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

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • BucketShopBill
    BucketShopBill

    Why would anyone get upset with Richard's views, there is no "Objective Morality" and anyone who has a Naturalism World View is a liar to deny what Dr. Richard Dawkins is talking about.

    Here's what one honest Atheist wrote, this is the eventual path of Naturalism and the Author is right if there is no Ojective Moral Code, it's all DNA baby! Early Dawkins wrote more stunning statements and liars and anyone who knows nothing about Evolution and Naturalism try in all their weakness to deny every good idea our Naturalism teaches. How can you argue with him, you have no basis to say "It's wrong" because there is "No Wrong" as Richard Dawkins has written over the years. Why he defends attacks against minor groups demonstrate's he is totally confused in his world-view. The strongest genes get to rule, there is no evil, it's pure chance we are here and our life is totally meaningless because eventually the Universe will contract and die off. Everything I wrote is from honest Naturalism, men and women that don't hide and pretend there is good and bad, because we are all subject to the whims of our DNA.

    "

    “[To] all my Atheist friends.

    Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.

    We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

    We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

    I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling"

  • villagegirl
    villagegirl

    Dawkins attempts to draw some parallel between racism in society and the progression of enlightenment, in the context of a discussion of what he refers to as "mild pedophilia" is disturbing in that the only logical parallel that could exist is the frightening implication here, that racial prejudice is the same as prejudice against adults having sex with children. There are those who propose exactly such an agenda and claim pedophilia is just another 'sexual preference' and fail to see the criminal and moral violation that occurs when the unformed brains and emotions and bodies of children are used and manipulated to the purpose of adults. It is also very likely that there are men on this site or women, who have been protected by the WT Society, discovered molesting children, and have been "forgiven" never prosecuted for their crimes and sit here among us on this board. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, and they reveal themselves.

  • cofty
    cofty

    the only logical parallel that could exist is the frightening implication here, that racial prejudice is the same as prejudice against adults having sex with children. - villagegirl

    Except he actually said the exact opposite. But why should you bother to let facts get in the way of your moral outrage?

    If you bothered to read the context of his words he comments on the moral progress in society so that racism and sexual abuse of children is almost universally condemned. In previous generations both crimes were less clearly taboo.

    Accusing those who point out your misunderstanding of being closet pedophiles is disgraceful even by your standards.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Bucketshopbill - One of the dumbest posts of 2014 so far.

    Would you like to have a serious conversation about objective morailty? If so please start a new thread and I will be happy to explain why you are wrong.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Villagirl: Dawkins attempts to draw some parallel between racism in society and the progression of enlightenment, in the context of a discussion of what he refers to as "mild pedophilia" is disturbing in that the only logical parallel that could exist is the frightening implication here, that racial prejudice is the same as prejudice against adults having sex with children

    may i propose the rather obvious parallel that our morals have improved and things viewed as acceptable in the past are unacceptable today?

    it certainly seems logically possibly..

    It is also very likely that there are men on this site or women, who have been protected by the WT Society, discovered molesting children, and have been "forgiven" never prosecuted for their crimes and sit here among us on this board. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, and they reveal themselves.

    yah, witchhunt!

  • Simon
    Simon

    villagegirl: there are lines that should not be crossed and you have most definitely crossed one.

    You do NOT get to accuse people, veiled or not, of being pediophiles.

    You do NOT get to judge how anyone who has been abused should or should not feel or act.

    I suggest you apologise immediately for your comments. While we appreciate that some may be carrying a certain amount of anger and it's an emotive topic, we're not here for you to vent your anger towards. If you cannot be civil then you will not be allowed to continue posting.

  • Twitch
    Twitch

    Bravo Simon

  • Twitch
  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    I guess, before I post, I should make this clear. I am against any person, of any age or sex, being forced or persuaded into any sexual act. ( And that includes, rape within marriage) I am also against Yahweh's use of rape to accomplish his will, as in Yahweh's approval of the Israelite murder of the men of Jabesh Gilead, so that the surviving men of the tribe of Benjamin could rape their widows and fatherless daughters. That story started when the men of Gibeah wanted to gang-rape a travelling Levite, who in order to escape that threat gave them his wife instead. During the night she was gang-raped so many times that by the morning she was dead.

    (Read the whole story In Judges chs. 19 to 21)

    I am also against Yahweh's use of rape to punish David, when he told David that his wives/concubines would be raped because of David's sin. (2 Samuel 12: 11, 12.

    OK, having announced my caveat, that ends my polemics.

    Bohm:

    ... things viewed as acceptable in the past are unacceptable today?

    This is the nux of the problem. For centuries, if not for all of human existence as a species, the age of marriage seems to have been just after puberty. In some parts of the world (e.g. Christian Ethiopia) it is still the custom. (I can provide references if anyone wants them.).

    An essay by published by SUNY Press (SUNY Press is an international publisher of distinguished research and notable works of general interest for the State University of New York, on the topic, Statutory Rape Laws in Historical Context, the author makes the point that in the Statute of Westminster (1275 CE.), statutory rape was sexual intercourse with a female under 12, (later changed to under 10). In colonial America, legal jurisdictions essentially imported the clauses. Some states (the above text states), set the age of consent as 10 and some 12. ( Reference: http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60840.pdf , pp10,11 ) The author explains that the law was not a moral standard, but a law protecting the female property of some male. Also in the Americas, the laws were usually applied to white women only.

    That custom started to change in the late 19th and early 20th C, until we reach the position we are in today.

    It may be noted that puberty is clearly a change point in the progress of a human to a position of full adulthood. In earlier times, I think it could be argued that once through puberty, an individual may have been seen as a young adult. Not so today, childhood has been (in western societies) extended so that even a youth of 16 can be seen as a child. (and there is some biological evidence, that full maturity (for a male anyway) is not reached until the mid 20s.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann

    Sexual selection always favors pretty women. And pretty women have child traits. So...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit