Thread: Atheist leader?

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

And if this is what he believes, don't you think it hurts the credibility of Atheism as a movement?

Not for me.
As I said, there should be no atheist movement. You can't have a movement of believing in nothing. It is not the job of any atheist to deconvert anyone from any religion nor do I feel the need for leadership. I had to look him up to even know who he is. While that may be a symptom of being overseas too long, I think it has more to do with there being no movement and no leadership for the non movement.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

The thing about atheism is that atheists may NOT know about Dawkins or Hitchens or any but the most outspoken celebrities (Penn Jilette for instance) because they don't feel the need to congregate at a house of worship once a week and praise unto other atheists and discuss higher ups in an atheistic hierarchy. They believe what they believe and leave it at that. They don't need reaffirmation of those beliefs every time they turn around by other atheists. No man is an island, but atheists can be pretty close when it comes to his/her beliefs.

As to the OP... you really DID word that in such a way that people COULD interpret it as you asking if all atheists are pedophiles. So... Read it again and look at it from the outside looking in. That said... I'll take you at your word that that wasn't what you meant.

Dawkins is still someone I look up to and I appreciate his work. He can be a dick. I like the Penn Jillette approach of being humble and genuine and only harsh and brash to his best friends or people that know he has a high amount of respect for them. I think that allows for more balanced discussion and debate. Hitchens is by far the most entertaining. One of my biggest regrets is not hopping onto the metro and going into DC to see him speak before he died. James Randii is another person I want to see but probably won't be able to.

I am not ready to jump all over this without either more context or a response from him. Dawkins is a person some people hold a lot of hate for and things can get scrambled in that bias. I am going to reserve judgement until I get more information. I am critical of what he said and in no way agree with him by default because we share a world view. He is a public figure and people take notice to what he says, so it is concerning he would say that. I hope it was just diarrhea of the mouth and he got caught up trying to make a point. I really hope that story isn't true, it made my stomach turn just reading the sentence.

Pedophilia has come up several times without uproar at the root cause. You look at the church, boy scouts or college football... yeah college football. All are proven to cover up and allow pedophilia to continue. When you have organizations that become more important than the common morality you get really immoral shit happening. It is funny how Dawkins didn't even touch a child or do anything illegal and we have someone here wanting to lead a protest. He said something stupid... Penn State, the Catholic Church and BSA are all immoral organizations that allowed real children to really get raped. I think our breath is better used condemning those organizations.

Dawkins has issued a response:

RDFRS: Child Abuse: a misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

Dawkins is still someone I look up to and I appreciate his work. He can be a dick. I like the Penn Jillette approach of being humble and genuine and only harsh and brash to his best friends or people that know he has a high amount of respect for them. I think that allows for more balanced discussion and debate. Hitchens is by far the most entertaining. One of my biggest regrets is not hopping onto the metro and going into DC to see him speak before he died. James Randii is another person I want to see but probably won't be able to.

I am not ready to jump all over this without either more context or a response from him. Dawkins is a person some people hold a lot of hate for and things can get scrambled in that bias. I am going to reserve judgement until I get more information. I am critical of what he said and in no way agree with him by default because we share a world view. He is a public figure and people take notice to what he says, so it is concerning he would say that. I hope it was just diarrhea of the mouth and he got caught up trying to make a point. I really hope that story isn't true, it made my stomach turn just reading the sentence.

Pedophilia has come up several times without uproar at the root cause. You look at the church, boy scouts or college football... yeah college football. All are proven to cover up and allow pedophilia to continue. When you have organizations that become more important than the common morality you get really immoral shit happening. It is funny how Dawkins didn't even touch a child or do anything illegal and we have someone here wanting to lead a protest. He said something stupid... Penn State, the Catholic Church and BSA are all immoral organizations that allowed real children to really get raped. I think our breath is better used condemning those organizations.

Well I mean he said some of this stuff it in his own autobiography. Hard to defend that, I have to say. It turned my stomach too, because for the most part I have great respect for most of the prominent Atheists out there today. Their positions are principled and usually they are more like Penn, as you describe. As far as immoral shit happening and outrage, I agree entirely, though I am not sure it's a valid comparison to compare the two. Kind of a stretch if you ask me. I get what you're saying and no offense but pointing out some other terrible shit some other people did and then saying we should be focusing on that instead doesn't work for me, you know what I mean?

Better to just let Dawkins' comments stand on their own merits or lack thereof. How about we agree to condemn all of it? Consistency on this issue is probably best in my opinion. If you can see a response by Dawkins let me know what it is. At this point I at least think he should be apologizing. And I do hope he gets mental health care, because to me his comments seemed a bit... off.

Either way I've really lost any respect for him I had left.

^^^wrote the above before seeing your post...

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

Dawkins has issued a response:

RDFRS: Child Abuse: a misunderstanding.

Wow. What he said, wall of text that it was, was not nearly enough. Again this is the exact text of what Dawkins said:

“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,”

Read that and then read his response. The guy needed to man up and say he was wrong to say that, but instead we get a wall of text justifying his position and then a half hearted apology, and only to those who were molested by his molester - not to anyone else who might have been offended.

It looks like he was being terse on a subject where he really should not have been. I think it was fair to be critical of what he said and ask for an explanation. Apparently the RDFRS folk disagree based on their comments. Which brings us full circle to the arrogance of 'your guy' being unwavering right. That warranted an explanation although I thought there was very little chance he meant that a wee bit of pedophilia years ago was a-okay by him.

Man I need to go back to talking about guns, sexual abuse is my least favorite subject ever.

That is why I made light of my own bad experience. To excuse pedophiliac assaults in general, or to make light of the horrific experiences of others, was a thousand miles from my intention.

He said enough.