 (off of google books) of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"Nevertheless, it is clearly unjust to visit upon all pedophiles a vengeance appropriate to the tiny minority who are also murderers. All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience)."
He is speaking about his own experiences. He says he attended three boarding schools who all employed "pedophilic" teachers, and that he was a victim of one of them, yet the experience was more embarrassing than harmful, and he would come to their defense if they were hounded like child murderers.
How you can take what he wrote about his own experiences and think it applies to his general thinking about molestation is quite beyond me.
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.
No, Waldorf you are clearly wrong and are reading the paragraph in the context that gives it the meaning you want it to have, a well rehearsed talent of the religious.
April 12, 2011 at 9:09 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(April 12, 2011 at 9:00 pm)Skipper Wrote: How is anyone reading what Dawkins wrote as anything but a comment on his own experience at the hands of one of his teachers? It's CLEARLY not how he views child molestation but a comment on his own personal experience "as the victim of one", which was " an embarrassing but other wise harmless experience".
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.
(April 12, 2011 at 9:08 pm)Skipper Wrote: No, Waldorf you are clearly wrong and are reading the paragraph in the context that gives it the meaning you want it to have, a well rehearsed talent of the religious.
I think you are doing this very thing in all honesty. Surely Richard Dawkins, hero to atheists far and near, intellectual giant, and pillar of virtue and morality can't believe that something as evil as molestation is no big deal can he!? Oh no!
Quote:Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing (Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus). Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin Master's eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side.
BOOOOOOOM!
There you go, he was clearly a victim and he viewed his experience as a "mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion" then went away and had a laugh (an over all harmless experience).
April 12, 2011 at 9:20 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2011 at 9:25 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
However even if Dawkins is only speaking of his own experience, which I do not believe is the case, he would still be completely inconsistent in his other actions. He has said on numerous occasions that he is a determinist and punishing criminals for their actions would be not unlike punishing a car for breaking down or a computer for not behaving properly. Even after saying this though he demands for the arrest and punishment of the Pope for "crimes against humanity". The guy is a complete joke.
Quote:Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing (Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus). Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin Master's eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side.
BOOOOOOOM!
This proves what? All that it proves is that Dawkins believes that molestation is something that you can laugh at and use to bond with buddies and is far less serious than a belief in hell? Yeah, he's a pretty sick man, and it's obvious the molestation had more of a lasting affect on his mind that he wishes to believe. I just have to disagree wtih him, molestation and child rape are never funny and will never be a "bonding experience" in my eyes.
April 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm by Skipper.)
Fucking hell you are dense. He never says child molestation and rape are funny. He says HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, which clearly wasn't anything more than getting touched up a bit didn't affect him personally and he found the experience to be embarrassing but otherwise harmless.
I like playing with words too. I call a Vagina a "Va Jay Jay" and I call Jesus "Jebus".
