Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Simon

    That doesn't mean that everyone who believes in God is irresponsible or inexcusable. And simply because some people make God in their image does not negate that God made man in his image.

    I doubt someone who genuinely believes in god could or would answer my question truthfully. All gods are creations of man and there is no evidence otherwise.

  • frankiespeakin

    The title of this OP is incredibly misleading, and a shamful spin.
    Makes me wanna barf.

    Yes it is a clear sign of biased thinking leads to wrong interpetation of meaning, and clearly biased in the direction to make point for the beleif in the biblical creator and discredit evolution. A rather close minded approach to the subject on which Dawkin's spoke.

  • braincleaned

    "I doubt someone who genuinely believes in god could or would answer my question truthfully. All gods are creations of man and there is no evidence otherwise."

    Well said. ALL evidence points to man making god in his image and not the contrary. To the eternal old argument that us atheists cannot PROVE there is no god — my answer depends on what we mean by “God”:

    1) If we are talking about an intelligent god-like intelligent force out there — true, I cannot prove the negative.

    2) If we are talking about any man-made folkloric “gods” of our different cultures, like the Christian God, then yes! — I CAN prove beyond any reasonable doubt that He does NOT exist!


    There are 3 ways to dismiss this god alleged to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent:

    A) His character has all the flaws of man: Jealousy, vengeance, elitist, sectarian, prone to ethnic-cleansing/genocide, has regrets, an inflated ego and need for adulation, unforgiving unless blood is shed, and more… NOTHING of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.

    B) The book God is credited to have inspired; the Bible ONLY represents the knowledge and ignorance of the time: Earth is the center of the solar system; God creates vegetation before the sun; flat earth (no hint of it being spherical); Epilepsy is thought demon possession; Killing two birds and smearing the blood on the walls of a house will cure leprosy; man is only 6,000 years old and ruined all life because of listening to a talking snake. No mention of Natural Selection (not even so-called microevolution), electricity… and more!
    It is supposed to be a prophetic book, yet makes no hints on the age of technology, nor the uniting of the whole world thru the internet. Not ONE hint!

    C) Given that the only reason the concept of God exists in our collective minds is because it originates from scriptures like the Bible, a self-crediting and flawed collection of books — there is no logic nor evidence to claim the main character as real.

    ~~~~~~~~~ There you go. All we have left are rationalizations. GOD (as we typically understand it) DOES NOT EXIST.

    Not only is there no evidence for him — there is evidence AGAINST him.

    I challenge anyone to prove this wrong.

  • Earnest

    Simon : I doubt someone who genuinely believes in god could or would answer my question truthfully.

    I was going to let Simon's remark pass because it demeans him and I feel no compulsion to have the last word on a discussion board where so many people do.

    He does an excellent job as an administrator with too little thanks and recognition, and spends far too much time on our problems when he must by now have a growing family on his hands. And besides all that, I owe a debt of gratitude to Angharad which will continue long after I leave this board. That having been said, I do find him somewhat opinionated but even an administrator can voice an opinion as long as it isn't priveleged and closed to discussion.

    So, assuming that Simon is speaking as a participant and not as administrator I would simply point out that if you ask a question and receive an answer, you demean yourself if you then suggest without cause that the answer is neither genuine nor honest. And [you suggest] there couldn't be any genuine and honest answer to your question. A mite arrogant imo. As regards whether I am genuine and honest I invite you to give any example from 12 years of posting on this board that I have expressed a view contrary to my answer to your question.

    Simon : All gods are creations of man and there is no evidence otherwise.

    Cogito igitur Deus est

  • DogGone


    Love the question. I think your question was answered strongly by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling. His answer is the exact opposite of Earnest and is intellectually much more satisfying.

    The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac.

    The ethical is the universal....

    Faith... is this paradox, that interiority is higher than exteriority.

    Then faith's paradox is this, that the single individual is higher than the universal, that the single individual determines his relationship to the universal through his relationship to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute through his relation to the universal. The paradox can also be put by saying that there is an absolute duty to God; ...if this duty is absolute the ethical is reduced to the relative....e.g. love of God can cause the knight of faith to give his love of his neighbour the opposite expression to that which is his duty ethically speaking.

    ....In the story of Abraham we find just such a paradox. Ethically speaking his relationship to Issac is this, that the father is to love the son. This ethical relationship is reduced to the relative as against the absolute relation to God... The absolute duty can then lead to what ethics would forbid... this is shown by Abraham... the ethical expression for what he does is this: he hates Isaac.

    This is the "fear and trembling" which Kierkegaard felt his contemporaries lacked. Most current believers who would only believe in a God who conforms to ethics fall under this category. They may have something they call "faith", but it is not the faith of Abraham.

    I'm an athiest, though not a particularily strong one. However, I do have immense respect for the likes of Kierkegaard who understand and embrace the logical conclusions of faith. In my experience, few religous people truly grasp this and prefer to see faith as rational and as an expression of Universal Ethics rather than at war with it.

    If God says kill your son, you do it. If God says rape your son, you do it. And here is the monsterous elegance of faith. What a powerful and insane concept.

    So let us either forget all about Abraham or learn how to be horrified at the monstrous paradox which is the significance of his life...

    But, if one wants to market a cut-price version of Abraham and then still admonish people not to do what Abraham did, that that's just laughable.

  • Simon

    Sorry Earnest - I kind of jumped between talking to you specifically and then to the gallery. I apologise.

    I hope it's clear when I'm taking part as a participant in a discussion vs acting as a moderator but the bottom line is - it's perfectly Ok to disagree with me!

    The point was that I think most people would (rightly) try and avoid answering the question because it highlights the flaws in their belief system which was the point of the question.

    Interesting read DogGone, esp. how the supposed 'righteousness' of Abraham changes based on exactly what god wants him to do to Isaac. I don't believe theists have any good answers that don't contradict other claims or resort to the tired "god is just mysterious" cop out. It's a subject area they like to skip over as quickly as possible because it has so many problems:

    Why does god need him to go through with it? Can't he read hearts and minds?

    Did Abe trust that god wouldn't make him go through with it? Same problem as above.

    It's like tney are playing parts in a bad pantomime script but with the backdrop of child sacrifice ... and the now unpalattable undertone that being willing to kill even your own children makes you a good and righteous person.

    Pretty sick.

  • FlyingHighNow

    For anyone who has been molested, there is no way to express the amount of harm and damage this does to a person. To be fair, I haven't read or heard what Dawkins said. I hope someone is taking this out of context and that Mr. Dawkins doesn't defend any kind of pedophilia.

  • Simon

    No he doesn't, it's comments twisted by those who don't like his ability to demolish religious belief.

  • Demokan

    Seriously, if you keep deleting my comment on no grounds of cause I'm just going to ditch, I'm 15 and have a right to my own opinion, and to speak it. If a handsome adult that I was attracted to came on to me and it was consensual it would not harm me psychologically in the least, I think 15+ people should be able to choose, I think the age of consent in japan is 13.

    Edit: just please don't delete this post, I worded it less obscene for you so it should be fine, thanks :)

  • Angharad

    Demokan - What you are saying is inappropriate and will continue to be deleted

Share this