RENOWNED ATHEIST IS COOL WITH PEDOPHILIA: Dawkins says, “It causes no lasting harm” R

[Jeff]

What a idiot this guy is, mild pedophilia is ok and not long lasting harm, yes a atheist point of view , I think this proves that God in your life may just help some .




In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.” Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.



http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/renown-atheist-cool-pedophilia-dawkins-says-causes-lasting-harm/

[Larrymc]

What a idiot this guy is, mild pedophilia is ok and not long lasting harm, yes a atheist point of view , I think this proves that God in your life may just help some .




http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/renown-atheist-cool-pedophilia-dawkins-says-causes-lasting-harm/Well the Homosexual agenda is in full swing, so whats next?? I think the answer is in this article.

[Gaffer]

Dawkins is a really smart guy, but what respect I had for him is now gone. A pox on him.

[revelarts]

Beliefs have consequences.
Moral confusion and darkness follows atheism and evolution like crap follows a horse.


:sarcasm alert:
surprise surprise an prominent Atheist leads the way to making "mild Pedophilia" socially acceptable... legally permissible?
We're just biologically determined monkeys ANYWAY, what's all this about morals etcs huh? Just culturally made up right? AND.. AND the Romans and Greeks did it!!
If there's no "Harm" done what laws need to be in place? It's just those Prudish Backwards Religious NUTS that don't want teacher to get their rocks off on the kids. Those parents are sooo SELFISH, isn't Christianity suppose to be about looove and Sharing. the Kids don't belong to parents ANYway they belong to the STATE."
:sarcasm alert end:


pray for revival folks

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Dawkins is a really smart guy, but what respect I had for him is now gone. A pox on him. I agree with you Gaffer. Dumbass just said that a little child molesting is just fine! OK, LET THE BASTARD COME TO MY HOUSE AND WE'LL SEE HOW WELL HE GETS TO TEST THAT THEORY--AFTER- I BREAK HIM LIKE A DAMN TWIG! Absolutely no child should have to suffer any level of molestation! That ass is likely admitting that he engages in such IMHO. AND HAS JUSTIFIED HIS OWN ACTIONS. -Tyr

[Larrymc]

I agree with you Gaffer. Dumbass just said that a little child molesting is just fine! OK, LET THE BASTARD COME TO MY HOUSE AND WE'LL SEE HOW WELL HE GETS TO TEST THAT THEORY--AFTER- I BREAK HIM LIKE A DAMN TWIG! Absolutely no child should have to suffer any level of molestation! That ass is likely admitting that he engages in such IMHO. AND HAS JUSTIFIED HIS OWN ACTIONS. -TyrI agree! What an ominous phrase "Mild Pedophilia" like the token gay in most sitcoms in the 70s look for it to slowly become more and more used and accepted.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree! What an ominous phrase "Mild Pedophilia" like the token gay in most sitcoms in the 70s look for it to slowly become more and more used and accepted. The dems/libs/leftists are big on "conditioning" ! Kids now seem to get much of their education from tv/movies and especially their education on history and cultural norms.

[aboutime]

What a idiot this guy is, mild pedophilia is ok and not long lasting harm, yes a atheist point of view , I think this proves that God in your life may just help some .




http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/renown-atheist-cool-pedophilia-dawkins-says-causes-lasting-harm/



"Causes no lasting harm?" People who dare to think, and speak like him deserve to learn how LITTLE LASTING HARM might come from standing in the FAST LANE, on Interstate 95, at Rush Hour, and pretending there is no Traffic.

Seems like this whole nation is being driven down the toilet by idiots like him. And we're all expected to be tolerant, fair, and not be offended????

[Gaffer]

"Causes no lasting harm?" People who dare to think, and speak like him deserve to learn how LITTLE LASTING HARM might come from standing in the FAST LANE, on Interstate 95, at Rush Hour, and pretending there is no Traffic.

Seems like this whole nation is being driven down the toilet by idiots like him. And we're all expected to be tolerant, fair, and not be offended????

I would like about 5 minutes with him to teach him about lasting harm. I would take great pleasure from it and being an atheist myself I would have no guilt about it.

[aboutime]

I would like about 5 minutes with him to teach him about lasting harm. I would take great pleasure from it and being an atheist myself I would have no guilt about it.


Gaffer. Thanks. As you can see. I hold no contempt for anyone who doesn't believe as I do. But people like that slob, sort of destroy, or bring contempt for others who don't see life as he does.

As for lasting harm. There really is no way to stop such stupidity. But for anyone like him who openly brags about such things. They deserve whatever kind of Harm they might bring upon themselves. And the CHEERS that follow.

[red state]

I would like about 5 minutes with him to teach him about lasting harm. I would take great pleasure from it and being an atheist myself I would have no guilt about it.

Gaffer, neither u or I need 5 min but that may be the more justified route. We truly need only the second it takes to pull a trigger for the filth such as he, or anyone that feels abuse to a child of any kind, (mild orn not) is or should be acceptable. I'm speaking as a Christian that sees evil for what it is and understands what is needed to deal with such evil....no guilt or remorse about it. Good men act aas they should (whether Christian or Athiest). I hold nothing againt one's beliefs as long as it does not bully my own & I feel that I know u good enough by now to comfortably saay that u are no bully...just a good man that fought for our Nation.

[Arbo]

Well the Homosexual agenda is in full swing, so whats next?? I think the answer is in this article.

The idea that because someone is homosexual they are also a pedophile is so logically flawed it is amazing people still run with it.

[revelarts]

The idea that because someone is homosexual they are also a pedophile is so logically flawed it is amazing people still run with it.

But's that's not what he said is it?

[Larrymc]

The idea that because someone is homosexual they are also a pedophile is so logically flawed it is amazing people still run with it.I don't assume all Homosexuals are also Pedophiles, its just the next step in the Deviant Sexual desires, that the homosexuals promote, and fight so diligently to normalize, Homosexuals are like Abortionist they are selfish, with no respect for anyone's opinion that dose not suit there agenda.

[Arbo]

I don't assume all Homosexuals are also Pedophiles,

Ah, sorry, a long couple days, very tired, have just seen that argument so much I made an incorrect conclusion.


its just the next step in the Deviant Sexual desires, that the homosexuals promote, and fight so diligently to normalize, Homosexuals are like Abortionist they are selfish, with no respect for anyone's opinion that dose not suit there agenda.

This however is just kinda kookie.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The idea that because someone is homosexual they are also a pedophile is so logically flawed it is amazing people still run with it.


Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair. ^^^^^^This may have stirred the thought if indeed he did think that all gays are child molesters.-Tyr I hope that you can see that a man touching a young child's privates like that is sick, homo-erotic and also molesting but with you I'm not so sure.--Tyr

[Arbo]

I hope that you can see that a man touching a young child's privates like that is sick, homo-erotic and also molesting but with you I'm not so sure.

1) Pedophiles should be shot.

2) That you suggest it is 'homoerotic' means you either have no idea what the term means, or you are in fact trying to tie together homosexuals and pedophiles, which is not what the other poster did.

3) Yeah, lame attempt at throwing in more bogus acquisitions about another user. How about we just stick to the topic?

[Larrymc]

Ah, sorry, a long couple days, very tired, have just seen that argument so much I made an incorrect conclusion.



This however is just kinda kookie.Whats kookie is the fact that you are unable to see the obvious.

[logroller]

This however is just kinda kookie.
Is kookie a nice way of saying illogical?

[Arbo]

Is kookie a nice way of saying illogical?

That works. A bit more to it, but that works.

[Noir]

The point (lost ofcourse) is 'should we iudge those in the past by our morality today' which is a really hard question.

[red states rule]

The morals of this country is sinking faster then the Titantic. Seems nothing is over the top (unless you talk about traditional values)

Hell, even the Washington Compost ran an op-ed where a liberal idiot wrote that sex between a student and teacher should NOT be against the law.




The unintended consequences of laws addressing sex between teachers and students<!-- /article tool bar -->By Betsy Karasik, <!-- For AP News Registry --><!-- /For AP News Registry -->Published: August 30
<!-- /byline --><ARTICLE>Betsy Karasik is a writer and former lawyer.



There is a painfully uncomfortable episode of “Louie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1492966/)” in which the comedian Louis C.K. muses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jjWKnjB1U8) that maybe child molesters wouldn’t kill their victims if the penalty weren’t so severe. Everyone I know who watches the show vividly recalls that scene from 2010 because it conjures such a witches’ cauldron of taboo, disgust and moral outrage, all wrapped around a disturbing kernel of truth. I have similar ambivalence about the case involving former Montana high school teacher Stacey Dean Rambold (http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html). Louie concluded his riff with a comment to the effect of “I don’t know what to do with that information.” That may be the case for many of us, but with our legal and moral codes failing us, our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools.

As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold’s sentence — he will spend 30 days in prison after pleading guilty to raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who committed suicide at age 16 (http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html) — I find myself troubled for the opposite reason. I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized. While I am not defending Judge G. Todd Baugh’s comments about Morales being “as much in control of the situation (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/judge-s-remarks-about-teenage-rape-victim-spark-outrage/article_07466a01-c9c1-5538-a9e0-41f296074b27.html)” — for which he has appropriately apologized (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mont-teacher-30-days-student-rape-20087517) — tarring and feathering him for attempting to articulate the context (http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/letter-of-apology-from-judge-g-todd-baugh/pdf_5bb2c5d5-90d8-556a-a2e4-5e2174d23eab.html) that informed his sentence will not advance this much-needed dialogue.

I do think that teachers who engage in sex with students, no matter how consensual, should be removed from their jobs and barred from teaching unless they prove that they have completed rehabilitation. But the utter hysteria with which society responds to these situations does less to protect children than to assuage society’s need to feel that we are protecting them. I don’t know what triggered Morales’s suicide, but I find it tragic and deeply troubling that this occurred as the case against Rambold wound its way through the criminal justice system. One has to wonder whether the extreme pressure she must have felt from those circumstances played a role.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sex-between-students-and-teachers-should-not-be-a-crime/2013/08/30/dbf7dcca-1107-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

[Noir]

The morals of this country is sinking faster then the Titantic. Seems nothing is over the top (unless you talk about traditional values)

Hell, even the Washington Compost ran an op-ed where a liberal idiot wrote that sex between a student and teacher should NOT be against the law.



Wow, you're right, falling faster than a twin tower.

[red states rule]

Wow, you're right, falling faster than a twin tower.

and we can thank liberalism for it Noir

and I think you could have used something to make your point other then a terror attack that caused the deaths of 3000 people

[revelarts]

The point (lost ofcourse) is 'should we iudge those in the past by our morality today' which is a really hard question.
sure but,
If people assume morals are generally relative it's extremely hard. Near impossible.
If people assume they are generally objective and universal it's a bit easier.

[red states rule]

sure but,
If people assume morals are generally relative it's extremely hard. Near impossible.
If people assume they are generally objective and universal it's a bit easier.

Liberalism - if it feels good do it

[Noir]

and we can thank liberalism for it Noir

and I think you could have used something to make your point other then a terror attack that caused the deaths of 3000 people

Like a tragedy that only killed 1500 people, yeah?

[red states rule]

Like a tragedy that only killed 1500 people, yeah?

Noir, you do not have to prove your an obnoxious young brat - we already know you that you are

[Noir]

sure but,
If people assume morals are generally relative it's extremely hard. Near impossible.
If people assume they are generally objective and universal it's a bit easier.

Either morals are fixed & universal, or they're not. It's clear they are not.

[red states rule]

Either morals are fixed & universal, or they're not. It's clear they are not.

First one would have to have morals, which I believe eliminates you from contention

[Noir]

Noir, you do not have to prove your an obnoxious young brat - we already know you that you are

You'd rather blurt off some insult or other rather that consider what you mean when you view two things that are only separated by time, fair-enough.

[red states rule]

You'd rather blurt off some insult or other rather that consider what you mean when you view two things that are only separated by time, fair-enough.

Based on your previous posts I stand by my observation

You hate any religion, you despise anyone who openly expresses their belief in God, you mock the Pope, and you insult those who talk about the after life

You use 9/11 to make fun of declining morals in America thanks to liberals

Yes, you are an obnoxious brat

[revelarts]

Either morals are fixed & universal, or they're not. It's clear they are not.
by that reasoning
If they are not, then they are not.
there are no "morals".

that fact is there are morals that are generally universal.
even Sam Harris acknowledges this.
whether people want to universally accept them or not is another question.

but just for example.
In all cultures killing an innocent is considered morally wrong, the punishments vary but it's universal.
some make various MINOR exceptions for supposed higher moral reasons. but the general fixed moral standard is, killing an innocent is wrong.

As a Christian it's my understanding that a creator did create man as a creature with a comprehension of certain broad moral issues., we're born nearly crying "it's not fair". And that God gives us, by revelation, a moral code thats universal and generally fixed.
some exceptions may apply in few cases but in general the moral principals always apply. even if you don't believe in them.

[red states rule]

by that reasoning
If they are not, then they are not.
there are no "morals".

that fact is there are morals that are generally universal.
even Sam Harris acknowledges this.
whether people want to universally accept them or not is another question.

but just for example.
In all cultures killing an innocent is considered morally wrong, the punishments vary but it's universal.
some make various MINOR exceptions for supposed higher moral reasons. but the general fixed moral standard is, killing an innocent is wrong.

and example of liberal values and morals

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/c3.jpg

[Noir]

by that reasoning
If they are not, then they are not.
there are no "morals".

that fact is there are morals that are generally universal.
even Sam Harris acknowledges this.
whether people want to universally accept them or not is another question.

but just for example.
In all cultures killing an innocent is considered morally wrong, the punishments vary but it's universal.
some make various MINOR exceptions for supposed higher moral reasons. but the general fixed moral standard is, killing an innocent is wrong.

As a Christian it's my understanding that a creator did create man as a creature with a comprehension of certain broad moral issues., we're born nearly crying "it's not fair". And that God gives us, by revelation, a moral code thats universal and generally fixed.
some exceptions may apply in few cases but in general the moral principals always apply. even if you don't believe in them.

'Killing an innocent is wrong' thus becomes a game of 'define the innocent' there are countless examples of this game being played, by way of one - it would be totally unsurprising to see a Muslim man kill his daughter for 'disrespecting' his family. The disrespectful actions she took (say by being raped) meant she was not innocent, and is unprotected by any notion that 'killing an innocent is wrong'.

Morality, and all of the clauses, are made, governed and maintained by humans.

[revelarts]

'Killing an innocent is wrong' thus becomes a game of 'define the innocent' there are countless examples of this game being played, by way of one - it would be totally unsurprising to see a Muslim man kill his daughter for 'disrespecting' his family. The disrespectful actions she took (say by being raped) meant she was not innocent, and is unprotected by any notion that 'killing an innocent is wrong'.

Morality, and all of the clauses, are made, governed and maintained by humans.

'define the innocent' yep, that's a real issue isn't it.
Then you take it to the next level where people define who's even human.

some people think the unborn are not human ..
.unless they are wanted, then they're children of course.
Some thought that Blacks were not human, some thought that Jews were not human.
Native Americans didn't have souls by some people standards.

seems like something is wrong with people since we can't seem to do right by everyone all the time huh? People aren't quite as moral as we seems to know they should be. Why does it bug us so much?

But Yes who's innocent and who's human? Those questions gets asked by people in honest and dishonest ways.
But usually once those questions are answered, most begin to play the moral universal standard. Or really, they never left it. They are just trying to work around it.
the standard has not changed,
but as you say, a game is being played.
Often just to assuage or cover moral guilt, sometimes just to paint an honest face on a moral crime.

[Noir]

seems like something is wrong with people since we can't seem to do right by everyone all the time huh? People aren't quite as moral as we seems to know they should be. Why does it bug us so much?


....some people even think that needlessly killing and eating animals isn't wrong, why so buggy indeed?

[revelarts]

....some people even think that needlessly killing and eating animals isn't wrong, why so buggy indeed?

and that is a moral claim. Based on the same universal principal. killing of innocents is wrong.
it's just a matter of where you draw the line right?
you draw the line at animals but don't care as much about plants. And i'd guess insects, bacteria and virus. all those are living and innocent and needlessly killed. Some people think plants have feelings to. why eat them instead of animals?

As i mention, as a Christan clearly defining the moral line comes by revelation from the Creator of all living.

Many folks don't accept that revelation, many that do don't follow it well, none perfectly.
so here we are. But it doesn't negate a universal moral code. just because people don't follow the law doesn't mean there isn't one.

[red states rule]

Nothing better then a thick sirloin steak or a think burger off the grill

[Arbo]

....some people even think that needlessly killing and eating animals isn't wrong, why so buggy indeed?

It's not needless, they are food.

[red states rule]

....some people even think that needlessly killing and eating animals isn't wrong, why so buggy indeed?


http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/animalrights.jpg

[fj1200]

by that reasoning
If they are not, then they are not.
there are no "morals".

But morals do change, hopefully they change for the better. Marriage customs, for example, have been changing for millenia so by what standard do we state that they were perfect on X date?

[revelarts]

But morals do change, hopefully they change for the better. Marriage customs, for example, have been changing for millenia so by what standard do we state that they were perfect on X date?

funny thing though every culture (i know of) has marriage though right?
it's a general universal.
by revelation we get some details what we should be shooting for. even though i think it's part of our collective lost history.
one man, one woman, for life, treat each other decent.

[fj1200]

funny thing though every culture (i know of) has marriage though right?
it's a general universal.
by revelation we get some details what we should be shooting for. even though i think it's part of our collective lost history.
one man, one woman, for life, treat each other decent.

So an arranged marriage is OK? a marriage to unite royalty is OK? a marriage bound by convenience is OK? as long as it is man/woman and they're nice to each other?

I wasn't even thinking about gay marriage just that the circumstances around marriage have changed historically. We would all be aghast at the circumstances of Mary around the birth of Jesus but at the time it was all custom.

[revelarts]

So an arranged marriage is OK? a marriage to unite royalty is OK? a marriage bound by convenience is OK? as long as it is man/woman and they're nice to each other?

I wasn't even thinking about gay marriage just that the circumstances around marriage have changed historically. We would all be aghast at the circumstances of Mary around the birth of Jesus but at the time it was all custom.

the examle of marraige goes back to Adam and Eve, not to kings. both were adults.
And arranged marriages have been the tradition for 1000s of years. compare the divorce rates and spousal abuse etc for many of those traditions to ours? we might not be so quick to dismiss them all.

And there are no ages given in the bible for Mary or Joseph. It's an assumption that we'd be aghast.

[fj1200]

the examle of marraige goes back to Adam and Eve, not to kings. both were adults.
And arranged marriages have been the tradition for 1000s of years. compare the divorce rates and spousal abuse etc for many of those traditions to ours? we might not be so quick to dismiss them all.

And there are no ages given in the bible for Mary or Joseph. It's an assumption that we'd be aghast.

Seems arranged to me. :poke:
Divorce rates are the benchmark you'd like to use in arranged marriages? Any mention of free will?
I think we'd be aghast at a pregnant 12/13 year old.

[Missileman]

and that is a moral claim. Based on the same universal principal. killing of innocents is wrong.
it's just a matter of where you draw the line right?
you draw the line at animals but don't care as much about plants. And i'd guess insects, bacteria and virus. all those are living and innocent and needlessly killed. Some people think plants have feelings to. why eat them instead of animals?

As i mention, as a Christan clearly defining the moral line comes by revelation from the Creator of all living.

Many folks don't accept that revelation, many that do don't follow it well, none perfectly.
so here we are. But it doesn't negate a universal moral code. just because people don't follow the law doesn't mean there isn't one.

Slavery was moral, until it wasn't. Polygamy was moral, until it wasn't. Incest was moral, until it wasn't. Treating women less than equally was moral, until it wasn't. Your "universal" code has been tweaked by men over the course of history, not because of some "revelation", but because morality is an invention of man and subject to man's whim.

[revelarts]

Slavery was moral, until it wasn't. Polygamy was moral, until it wasn't. Incest was moral, until it wasn't. Treating women less than equally was moral, until it wasn't. Your "universal" code has been tweaked by men over the course of history, not because of some "revelation", but because morality is an invention of man and subject to man's whim.

No time to deal withth e wole thing deeply
but as you say it's been 'TWEAKED'. the morals have always been there. Universally. and generally applied throughout mankind's history.

Abortion was Immoral and then it was not... supposedly

But the revelation is the real standard.

'Slavery was moral, until it wasn't."
not a Bible quote but it sums it nicely "God made men, Men made slaves" from film 10 commandments

Polygamy was moral, until it wasn't.
In the beginning God made them 1 male and 1female for marriage.
not Adam and Eve and Tina and Judy Shandra. or Adam and Steve or Adam and Fido.

Adam and Eve, adult human couple

Incest was moral, until it wasn't.
Now that one was new, brother sister cousin wise anyway. your right. having to do more with health apparently.
Parent child insect was always wrong.

Treating women less than equally was moral, until it wasn't .
depends on what you mean by equal?
equal souls but not equal roles

[Drummond]

Slavery was moral, until it wasn't. Polygamy was moral, until it wasn't. Incest was moral, until it wasn't. Treating women less than equally was moral, until it wasn't. Your "universal" code has been tweaked by men over the course of history, not because of some "revelation", but because morality is an invention of man and subject to man's whim.

At least much of this is dealt with by the Christian Bible, surely (show me where incest is viewed as tolerable within it, for example) ?

So tell me, how long has the Bible existed ? Or would you claim that the Bible was subject to a lot of rewrites during that time, to fit the whims and peculiarities of any one age (.. and I'm not talking about editions here ..) ?

[Missileman]

At least much of this is dealt with by the Christian Bible, surely (show me where incest is viewed as tolerable within it, for example) ?

So tell me, how long has the Bible existed ? Or would you claim that the Bible was subject to a lot of rewrites during that time, to fit the whims and peculiarities of any one age (.. and I'm not talking about editions here ..) ?

I didn't mention the Bible at all, but it is chock full of things in the OT, considered immoral, that were no longer immoral at the writing of the NT. As for incest, :

http://listverse.com/2008/05/26/top-6-incestuous-relationships-in-the-bible/

[red state]

As strange and disgusting the sound of such....it was a common practice then when the world's population wasn't as wide spread as it is today. Still, even they had lines drawn in the sand. I'd dare say that we are all kin (whether one believes in intelligent design, GOD or evolution). We can all trace our roots to a single 'beginning'.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As strange and disgusting the sound of such....it was a common practice then when the world's population wasn't as wide spread as it is today. Still, even they had lines drawn in the sand. I'd dare say that we are all kin (whether one believes in intelligent design, GOD or evolution). We can all trace our roots to a single 'beginning'. Yes but believing evolution allows for one to engage in any bad behavior without any "guilt feelings" of having sinned. A very convenient belief system for many..-Tyr

[Arbo]

Yes but believing evolution allows for one to engage in any bad behavior without any "guilt feelings" of having sinned. A very convenient belief system for many..-Tyr

1) what does evolution have to do with being a sinner?
2) are you saying you do not believe in evolution?