Richard Dawkins defends pedophila

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
source


Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" in an interview this weekend. And while the quote itself is quite jarring, especially to those who look to Dawkins for his influential writings on atheism (but haven't noticed some of his other strange stances), it's far from the first time that the scientist has launched a defense of the behavior — or talked about his own abuse at the hands of boarding school teachers. First, here's what Dawkins said to The Times magazine, as condensed by the Religion News Service:


To sum it up, Dawkins has basically implied that raising children with religion is worse than sexually abusing them.



There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was 7 years old, she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.

“At the same time, a friend of hers, also 7, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant, she had gone to hell and will be roasting in hell forever.

“She told me, of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky, but she got over it. But the mental abuse of being told about hell, she took years to get over. "


Atheists, here is your champion. I have seen comments leveled at William Lane Craig regarding his stance on the issue of genocide in the old testament, and that his stance makes him unfit to debate the great Richard Dawkins, and that Dr.Craig is somehow beneath Dawkins and not worthy of his time.

Yet here we have the face of nu-atheism downplaying sexual abuse and suggesting that people in the past shouldn't be condemned for sexually abusing children because they lived in a different time and culture. He even went so far as to suggest the sexual abuse which runs rampant in the catholic church is being overblown, and that the real damage being caused is religion itself. Creepy much?

What say you, Dawkins fans?




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



To sum it up, Dawkins has basically implied that raising children with religion is worse than sexually abusing them.

So, he is saying that he no longer has use for his kneecaps and elbows.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Uh, I haven't read the article yet. But I seriously hope there is something more damning in there. Because based upon the quotes you quoted, he was definitely not "Defending Pedophelia"



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Malynn
 


Then maybe you should read the article before commenting?



Anecdotes and plausibility arguments, however, need to be backed up by systematic research, and I would be interested to hear from psychologists whether there is real evidence bearing on the question. My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell. But ‘sexual abuse’ covers a wide spectrum of sins, and I suspect that research would show belief in hell to be more traumatic than the sort of mild feeling-up that I suffered.
edit on 12-9-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Malynn
 


My thoughts exactly.. Making a mountain out of a mole hill. Btw I read the article... I think u are taking his words out of context... People make a huge big deal out of peadophiles for the physical and mental torture and yes rightly so.. But he's also saying. All the mental abuse that goes with the world of religion goes highly unnoticed to the sleeping masses. I mean to be told if u do wrong u will burn in eternal hell and these people say it as FACT is just as bad.. This is one crude example of the immaturity of religion. Religion is a huge hindrance to mankind.. Rather like peodophiles. Both are sick and do a lot of harm to our species.
edit on 12-9-2013 by DigitalResonance because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

DigitalResonance
reply to post by Malynn
 


My thoughts exactly.. Making a mountain out of a mole hill.


So it's making a mountain out of a molehill when it's one of atheisms "heroes"? Do you apply the same yardstick to your opponents in your debates with theists?



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

To sum it up, Dawkins has basically implied that raising children with religion is worse than sexually abusing them.

They've been doing that for a long time, a major slap in the face of every child that has had to endure physical or sexual abuse.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


I'll have to agree with him. I was abused sexually by more than one school principle who gave long, lingering paddles, inappropriately 'soothing' my rear end between swats.

I was abused by my religious zealot grandparents a thousand times worse by being reminded constantly that I was going straight to hell to burn because my hippy mom never had me baptised- didn't matter if I was a good kid or not.

So- I got over the weirdo school officials. I never got over my grandparents bulldump.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You totally missed the point of what richard was saying if that is your reply.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I guess him saying religious indoctrination is worse than pedophilia means he was defending pedophilia? Does that mean that anyone who says shooting up heroine is worse than smoking crack means they support smoking crack?



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DigitalResonance
 


So then you agree with him that bringing a child up with a religious background is worse than "mild feeling up" of children by adults? Those are his words. Doesn't matter how you try to downplay it, when an adult engages in "mild feeling up" with a child, it is sexual abuse.

Utter horse #. I should have known his disciples would gladly overlook something so disgusting.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Before anything else is said by me here, I have no dog in this fight. I'm neither Christian nor Atheist.


Here's part of what he had to say, according to the article you posted...


“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”



Trying to figure out what you construe as being incorrect in this statement. We gloss over things all the time, quite frankly, and if we didn't, we'd have a lot more issues in our society today than we do.

There are a lot of folks that have been targeted by "reverse racism," based on events that happened in previous centuries, that have absolutely nothing to do with any of the parties involved today, and when people hear about these things happening, they stand against it. They try to get people to move past the things in the past and deal with the realities of TODAY, not base them on what happened years ago.

How many people have read a story about the whole "child brides" issue in the middle east and thought, "well, that's their society..."

They don't judge that society by the same standards that they hold, themselves.

I dunno. I don't see anything in the statements that he made that says he is defending it or supports it. Just saying that it can me moved on from.

I know that for a fact, myself, because *I* was able to move on from sexual abuse (as well as physical). I don't let it run or ruin my life and I certainly don't support abusing children in any way.

And I CAN say that I carry a HELL of a lot more "issues" in me from the Christian upbringing I had than I ever have from the sexual or physical abuse in my childhood.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Another one who totally missed the point of what richard was saying... I know he's an atheist but u don't need to exaggerate what he was saying... What he said is clear if u just read what's written and not what u want him to of said because of your distaste towards the man.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


His statement doesn't even begin to mean he was defending pedophilia. I think you're taking this way out of context.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by DigitalResonance
 


So then you agree with him that bringing a child up with a religious background is worse than "mild feeling up" of children by adults? Those are his words. Doesn't matter how you try to downplay it, when an adult engages in "mild feeling up" with a child, it is sexual abuse.

Utter horse #. I should have known his disciples would gladly overlook something so disgusting.


No I think in some situations bringing someone up in a religious family could be just as mentally disruptive as some one else being abused in other ways in this case peadophilia.

Nice n simple to understand for you

Abuse is abuse no matter if its someone hitting you, touching you up, or telling you you will damned for all eternity if you don't do as a book tells u..

Abuse is abuse
edit on 12-9-2013 by DigitalResonance because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



Atheists, here is your champion.


What? You're implying that the extremist atheist speaks for all the atheists?

I guess Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Christians right?

At the very least Dawkins is discussing the issue of sexual abuse in the church, something the church itself tries to stay away from at all costs. That's neither here nor there however.

The point is, that what he said is idiotic and it expresses his personal, extremist views on religion and it's effects on people.

It's an extremist viewpoint, not shared by the majority of atheists, who although do not believe in God, do not see a reason to belittle and mock people who do.

~Tenth
edit on 9/12/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

DigitalResonance
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Another one who totally missed the point of what richard was saying... I know he's an atheist but u don't need to exaggerate what he was saying... What he said is clear if u just read what's written and not what u want him to of said because of your distaste towards the man.


Yes, what he said is very clear. That "mild feeling up" of children is less damaging to them than a religious upbringing. You can claim he is not defending it, but he is certainly downplaying it, and even suggesting that sexually abusing children is less harmful to them than raising them with religion. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths which some will go to oppose the idea of God.

I was raised with a Christian upbringing, and while I was never sexually abused, I will take my days in sunday school over being fondled as a child any day.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



Atheists, here is your champion.


What? You're implying that the extremist atheist speaks for all the atheists?

I guess Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Christians right?

At the very least Dawkins is discussing the issue of sexual abuse in the church, something the church itself tries to stay away from at all costs. That's neither here nor there however.

The point is, that what he said is idiotic and it expresses his personal, extremist views on religion and it's effects on people.

It's an extremist viewpoint, not shared by the majority of atheists, who although do not believe in God, do not see a reason to belittle and mock people who do.

~Tenth
edit on 9/12/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


I should have said "nu-atheists". You are absolutely right that not all atheists fit that particular mould.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Richard Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists, he just so happens to be the most famous one. He was expressing his own personal views, they have nothing to do with atheist views as a whole.

Does god really hate gays and soldiers? Or is that just the opinion of WBC?



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Yeah, that's still not defending pedophelia. You're really reaching. Dislike Richard Dawkins all you want. Dislike Atheists all you want. But insinuating someone is DEFENDING pedophelia when they are not? That is sick.





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join