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

[thesummerqueen]

Au contraire. They're not forgettable. I remember them and laugh over coffee about them with atheists and more enlightened Christians alike.

[OnlyNatural]

I disagree. There is no such thing as a "mild" molestation, it's all a felony and for good reason. The fact that Dawkins does minimize it is apparent by his view that it is less harmful to a child than the teaching of religion (which of course is not a felony because it harms the child in no way). It's disgusting that someone would think that the sexual abuse of a child is better for a child than teaching them that they should love their neighbor and do unto others as they want done to themselves. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

Obviously there are varying degrees of inappropriate sexual contact. I'm not saying that any kind of molestation is acceptable (it's not, no matter how mild), but the psychological harm caused by it can vary a lot with the severity of molestation. Like Moros said above, you're seeing the world in black-and-white (binary) terms. Real life is not that simple.

Religious teachings DO cause psychological harm to some children. Teaching a child to be terrified of hell, to feel guilty about personal thoughts and natural impulses, to be ashamed of original sin, to believe that they are constantly being watched and judged by an all-powerful authority... these ideas can really damage some people. Even if they eventually turn away from religion, they're haunted by the fear of hell and the oppressive sense of guilt and shame. This is what Dawkins is talking about when he says that the psychological harm of religious teachings is worse, in many ways, to the harm caused by his PERSONAL embarrassing experience of being mildly fondled. Obviously there are also cases of molestation that cause much worse psychological harm than the guilt and fear of religion. Each case must be considered separately.

You're incredibly naive if you think that teaching religion to children is only about 'love thy neighbor' and 'do unto others.' Looking at it that way only makes you feel better about being religious. Or maybe this feel-good version is your personal experience, but that doesn't mean it's everyone's experience.

[Statler Waldorf]

I still don't understand why you all are bothering. You will not change his views. If he doesn't get it already he never will.

Not so sure you get the point of a discussion forum. I rarely see anyone change their views on any discussion forum, the point is to discuss our views and why we hold them and I think that is exactly what we have been doing. Nobody forces you to partake in or even read the discussion for that matter, so not sure why you are whining.

---

Au contraire. They're not forgettable. I remember them and laugh over coffee about them with atheists and more enlightened Christians alike.

More enlightened Christians? lol

Well I have a good chuckle with my friends and colleagues (some whom are more enlightened atheists) about some of the posts on here as well so I guess it's mutually beneficial that we all keep posting on here.

---

---

I disagree. There is no such thing as a "mild" molestation, it's all a felony and for good reason. The fact that Dawkins does minimize it is apparent by his view that it is less harmful to a child than the teaching of religion (which of course is not a felony because it harms the child in no way). It's disgusting that someone would think that the sexual abuse of a child is better for a child than teaching them that they should love their neighbor and do unto others as they want done to themselves. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

Obviously there are varying degrees of inappropriate sexual contact. I'm not saying that any kind of molestation is acceptable (it's not, no matter how mild), but the psychological harm caused by it can vary a lot with the severity of molestation. Like Moros said above, you're seeing the world in black-and-white (binary) terms. Real life is not that simple.

Religious teachings DO cause psychological harm to some children. Teaching a child to be terrified of hell, to feel guilty about personal thoughts and natural impulses, to be ashamed of original sin, to believe that they are constantly being watched and judged by an all-powerful authority... these ideas can really damage some people. Even if they eventually turn away from religion, they're haunted by the fear of hell and the oppressive sense of guilt and shame. This is what Dawkins is talking about when he says that the psychological harm of religious teachings is worse, in many ways, to the harm caused by his PERSONAL embarrassing experience of being mildly fondled. Obviously there are also cases of molestation that cause much worse psychological harm than the guilt and fear of religion. Each case must be considered separately.

You're incredibly naive if you think that teaching religion to children is only about 'love thy neighbor' and 'do unto others.' Looking at it that way only makes you feel better about being religious. Or maybe this feel-good version is your personal experience, but that doesn't mean it's everyone's experience.

---

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean. Do you judge the wrongfulness of an action by how much harm it can cause a person?

Guess I just don't really get Dawkin's point, children can be affected in greatly different ways by a variety of different actions (i.e. abuse, teaching of religion, teaching of evolution) - this does not in itself make the action wrong or right in my opinion. I think even if the child enjoyed the molestation it does not make it any less wrong. Maybe that is where Dawkins and I actually differ. Thoughts?

As to your last point, I guess that just depends on what religion we are teaching the child.

[OnlyNatural]

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean. Do you judge the wrongfulness of an action by how much harm it can cause a person?

Guess I just don't really get Dawkin's point, children can be affected in greatly different ways by a variety of different actions (i.e. abuse, teaching of religion, teaching of evolution) - this does not in itself make the action wrong or right in my opinion. I think even if the child enjoyed the molestation it does not make it any less wrong. Maybe that is where Dawkins and I actually differ. Thoughts?

Well yes, I'd say in general that something is 'wrong' if it causes people harm. But I hesitate to make sweeping statements, because each situation must be seen in context. If the child enjoyed being molested? I don't really see that happening, but if it did, I suppose that would be in the same wrongness category as statutory rape, or corrupting a minor, or something along those lines.

As to your last point, I guess that just depends on what religion we are teaching the child.

It doesn't depend on the specific religion being taught, it depends on HOW the religion is being taught to children.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean. Do you judge the wrongfulness of an action by how much harm it can cause a person?

Guess I just don't really get Dawkin's point, children can be affected in greatly different ways by a variety of different actions (i.e. abuse, teaching of religion, teaching of evolution) - this does not in itself make the action wrong or right in my opinion. I think even if the child enjoyed the molestation it does not make it any less wrong. Maybe that is where Dawkins and I actually differ. Thoughts?

Well yes, I'd say in general that something is 'wrong' if it causes people harm. But I hesitate to make sweeping statements, because each situation must be seen in context. If the child enjoyed being molested? I don't really see that happening, but if it did, I suppose that would be in the same wrongness category as statutory rape, or corrupting a minor, or something along those lines.

As to your last point, I guess that just depends on what religion we are teaching the child.

It doesn't depend on the specific religion being taught, it depends on HOW the religion is being taught to children.

---

Hmm, that's interesting. So is this why you call yourself a humanist? Do you also dertermine good along similiar lines?

[OnlyNatural]

Hmm, that's interesting. So is this why you call yourself a humanist? Do you also dertermine good along similiar lines?

Well, in humanism, there are no 'absolute' rigid rules of right and wrong that are separate from human experience, if that's what you mean. Read up on humanism, if you want. But this a whole separate discussion. We've hijacked this thread enough.

[HeyItsZeus]

Me:I still don't understand why you all are bothering. You will not change his views. If he doesn't get it already he never will.

You:Not so sure you get the point of a discussion forum. I rarely see anyone change their views on any discussion forum, the point is to discuss our views and why we hold them and I think that is exactly what we have been doing. Nobody forces you to partake in or even read the discussion for that matter, so not sure why you are whining.

---

I'm whining because this is a god damn atheist forum! I signed up here so I can get away from people like you! I have to argue about this shit all of the time in real life and I want to be around like-minded people for at least 10 minutes a day!

That is all.

[everythingafter]

I disagree. There is no such thing as a "mild" molestation, it's all a felony and for good reason. The fact that Dawkins does minimize it is apparent by his view that it is less harmful to a child than the teaching of religion (which of course is not a felony because it harms the child in no way). It's disgusting that someone would think that the sexual abuse of a child is better for a child than teaching them that they should love their neighbor and do unto others as they want done to themselves. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

You seem to have a limitless ability to miss the point. It was a "mild" experience for Dawkins. He wasn't saying it was mild for anyone else. The golden rule, of course, long predates your pal Jesus' "bold" exhortation.

[Shell B]

There is absolutely such a thing as "mild" molestation, though the choice of words may be poor. While personal experience and how the victims copes are everything as far as the effect it will have on the victim, the level of molestation can be mild to severe. Mild being a one time, quick thing that hopefully has little lasting effect on the child. Severe being over the course of years, forced reciprocation, etc. Anyone who doesn't see there is a scale has his head up his ass.

Now, before I get misquoted or misunderstood, I find any act of molestation abhorrent and I am fully aware that even a "mild" occurrence can lead to a lifetime of psychological issues. I do not condone it. I only recognize the levels. It is like the different levels of rape. You cannot tell me that a rape that did no physical harm and happened during sex only after the girl said no, let's say, one minute before it was over is no different from a rape where the girl has all of her orifices penetrated violently? I will say right now that I know I would be more likely to recover from the former than from the latter.

It is a good thing that Dawkins got a small dose and handled it well (psychologically). What is that you want him to do Waldorf? Do you want him to be scarred for life?

[theVOID]

The word molestation shouldn't even be used, it's fucking RAPE!