Richard Dawkins defends "mild pedophi...

Richard Dawkins defends "mild pedophilia"

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
HTS

Englewood, CO

#1 Sep 11, 2013
Take a gander at this...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/10/richard...

Dick Dawkins, the most renowned high priest of Darwin, has let his guard down and is now openly promoting his amoral atheistic worldview.

Yet another profound moral guidepost that we can glean from a belief in the creed of evolution.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2 Sep 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
Take a gander at this...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/10/richard...
Dick Dawkins, the most renowned high priest of Darwin, has let his guard down and is now openly promoting his amoral atheistic worldview.
Yet another profound moral guidepost that we can glean from a belief in the creed of evolution.
I do not, and will not defend Dawkins for his mindset on 'mild pedophilia' any more than I'll cast the entire religious community (you included) as being hypocritical charlatans and hucksters based upon the actions of some well-known televangelists and others in the Church.

The fact is, the Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with how Dawkins was mistreated as a child, with pedophilia in general, or your perceived 'amoral atheistic worldview'.

The Theory of Evolution stands on the scientific facts that it represents. Facts that you, nor anyone in the past 150 plus years has provided evidence against.

Nothing more.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3 Sep 11, 2013
Besides, you did notice that Dawkins was the VICTIM of this abuse, not the perpetrator, right?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#4 Sep 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not, and will not defend Dawkins for his mindset on 'mild pedophilia' any more than I'll cast the entire religious community (you included) as being hypocritical charlatans and hucksters based upon the actions of some well-known televangelists and others in the Church.
The fact is, the Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with how Dawkins was mistreated as a child, with pedophilia in general, or your perceived 'amoral atheistic worldview'.
The Theory of Evolution stands on the scientific facts that it represents. Facts that you, nor anyone in the past 150 plus years has provided evidence against.
Nothing more.
I agree with your analysis of Dawkins, and that many who embrace Christianity are not morally upright.
What you fail to realize is that an amoral worldview is a logical conclusion drawn from a belief in Darwinian evolution.

As far as "science" backing up the evolutionary hypothesis over the past 150 years... such asinine statements are laughable.
There is no science behind Darwinism whatsoever...only dogma promoted under the guise of science.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#5 Sep 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your analysis of Dawkins, and that many who embrace Christianity are not morally upright.
What you fail to realize is that an amoral worldview is a logical conclusion drawn from a belief in Darwinian evolution.
As far as "science" backing up the evolutionary hypothesis over the past 150 years... such asinine statements are laughable.
There is no science behind Darwinism whatsoever...only dogma promoted under the guise of science.
Yet you, and those who are skeptical of the Theory of Evolution have failed to demonstrate that the ToE fails as science.

For over 150 years.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#6 Sep 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail to realize is that an amoral worldview is a logical conclusion drawn from a belief in Darwinian evolution.
Overlooked this passage.

You're insane.

About HALF of the Christians in the US accept the ToE. Worldwide, the percentage is much higher.

I will personally stack my 'amoral' worldview against yours, or any other Creationist.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#7 Sep 11, 2013
Please note that Dawkins was a victim in this. Saying that the damage to him was not that bad is a sort of defense mechanism.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8 Sep 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
Dick Dawkins, the most renowned high priest of Darwin, has let his guard down and is now openly promoting his amoral atheistic worldview.
Perhaps you've never heard of the Church and all their cover-ups.

Hypocrite.
HTS wrote:
Yet another profound moral guidepost that we can glean from a belief in the creed of evolution.
Evolution is not atheism. And since theism quite OBVIOUSLY is NO help at all whatsoever with morals your entire "point" kinda falls totally flat. Especially when we consider the fact that you are a well known and confirmed liar for Jesus.

Of course none of this has any bearing on the validity of evolution, something which you've never understood, and never been able to address.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#9 Sep 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your analysis of Dawkins, and that many who embrace Christianity are not morally upright.
Like you.
HTS wrote:
What you fail to realize is that an amoral worldview is a logical conclusion drawn from a belief in Darwinian evolution.
No, it may be to YOU if you believed in it, but that's because you're an amoral relativist who happens to be immoral.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
As far as "science" backing up the evolutionary hypothesis over the past 150 years... such asinine statements are laughable.
There is no science behind Darwinism whatsoever...only dogma promoted under the guise of science.
As far as science goes you wouldn't know science if it hit you on the head. But then you've likely had so many head injuries during your lifetime this is hardly surprising.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#10 Sep 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you've never heard of the Church and all their cover-ups.
Hypocrite.
<quoted text>
Evolution is not atheism. And since theism quite OBVIOUSLY is NO help at all whatsoever with morals your entire "point" kinda falls totally flat. Especially when we consider the fact that you are a well known and confirmed liar for Jesus.
Of course none of this has any bearing on the validity of evolution, something which you've never understood, and never been able to address.
Why do you ignorantly lump me in your sterotypical religous zealot?
Perhaps you would like to join the ranks of PolPot, Stalin and Mao TseTung as a believer in atheistic evolution.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#11 Sep 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ignorantly lump me in your sterotypical religous zealot?
Perhaps you would like to join the ranks of PolPot, Stalin and Mao TseTung as a believer in atheistic evolution.
You're so pathetically hypocritical. Listen to yourself:
HTS wrote:
Take a gander at this...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/10/richard...
Dick Dawkins, the most renowned high priest of Darwin, has let his guard down and is now openly promoting his amoral atheistic worldview.
Yet another profound moral guidepost that we can glean from a belief in the creed of evolution.
Note: "amoral atheistic worldview" ?!?!?

REALLY?!?!?

Not to mention your continued ranting about everyone who you disagree with as being an "atheist".

I was under the assumption that you were supposed to follow Matthew 7:1 & John 8:7.

Hypocrite.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#12 Sep 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
Take a gander at this...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/10/richard...
Dick Dawkins, the most renowned high priest of Darwin, has let his guard down and is now openly promoting his amoral atheistic worldview.
Yet another profound moral guidepost that we can glean from a belief in the creed of evolution.
I wonder if the actions of those paedophile priests which are hushed up and defended by the church and Vatican were victims of child abuse?

So are their perverted and obnoxious actions (and their cover up by the church) in the name of god a guidepost that you can glean from the many (40,000+) creeds of christianity?

I think you will find that those living in glass houses should not throw stones

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#13 Sep 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ignorantly lump me in your sterotypical religous zealot?
Perhaps you would like to join the ranks of PolPot, Stalin and Mao TseTung as a believer in atheistic evolution.
No ignorance involved. The Dude as do several others classify you as a religious zealot based on nothing more than the tone and content of your own posts. It is true that you may be fooling us all and be, in real life, the biggest atheist known to man but we have no knowledge of that side of your life and can only draw conclusion from what we know of the blind and deliberate ignorance you show in you posts.

Pol Pot was an atheist, true, however he spent his childhood years being educated by christianity

Stalin was born into a christian family and raised to be a priest. After he had consolidated his hold on Russia he began systematically rebuilding the christian church. Does this strike you as the work of an atheist?

Zedong was raised Buddhist so the jump from goddidt by magic to evolution is not relevant.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#14 Sep 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your analysis of Dawkins, and that many who embrace Christianity are not morally upright.
What you fail to realize is that an amoral worldview is a logical conclusion drawn from a belief in Darwinian evolution.
As far as "science" backing up the evolutionary hypothesis over the past 150 years... such asinine statements are laughable.
There is no science behind Darwinism whatsoever...only dogma promoted under the guise of science.
Why is an amoral worldview to be drawn from Darwinism? You seem to be fond of making such sweeping statement with nothing but you own opinion to back them up.

Why are such statements laughable? They are for the most part factual and proven. Where you find it laughable is in you inability to rationalise your bronze age faith with proven scientific faith.

You are partially correct that there is no science behind Darwinism, Darwinism is an opinion that developed from personal observation and historical commentary (some dating back almost 3000 years, long before christianity). That opinion has grown and developed and the results of that development have been proven scientifically factual in myriad, incontestable ways. Therefore Darwinism has science ahead of it, not behind.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#15 Sep 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you, and those who are skeptical of the Theory of Evolution have failed to demonstrate that the ToE fails as science.
For over 150 years.
Darwinism has been repeatedly debunked. Those who have dogmatically clung to a failed theory for 150 years have only made fools of themselves.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#16 Sep 17, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is an amoral worldview to be drawn from Darwinism? You seem to be fond of making such sweeping statement with nothing but you own opinion to back them up.
Why are such statements laughable? They are for the most part factual and proven. Where you find it laughable is in you inability to rationalise your bronze age faith with proven scientific faith.
You are partially correct that there is no science behind Darwinism, Darwinism is an opinion that developed from personal observation and historical commentary (some dating back almost 3000 years, long before christianity). That opinion has grown and developed and the results of that development have been proven scientifically factual in myriad, incontestable ways. Therefore Darwinism has science ahead of it, not behind.
Darwinism presumes naturalism alone [ie, atheism].
If there is no God, there is no right and wrong.
It is that simple.
You can argue that what feels right to you IS right, but you have no objective basis for that belief.
It feels right to totalitarian dictators to murder millions of people for purposes of ethnic cleansing.
What objective reason can you present that your are right and they are wrong?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#17 Sep 17, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No ignorance involved. The Dude as do several others classify you as a religious zealot based on nothing more than the tone and content of your own posts. It is true that you may be fooling us all and be, in real life, the biggest atheist known to man but we have no knowledge of that side of your life and can only draw conclusion from what we know of the blind and deliberate ignorance you show in you posts.
Pol Pot was an atheist, true, however he spent his childhood years being educated by christianity
Stalin was born into a christian family and raised to be a priest. After he had consolidated his hold on Russia he began systematically rebuilding the christian church. Does this strike you as the work of an atheist?
Zedong was raised Buddhist so the jump from goddidt by magic to evolution is not relevant.
My point was that evolutionists such as Dawkins are fond of lumping all religion into one pot... and selectively pointing out evils that have been committed in the name of religion. Then they conclude that all religion is evil.

If I lump all atheists into one pot and utilize the same logic, you have a big problem. The greatest atrocities in the history of this planet have been committed in the name of atheism.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#18 Sep 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was that evolutionists such as Dawkins are fond of lumping all religion into one pot... and selectively pointing out evils that have been committed in the name of religion. Then they conclude that all religion is evil.
If I lump all atheists into one pot and utilize the same logic, you have a big problem. The greatest atrocities in the history of this planet have been committed in the name of atheism.
The problem for you is that if you compare the evils of religion to the evils of atheism, religious people are more evil on the large scale, various world leaders since the Crusades causing all sorts of death, and much much greater on the small scale: In the U.S. at least atheists are grossly underrepresented in prisons.

Your "logic" as usual fails.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#19 Sep 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinism presumes naturalism alone [ie, atheism].
If there is no God, there is no right and wrong.
It is that simple.
You can argue that what feels right to you IS right, but you have no objective basis for that belief.
It feels right to totalitarian dictators to murder millions of people for purposes of ethnic cleansing.
What objective reason can you present that your are right and they are wrong?
Wrong, Darwinism makes no presumptions, it is an observational based idea that has since been shown to be scientifically factual in several different ways.

Wrong, human morality was a fact long before some stoned bronze age goat herder said, hey, I have an idea. Just because christianity has chosen to hijack and bastardise the term ‘morality’ makes no difference to fact. Without such morality 8 or more thousand years before the abrahamic god was even thought of there would be no human civilisation. There is decision, even the lowliest of life is able to make a decision, I decide good or bad, based on my personal morality and without the help of any god belief.

Wrong, I have the basis of my own conscience, my own research and my life (and several others points, see below). On many subjects that godbots have told me are impossible I have seen, touched and examined evidence (my avatar is a case in point, a transitional fossil that people like you say does not exist). Many aspects of the babble I have researched and debunked on evidential, factual or scientific grounds. Then of course there is the greatest objectivity of all – E=MC^2 shows than no god as described in KJV revelation 19:6 can exist in this universe at the same time as you.

Totalitarian dictators have nothing to do with the argument but if you want to bring them in I am perfectly capable of showing Hitler’s and Stalin’s christianity

OK, more objective reasons, DNA, that’s the stuff that you are quite happy to use as evidence to convict a suspected felon to death, yet you deny in any evolution argument. Genetic code, fossil record, genetic similarities between species, common traits in embryos, bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Then of course there is basic observation, the pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus) can be shown to have evolved from it’s larger ancestors and the Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus) is being observed evolving from forest dwelling to cave dwelling right now

But of course you will once again ignore all of those objective evidences just have you have done in the past and then you wonder why I have such a low tolerance for deliberate ignorance.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#20 Sep 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was that evolutionists such as Dawkins are fond of lumping all religion into one pot... and selectively pointing out evils that have been committed in the name of religion. Then they conclude that all religion is evil.
If I lump all atheists into one pot and utilize the same logic, you have a big problem. The greatest atrocities in the history of this planet have been committed in the name of atheism.
Wrong again , I know for a fact that Richard Dawkins is very aware of the different religions, faiths and beliefs.

“Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.” Richard Dawkins

The evils that religion has committed have nothing to do with Dawkins, you guys committed them yourselves. So don’t try shifting the blame on to someone you don’t like. Be a man, grow a set and admit it.

Dawkins does NOT conclude that all religion is evil.

“To the extent that a variety of Buddhism refrains from supernatural magic I might be sympathetic towards it” Richard Dawkins

He does however opine that many religioUS are evil, he could have been talking about you personally there.

Honey, you do lump all atheists into one pot, no matter how many times the concept of atheism is explained to you, you still harp on that athiesm is a region that is anti your religion. This of course is down to your limited understanding of anything not HTS

Wrong, arguably the greatest documented atrocities in the history of the planet have been committed by selfishness and nationalism.

Russia 140 million, A civil war fought on nationalistic ground, nothing to do with faith or lack of it however Russia was/is a christian country, certainly the eventual dictator was christian.

Nazi Germany 15 million, Hitler was christian baptised with the backing of the Vatican, he did what he did driven by his nationalistic belief and the name of god and has never been excommunicated.

The Holy Roman Empire 30 years war, 11.5 million deaths, purely religious ,

French wars of religion 4 million deaths, purely religion

Crusades, 3 million deaths. Purely religion

However it is said to be the greatest genocide of all time – ever in the history of humanity was one cause by religion in which the entire human population of the world was murdered except for a handful of hand picked god lovers.

Or are you deliberately forgetting Noah’s flood?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min marksman11 164,292
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min replaytime 81,850
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 43 min Eagle 12 - 33,078
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Dogen 2,194
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web