Seriously, I am beginning to think that if Richard Dawkins said "I like pie"...

[trotsky]

400 DUers would rush to condemn him for anti-cake bigotry.

Oh and restate that he's bigoted against everything else in the world too.

Because of course by stating this, his criticisms against religion are negated and atheists should shut up too!

[AtheistCrusader]

1. They seem to want us to invest infallability in him or something.

Atheism is predicated on the idea that he's just a dude. He's a pretty smart guy, but just as prone to mistakes, misconceptions, and possibly even biases, just like any other human.

Silly to think he might be infallible. No one is.

[trotsky]

2. That, and also that we need to worship him and everything he says.

He doesn't speak for me. He doesn't speak for atheism. He speaks for himself - that's kind of one of the results of atheism: no one gets to elevate their opinion because they get to claim they speak for a god.

Meanwhile, the pope DOES speak for Catholicism. And individual Catholics, whether they agree with him or not, are supporting him and his corrupt institution when they put money in the collection plate. I guess that bothers some of them so much that they need to make Dawkins the anti-pope and try to project their problems onto atheists.

Miserable fail, but at least we can laugh at them when they try.

[skepticscott]

3. The whole anti-Dawkins orgy over there

is really one gigantic ad hom. They have no proof of their god and no respectable answer to his critique of religion, so they just fling "bigot" at every opportunity. And if they have to lie through their teeth to make the charge stick, that's just fine with them too.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. I told someone they didn't understand what I was saying.

Therefore, I was criticizing them.

Thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=94058


When I told them the definition of sympathetic magic, they said I was arguing theology with them.

Theology is about belief. I was talking about word definitions.

Therefore, they thought I was making an ad hominem argument.

I wasn't.

My airborne fornication donation capacity has been nullified. In fact, it is in negative numbers.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. bahahaha --- stealing this:

My airborne fornication donation capacity has been nullified.

[Warpy]

12. You won't get anywhere with that one

It's an example of how faith is maintained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect even in otherwise sensible people.

You don't have to learn anything if you know it all.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. Had to look up Dunning-Kruger Effect. Thanks!

And I was a &%$@ perfectionist, and I got told I wasn't good enough, or did things wrong with my work and I was extremely overqualified.



That crap about "you're not asking nicely, wah, wahh, you're calling me bad names, you're so mean to me" gets old.



They no comprende ingles, no es mi problema.

[skepticscott]

13. The "Even though I know what you said is true

I'm going to dismiss it because you didn't say it nicely" attitude is truly mind-boggling. One wonders if some people are truly this dense, or if they have their intellectual goat gotten by non-believers so often that they just can't stomach ever appearing to agree with them, even if they do.

[seabeyond]

5. cause pie is so much like pedophilia. first. secondly, i think people are being very specific to

say dawkins comment has nothing to do with being atheist or all atheists. and last, i am not seeing anyone say anything about atheist "worshiping" dawkins as followers.

it is a pretty big deal what he said. ya, too many threads. but, i am not seeing any of your gripes in any of the threads. unless, you are a worshiper that can not allow criticism of a leader of all of atheism?

[trotsky]

8. As I noted, Dawkins doesn't speak for me.

I am tired of people thinking he does. Or that by attacking him for something he said, they negate criticism of their own religious institutions - with documented histories of horrific acts officially covered up by the men in charge.

[seabeyond]

10. this is my point trotsky and what you ignored. why? i do not know. i, nor anyone else i read,

"think" dawkin speaks for you. as i said, what i have read are people addressing dawkin and SPECIFICALLY saying he does not speak for all atheists. i have to ask, why are you seeing or thinking differently?

and people are attacking him because what he said is vile, and damaging. no one is talking about religion. everyone is talking about how wrong he is in what he said and why. that is about it.

[skepticscott]

14. So why are posters there demanding

that people other than Dawkins provide a defense of things that Dawkins said?

And what exactly did he say that was "vile"?

[seabeyond]

15. i have not seen anyone demand that anyone defend what dawkins said. and saying that pedophilia, ok,

mild pedophilia is not harmful to a child. you do not think that MILD pedophilia is harmful to a child? you do not think that a person putting that out there may blur the line for pedophilla and us as a society? you do not think this man has a greater responsibility with his voice?

[skepticscott]

17. Sheesh, try right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=94018

Did you even read the thread?

And do you not see yourself as attacking the victim here? Do you not leave room for the possibility that someone who was deeply traumatized by being molested might not speak as vociferously against his attacker as you might demand of him?

[seabeyond]

19. what is the problem with asking if the person he is replying to has a problem with "mild" pedophilia

i think that is the issue at hand. addressing the issue that is being discussed. not reliigon. not nonreligion.

that being said. i have read the threads in hof and the 3 in gd. i have not been in religion to read the whole thread. nor will i read the whole thread.

but the post you link to seems not an issue at all.

i am attacking dawkins. actually, i am not even attacking dawkins. i am attacking what he said. is he the "victim" you refer to.

and if you are saying that dawkins is the victim and dismissed the act because of his intense reaction to being molested? omg... we still as a society have to speak out when a man, with a voice, diminishes fuckin PEDOPHILIA. that is an obligation and responsibility to our children. regardless if he is in really bad shape and traumatized throwing that comment out to accept his trauma.

right?

are you reallyu defending the man? lol. i guess what totsky said was right in a way, but it was not the people that disagree with dawkins doing what he said, but the people that like the man.

[skepticscott]

22. You said

"i have not seen anyone demand that anyone defend what dawkins said."

Well, now you have. Your dismissal is invalid.

Defending? Try attempting to understand. I asked if you left room for a possibility? Do you?

Do you think that Dawkins considers pedophilia to be a good thing? Yes or no?

[seabeyond]

23. o. m. g. you made me actually go read the poster that rug was responding to. ok....

that is literally disgusting to me your playing a game with something as horrid as validating even mild pedophilia. you want to play the fuckin game, it is all yours. me.... nah, not even. i can call out the statement. without point toward atheists. but i cannot play an ugly game defending this man at the expense of children. go at it haus. i am truly out of here

disgusted

totally... fuckin'... disgusted.

[skepticscott]

24. And you dodge every question posed

And refuse any attempt to discuss the issue rationally. How telling. Don't let the door hit you as you spew insults and smears on your way out.

[seabeyond]

25. you really do not get what you are telling fellow duers playing this game....

with

children.

[skepticscott]

26. I get what you're projecting that I'm telling them

Show me where I've defended Dawkins' statement, claimed that what he said was fine or not a problem, or said that pedophilia is not always so bad. Please. Before you post again to accuse me of aiding pedophiles. Because that's more despicable than anything I've done here. A lot more.

[skepticscott]

36. Apparently you can't

So we've got dodged questions, baseless, hit-and-run smears, and an outright refusal to engage in fact-based discussion.

Why do I feel like I'm in Religion?

[intaglio]

6. What Dawkins said was insupportable

and it does not matter that he believes it did him no harm because he has no evidence about a universal lack of harm. If even one of the abuser's victims was damaged physically or psychologically by the abuse that is one victim too many.

The sexual abuse of minor age males has always been illegal in modern Britain and the sexual abuse by men of women under the age of 16 has been illegal since 1885. I am unsure of the status of adult female/minor female sexual abuse. Sickeningly, through to about 1980 there was an unacknowledged acceptance of such abuse; both male/male and male/female.

English public schools (which are both highly expensive and privately run) always tolerated a level of such abuse perpetrated by both schoolmasters and senior pupils because it had “always” happened and “… it never did me any harm”. I even heard one (arts) academic give the justification that it was similar to the mentoring of ancient Greek boys in the gymnasia of that civilisation.

The same blindness is what caused the terrible abuse of adolescent females by members of the entertainment industry examples including Bill Wyman/Mandy Smith, Jerry Lee Lewis/Myra Gale Brown, Gary Glitter (Paul Gadd) and many minors as well as the perversions of Jimmy Savile

Dawkins belongs to that milieu of silent acceptance and has never bothered to critically examine his personal history.

[trotsky]

7. Of course it was unsupportable.

Unfortunately the context of his comment - totally ignored, of course - contains an important point: it's difficult to judge others from another time based on the morals of today.

I'm just tired of people thinking that somehow they are successfully arguing against atheism (or neutralizing criticism of their religious leaders and institutions) by attacking Dawkins.

[seabeyond]

11. i think we absolutely judge the past, hence new laws. we judged slavery. though people felt it a

norm, we judge slavery to end it. and racism. and sexism. and homophobia. we absolutely judge the past, progressing. so i think he fails on that argument also.

note... i am not talking about his religious or lack of religious beliefs here.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Do you agree that Dawkins is the victim of pedophilia?

Just wondering, based on what he said happened to him. Not asking for anything else here but a yes or no. We will discuss things further once you answer.

[intaglio]

33. That is an unnecessary question

It does not matter if he is or is not a survivor of sexual abuse as a child or adolescent because it is his view of such abuse now that is important. There will be people who survive such episodes with little apparent physical or psychological damage but such survival does not excuse statements that enable abusers to continue such actions and claim that it does no lasting harm.

The statement “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” is a statement that abusers will use to justify their continuing perversions.

[Goblinmonger]

34. Since seabeyond is declining to answer

I think it is vitally important to those outraged at his statement.

If he is a victim, then isn't it possible that that is affecting his understanding of it and he is likely still suffering the consequences of what is clearly a crime.

If he isn't a victim, then by saying that aren't you agreeing with his assessment that there are degrees of the crime.

It is a vitally important question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. If the effect on him has been to put him into denial, it's important to tell him he's wrong

and it's still just as important to tell everyone else he's wrong. He cannot speak for the others. He must not try to speak for the others.

"aren't you agreeing with his assessment that there are degrees of the crime"?

No. You cannot excuse a crime by saying "this particular victim was psychologically strong, therefore it's a lesser degree of crime".

[Rob H.]

16. They've obviously forgotten what Pope Benedict said, too

But what the Pope said is far, far worse, imo.

Pope Blames 1970s Society for Pedophile Priests
Benjamin Radford | December 21, 2010

Pope Benedict used his annual speech to Rome's cardinals and bishops on Monday (Dec. 20) to ask them to reflect on the church's responsibility in the child sex abuse scandals.

Benedict qualified his mea culpa by stating that the scandal (in which priests who sexually abused children were often ignored or protected by the Catholic Church) was partly justified by the broader social context. Benedict said that while the church accepted some responsibility, he could not be silent about ''the context of these times.... There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society."

Benedict claimed that as recently as the 1970s, "pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children." In this climate, the Catholic Church's actions were merely reflecting the moral relativism of the times: "It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself," Benedict said. That is, church leaders weren't sure if child sexual abuse was wrong, since secular society seemed to accept it.

...

Pope Benedict is simply wrong when he claims that child sexual abuse and pornography were socially acceptable in the 1970s and 1980s, when the bulk of sexual abuse occurred. Even if it were true, there's little reason to think that pedophile priests would be especially susceptible to perceived secular moral decay. The Pope's acknowledgement, that Catholic priests do not have the wisdom nor the moral compass to realize that raping children is wrong or harmful, is a remarkable admission, and hardly comforting.

Emphases added by me.

[skepticscott]

18. +1000

Thank you! Seems the chief apologists over in Religion have blocked that out too...

[seabeyond]

20. no. the pope did not say it 15 minutes ago. we are talking what dawkins said. it was wrong.

that simple.

want to talk about the pope and what he said, start a thread. he was wrong. that simple. but you guys are the ones bringing in the religion and non religion. not the people having this discussion in gd.

[intaglio]

30. The judgement is not of the past events

The judgment is of the contemporary statement. Dawkins is channeling the mores of the 1950s and, by default, implying that the judgments made then are applicable today.

An exact parallel would be a freed slave saying that because he or she suffered little harm from slavery a low level of slavery does no damage.

[trotsky]

32. I disagree with your interpretation.

And I'll leave it at that.

[seabeyond]

21. ok. so this may be my fault. you are referring to a thread in religion. i was talking about the 3

threads in gd and the thread in hof. we are looking at this conversation totally differently.

i will step away

[trotsky]

27. Shit, I avoid GD like the plague usually.

No wonder there was confusion.

[dimbear]

28. My deal is simple. We can talk over there about the bodies piling up in pick a country, due to

religion, or the gaffes of some elderly Brit.

It's a question of what's important.

[LostOne4Ever]

37. Can I say

That I want Richard Dawkins to come out against eating yellow snow?