Atheist leader?

**triggerhappy2005** · 09-14-13, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Gumby

I don't think that's a specific enough definition. By that one, two 14 year old kids snogging would be pedophiles.

But it's irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about the OP trying to spin what a "prominent atheist" said into an accusation that all atheists are fine with a little mild pedophilia. And that's offensive for the sake of being offensive.

BTW, the only "prominent atheist" I knew before this thread is Penn Gillette. But he had no influence on my deconversion. That was all me. You can only really get to the truth on your own. I did enjoy his complete schooling of Pierce Morgan on the subject though.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

What's snogging?

And to clarify, pedophilia would involve someone past puberty.

**Guyver** · 09-14-13, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

What's snogging?

And to clarify, pedophilia would involve someone past puberty.

Snogging = French Kissing

**BigHub** · 09-14-13, 02:45 AM

Ha, I thought snogging was some sort of new sex position.

French kissing, good to know.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 4

**deathgodusmc** · 09-14-13, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

What's snogging?

And to clarify, pedophilia would involve someone past puberty.

I had the same question but i should also point out if they can be charged for child porn are we sure they cant be charged for the other? I mean it has gotten pretty twisted around here on this type of shit.

**HeavyG** · 09-14-13, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

My question is - does this represent the typical atheist's viewpoint? I mean I know Dawkins is seen by many as a leader in the Atheist movement; how many atheists are going to speak out against this stupid crap that he keeps saying about pedophilia? I think he needs to be shamed into shutting up about it. It's really sick if you ask me.

Do you think that the typical Catholic viewpoint is that of homosexual child rapists. You are basically asking the same thing. One person's views, opinions, and choices does not represent those of others.

And if you are questioning the leaders of the Athiest movement (if there is such a thing), then I would also question the leaders of the Catholic church that covered up and paid "hush" money to their victims.

**HeavyG** · 09-14-13, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I didn't accuse all atheists of any damned thing. What the fuck are you guys talking about? I simply asked (basically) if any atheists here can relate to Dawkins' sentiments as I quoted. If this inability to judge as dawkins espouses it is something that is commonly held among Atheists. I wouldn't know because I'm not an Atheist. To me it's of interest because it goes back to other discussions I've had with Atheists regarding morality and where it comes from.

The quote from Dawkins sounds very much like a post-modern viewpoint gone awry. I wondered if the Atheists here see it that way too or if they think there's any merit to what he has said. Why the fuck any of you would think I'm implying that Atheism = ok with pedophelia is beyond me, because I never said that. But here we go - mischaracterize what has been posted. Next up one of you will try to make this about something other than the original topic. OR we can just discuss this topic.

The topic was ignorant, and offensive, and I believe you asked the question just to start a flame war... but that is my opinion.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-14-13, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by HeavyG

Do you think that the typical Catholic viewpoint is that of homosexual child rapists. You are basically asking the same thing. One person's views, opinions, and choices does not represent those of others.

And if you are questioning the leaders of the Athiest movement (if there is such a thing), then I would also question the leaders of the Catholic church that covered up and paid "hush" money to their victims.

I almost didn't bother to clarify because some here are so intent on misunderstanding... Maybe I could have worded it better but what I was asking was - is it the normal atheist viewpoint on subjects like the one Dawkins brought up that you can't really judge someone by moral views from even a few decades ago. Brock understood the question and gave his own answer early on. I respect what he had to say.

If I wanted a flame war as you said, I could have maintained one pretty easily. You might notice that I stopped replying to Wicked altogether as a result of his very rude posts directed toward me. The only flaming has been directed at me.

My hope was that we could have a discussion about what would motivate this prominent atheist to for example make a moral equivalent between believing in hell and child molestation. I was also asking what would cause him to specifically say:

"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,"

Along with some of the other choice things he said. I thought the quote plus my comments would speak for themselves but clearly I left too much room for an inappropriate misinterpretation of meaning by people far more emotionally attached to the subject than me.. There's a lot of moral relativism in this post modernist influenced world we live in that I personally see as inappropriate, abhorrent. The notion that nothing is really true and correct, that everything is a shade of grey. I think that influences and informs Dawkins' viewpoint on this and I personally think that is not good. I just posited whether or not this was a common atheist viewpoint regarding an inability to make moral judgments on things even as extreme as child molestation.

My faith informs my sense of morality. It is where the majority of my sense of right and wrong comes from. It has provided me with conviction on anything moral independent of what any man would think, which means it helps me to make moral judgments regarding my own behavior even when no one is looking or no one would know what I've done. I wondered what drives that for an Atheist since faith is not a component, and an atheist is not bound by any "moral compass" save what the culture deems as appropriate. But even then, what others don't know won't affect the Atheist negatively. So is it seen as a discipline (morality) by Atheists? And going back to Dawkins, is his view of the relative nature of morality a common one even given extreme subjects like child molestation?

In my view, Dawkins' commentary minimized the impact molestation has on people's lives and insulted the sensibilities of most people including atheists. But I honestly wasn't sure, based on Dawkins' own comments (and later, even his "apology"). So I tried to ask.

As for the Catholic Church - I will stand side by side with you in decrying the inappropriate sexual conduct over the years and the attempts at covering it up. It's disgusting. Period. And the fact that the institutional leadership of the Catholic Church perpetrated that behavior and the subsequent coverup speaks volumes about the doctrinal problems in the Catholic Church behind the behavior. In my opinion it's clear that the Catholic Church has been lost for a long, long time from the standpoint of Christian values. But my intent was not for this to turn into an off topic discussion about Catholicism.

So anyway, there it is.

**Gumby** · 09-14-13, 12:51 PM

If you truly want to know where an atheist's morals come from, perhaps you should just ask. As we have no movement, creed, or leaders, each individual would set their own moral compass.

As for myself, I have a strong sense of right and wrong. And it comes from a higher authority than your mythology book: me. I define my moral compass for myself. I have no need for a threat of eternal damnation to nor the lure of eternal bliss to do the right thing.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

**HeavyG** · 09-14-13, 01:04 PM

Science be damned...

**WickedTribe** · 09-14-13, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I almost didn't bother to clarify because some here are so intent on misunderstanding... Maybe I could have worded it better but what I was asking was - is it the normal atheist viewpoint on subjects like the one Dawkins brought up that you can't really judge someone by moral views from even a few decades ago. Brock understood the question and gave his own answer early on. I respect what he had to say.

If I wanted a flame war as you said, I could have maintained one pretty easily. You might notice that I stopped replying to Wicked altogether as a result of his very rude posts directed toward me. The only flaming has been directed at me.

My hope was that we could have a discussion about what would motivate this prominent atheist to for example make a moral equivalent between believing in hell and child molestation. I was also asking what would cause him to specifically say:

"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,"

Along with some of the other choice things he said. I thought the quote plus my comments would speak for themselves but clearly I left too much room for an inappropriate misinterpretation of meaning by people far more emotionally attached to the subject than me.. There's a lot of moral relativism in this post modernist influenced world we live in that I personally see as inappropriate, abhorrent. The notion that nothing is really true and correct, that everything is a shade of grey. I think that influences and informs Dawkins' viewpoint on this and I personally think that is not good. I just posited whether or not this was a common atheist viewpoint regarding an inability to make moral judgments on things even as extreme as child molestation.

My faith informs my sense of morality. It is where the majority of my sense of right and wrong comes from. It has provided me with conviction on anything moral independent of what any man would think, which means it helps me to make moral judgments regarding my own behavior even when no one is looking or no one would know what I've done. I wondered what drives that for an Atheist since faith is not a component, and an atheist is not bound by any "moral compass" save what the culture deems as appropriate. But even then, what others don't know won't affect the Atheist negatively. So is it seen as a discipline (morality) by Atheists? And going back to Dawkins, is his view of the relative nature of morality a common one even given extreme subjects like child molestation?

In my view, Dawkins' commentary minimized the impact molestation has on people's lives and insulted the sensibilities of most people including atheists. But I honestly wasn't sure, based on Dawkins' own comments (and later, even his "apology"). So I tried to ask.

As for the Catholic Church - I will stand side by side with you in decrying the inappropriate sexual conduct over the years and the attempts at covering it up. It's disgusting. Period. And the fact that the institutional leadership of the Catholic Church perpetrated that behavior and the subsequent coverup speaks volumes about the doctrinal problems in the Catholic Church behind the behavior. In my opinion it's clear that the Catholic Church has been lost for a long, long time from the standpoint of Christian values. But my intent was not for this to turn into an off topic discussion about Catholicism.

So anyway, there it is.

Stop playing the poor misunderstood victim here, and just own up to the fact that you were trying to link Atheism and support for pedophelia, because the conversation of the origins of morality actually has merit.

I'm with Gumby. My moral code isn't based on fear of eternal punishment by some authority figure, but on my own logic and the concept that my rights don't supersede the rights of others. Personally, I think that it takes more character to act morally when you don't think that there's an omnipotent figure keeping score.