Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Richard Dawkins defends pedophila

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

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



Btw. Someone who posted above who was also abused can understand what richard was saying.. Richard point was that living in a religious family could be worse overall abuse than someone who was mildly abused in a sexual way... Sexual abuse is wrong no matter what but that's not the point here... The point actually being that in SOME situaltions religious abuse can be far more detrimental than mild sexual abuse... Plain and simple..




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


Perhaps you should read the article you are posting before making wild claims.

Dawkins in no way defends pedophilia, he is simply saying that religious indoctrination to a young child is more mentally traumatic than an incident of mild pedophilia. He never says that pedophilia is OK, he never says that he condones such activity. All he is saying is that judging from what he has experienced himself, and from what others have shared, getting touched in your no-no special place is easier to overcome than years of indoctrination and the fear of sinning, hell and the devil.

I agree with him. Even a single incidence of pedophilia should cause the adult responsible to be punished accordingly without sympathy. People should also understand that striking fear in to the hearts of impressionable minors is just as damaging in the long term, and scaring the crap out of young children can be just as, if not more damaging in the long term.

DC



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Well, I've been subject to both, so I have a relevant opinion.

I was sexually abused as a toddler by trusted family members and friends, and as a result, as a toddler and young child, I exhibited sexually charged behavior. I exposed myself and touched myself in front of adults in provocative ways. While many were mildly amused, and some encouraged my "sexy" behavior, others were appalled and convinced that I was demon possessed.

I underwent numerous, extremely traumatic exorcisms that gave me nightmares. And the cycle continued. I grew older I was continually accused of "sinning" and told that I was going to hell and told to repent, but never counseled for my problems.

I was terrified to be left alone, believing my family could be "raptured" at any moment, and I would be left behind because there was something wrong with me. When I was alone, I panicked, and called everyone I knew, and thought would be "taken", until someone answered the phone.

I could write a book on the child abuse that I, personally, suffered at the hands of abusive Christian's and their doctrine of hell, Satan and demonic possession. Dawkins is right, teaching children of eternal damnation, for themselves or their loved ones, is more traumatic then sexual abuse.




edit on 12-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I've already acknowledged that I was in error to paint all atheists with the same brush. The fact remains that Richard Dawkins is the face of New Atheism .


New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."


So for those who share that view, What exactly is rational about Dawkins statements?
edit on 12-9-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Malynn
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.


So I'm the sick one now? Amazing.

You know what is sick? Insinuating that fondling children is less damaging to them than raising them as Christians. THAT is sick (and ass backwards I might add).



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
The funniest thing about Richard Dawkins supposedly "defending" pedophilia is that that would mean he'd be defending all those priests he is clearly against. Wow, that guy Dawkins.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I've already acknowledged that I was in error to paint all atheists with the same brush. The fact remains that Richard Dawkins is the face of New Atheism .


New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."


So for those who share that view, What exactly is rational about Dawkins statements?
edit on 12-9-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)


Well I will just say this...
If someone was mildly sexually abused then it stands to reason that perhaps after a certain amount of time hopefully they would get over the ordeal and it wouldn't consume there everyday life choices and decisions.. Now someone who has been abused by religious mumbo jumbo is far more likely to be effected by it every day of their decision making lives in fear of sin and or eternal damnation..

This is how I see it



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DigitalResonance
 


I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. A person can choose to reject religious doctrine. I have met many people who were raised in religious homes who turned out just fine, and chose to reject the beliefs of their parents. They live perfectly healthy, well adjusted lives.

A child doesn't choose to be the victim of sexual abuse. You can spin it all you want. I've read about all the "religious abuse" people have claimed to have suffered here. Abuse is abuse is abuse. I am not excusing abuse in any way shape or form. I contend that the claim sexual abuse is less damaging than religion is not only absurdly irrational, it is inexcusable.

Now I will ask you all one more time:

Is growing up in a healthy non-abusive Christian family worse than growing up being the victim of sexual abuse?

How can any of you rationally defend Dawkins' comments?



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."


So for those who share that view, What exactly is rational about Dawkins statements?





posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 




Is growing up in a healthy non-abusive Christian family worse than growing up being the victim of sexual abuse?



So, now you're changing the end goal. I find that offensive!

What is a non-abusive Christian family? One that doesn't preach about Satan, hell and demonic possession? Can a child choose to reject religious indoctrination and brainwashing?
edit on 12-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


enjoyed that, thanks



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


No, I did not say you were sick, I said accusing someone of defending pedophelia when they are not is sick. Are you so concerned with being right that you cannot see this?



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

windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 




Is growing up in a healthy non-abusive Christian family worse than growing up being the victim of sexual abuse?



So, now you're changing the end goal. I find that offensive!

What is a non-abusive Christian family? One that doesn't preach about Satan, hell and demonic possession? Can a child choose to reject religious indoctrination and brainwashing?
edit on 12-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


You are baiting me into some very difficult territory but I have little choice but to go there, do I?

Your story seems to indicate that your upbringing was quite dysfunctional. To say that the religion certain members of your family practiced was solely responsible for the trauma you felt is somewhat disingenuous when it is obvious that there were undertones of abusive behaviour running throughout your collective experiences. As I said, abuse is abuse.

Yes, a child CAN reject religious indoctrination. If a child is given the choice to choose (again, an abuse free upbringing), and taught about a number of varying philosophies, they are completely capable of rejecting the religion their parents believe.

I am by no means downplaying your experiences, or how they affected you. But can you honestly say you were raised in a healthy family to begin with? How can you claim your "religious abuse" was worse than your sexual abuse when the one stemmed from the other? Abuse is abuse.

No logical person can claim that religion is worse than the sexual abuse of children. One is a philosophy, the other is an atrocity.
edit on 12-9-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by DigitalResonance
 


I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. A person can choose to reject religious doctrine. I have met many people who were raised in religious homes who turned out just fine, and chose to reject the beliefs of their parents. They live perfectly healthy, well adjusted lives.

A child doesn't choose to be the victim of sexual abuse. You can spin it all you want. I've read about all the "religious abuse" people have claimed to have suffered here. Abuse is abuse is abuse. I am not excusing abuse in any way shape or form. I contend that the claim sexual abuse is less damaging than religion is not only absurdly irrational, it is inexcusable.

Now I will ask you all one more time:

Is growing up in a healthy non-abusive Christian family worse than growing up being the victim of sexual abuse?

How can any of you rationally defend Dawkins' comments?


I agree most people can choose to reject religious doctrine and growing up in a non abusive Christian family is not worse than growing up being mildly sexually abused its probably on par... I say that for the simple reason that being Christian means having being brought up by a parent or similar with them teaching you about god, the storys of creation, heaven and hell all of which are potential lies. Now if u are young enough and parents start teaching religious viewpoint I think up to the age of 6 but even upto 8 we are like sponges and these ideas get ingrained into us. The more they are ingrained the harder it is to think for yourself.. If child of 3 is told about god, Jesus etc on a daily basis by the time they are 6 they think this is reality and believe 100% what they have been taught by their parent and other peers as time goes on its harder and harder to un learn these ideas.. Now the more religious and extreme the parents the more embedded these ideas with become in the child.. This is terrible life long lasting abuse in a lot of situations... Every decision based on not what u want to do but what u think u should do because its gods will etc.. This is abuse.. And what u was saying just don't cut it fella..



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





I am by no means downplaying your experiences, or how they affected you. But can you honestly say you were raised in a healthy family to begin with? How can you claim your "religious abuse" was worse than your sexual abuse when the one stemmed from the other? Abuse is abuse.

No logical person can claim that religion is worse than the sexual abuse of children. One is a philosophy, the other is an atrocity.


You can't separate what happens in life from how religion handles it. Life is messy! In your model, it's one or the other. "Is sexual abuse worse that being raised in a healthy balanced Christian household?" is an insincere question.

How about asking, "Is a gay youth, being raised in a fundamental Christian home, that teaches that all homosexuals will go to hell, worse than being sexually abused as a child?"

"Is forcing an underage rape victim, who wants an abortion, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, strictly based pro-life Christian philosophy, more traumatic than the rape?

Is it ethical for a Christian family to teach their children that it's okay to kill the children of families that don't follow their God, like the Old Testament and WLC say?"

edit on 12-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


This isn't going to turn into a theological debate. There are enough threads here for that. Since I don't have the option of clarifying with Dawkins exactly which religion it is he considers worse than child sexual abuse, I can only assume it is any religion which has a notion of Hell, which is almost all of them.

You might as well tell 5 billion people they are worse than child molesters.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Hey, you're the one who brought WLC's argument and Dawkins' opposition to WLC's immoral defense of genocide. Now, you don't want to bring up doctrine. But it's the doctrine that messes kids heads up!

Can Christian doctrines of "us vs them", judgement, God's wrath and hell fire and damnation, teaching the end of the world and Armageddon mess up children worse that sexual abuse? You betcha!

Is being rejected by your church and your family, based on religious doctrine, worse that sexual abuse? You betcha!



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I did bring up WLC because of the issues used to criticize him. I see now that I was foolish to think that Dawkins would be held up to the same lofty standards.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
So using Dawkins logic, I guess a victim of child abuse can be consoled with something like "things could be worse, you could have been raised with religion", right?



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


What lofty standards?
How lofty is it to denounce genocide?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join