The existence of God is not subjective...

Comment by archaeopteryx on September 20, 2013 at 7:24pm

I'm not confusing you at all - first you advocated teaching miracles and mysticism in the classroom, then teaching "What Would Jesus Do" to children, then more miracles and mysticism to members of Third-World countries, because they need superstition to get through the day - if it walks like a platypus --

Comment by archaeopteryx on September 20, 2013 at 8:28pm

RE: "So what is it that you dont like then, is it that Im not a carbon copy of you? " - oh, good grief no, if I knew of an I.Q. bank where you could go to borrow a few dozen points, then possibly, but as it is, no.

I'll repeat: "you advocated teaching miracles and mysticism in the classroom, then teaching "What Would Jesus Do" to children, then more miracles and mysticism to members of Third-World countries, because they need superstition to get through the day" - now I don't have the time, inclination, nor interest to go back through your posts to extract all of the statements you've made, in order to back up my statement, but you appear to have not much else to do, so I suggest you do that and refresh your memory.

And what's with the renewed attack on Mike Long - he was stating a hypothetical case, just as I was posting a news article several months ago, about a girl who was abused as a child, and apparently offended a lady who had been terribly abused. First, I had no idea she'd been abused, second, I wasn't advocating a position at all, just as Mike wasn't, merely reporting a story from the news. The end result was, that our current Belle Rose, who at that time was either Sarah or Jessica, I forget which, along with her pet puppy, Simon Paynton, went up one side of me and down the other, much like you and your pet puppy, Paynton, are now doing to Mike. Quite the coincidence --

It's equally coincidental that you seem to have knowledge of correctional institution terminology, while our friend, Jessica/Sarah/Belle Rose, whose earlier thoughts nearly echo your current ones, also worked for a correctional institution. You two should really get together and chat, you'd find that you have a lot in common.

Comment by archaeopteryx on September 20, 2013 at 11:18pm

Mike made it clear to you that he was only responding to Unseen's comment, that you'll find on page 13 - here is Unseen's comment:

Reply by Unseen on Wednesday

Pedophilia is a difficult subject for people to discuss logically. And here I AM talking about true pedophiles, not some guy guilty of statutory rape with a pubescent teen of 15 or 17. That is a different issue, and the guy who's guilty of that may not (and probably is not) attracted to prepubescent children. Pubescent teens can meet the normal standards of physical attractiveness that we apply to adults. However, as a society we believe that people of that age aren't ready to have sex with full adults.

Let's assume that pedophiles are born not made. In that regard, if that's true, they resemble homosexuals. 

But pedophiles want sexual contact with children, which is different from homosexuality. It's not just that we want to protect children, it's that we need to and have a duty to do so. Since in some cases the children give consent or even may initiate sexual contact, this includes protecting them from themselves because at that age they really are clueless what they are getting into. 

In that pedophiles can do damage to others if they let themselves go, it is like alcoholism. If someone is an alcoholic who gets into the system through some infractions, but gets their drinking under control, we let them get out of the system. We don't have them registering in their community as alcoholics for the rest of their lives.

Pedophilia has certain aspects of an OCD, because pedophiles certainly obsess about sex with children and feel a compulsion to act out, which they sometimes cannot resist. While, no doubt, some pedophiles qualify as predatory creepozoids, some are just sad cases with a compulsion they are powerless to resist.

So, the challenge is for the community to approach pedophilia in a non-hysterical, logical way that both maximizes the protection of children and yet isn't draconian in terms of cosequences for the offender.

Let's also bear in mind what I heard Bill Maher say once (and I'm sorry, but I have totally forgotten the context). I paraphrase, but I know the gist is right: "When they come to take your rights away, they'll say they're doing it to protect the children."

So, let's hear some alternative ways to treat pedophiles that doesn't amount to branding a big letter "P" on their foreheads.

How about this: In exchange for not molesting children, we (the Government) will keep your condition secret and we'll give you unfettered access to high-resolution, computer-generated pedophilic images and videos.

This would not reoffend children, which would be the reason for not giving them access to real kiddie porn, and it would help both prevent child sexual victimization and murder, because a certain small percentage of pedophiles end up murdering the children they molest in an attempt to keep their crime from becoming public.

Anyone got a better idea? The Ludovico Technique?

There may have been earlier ones, but it has taken me the better part of an hour to locate that one, and as I'm sure you often hear your therapist say, I'm sorry, our time is up.

Comment by Belle Rose on September 21, 2013 at 12:10am
Arch I'm not sure why you're trying to drag me in the middle of your beef (again), but if you have something to say to me, say it to my face. I thought we worked out our differences, and I thought you understood the fact that my current views are vastly different than they were a year ago (which is about when that happened). I've apologized to you both publically and privately for my own shit, and I'm not denying I used to believe some fucked up lies from religion and its aftermath in my life. But I've moved on from that. I don't take sides and I don't appreciate you trying to humiliate me (again). I've moved on from our differences. Have you?
Comment by Belle Rose on September 21, 2013 at 1:38am
Angela: I can't think of a profound way to say this so I'm just going to say it. It may seem that some people benefit from religion, but when you REALLY look at what holds their beliefs together it's ultimately MORE harmful to them the longer they stay disillusioned. The longer they are numbed by false solace and manipulative scare tactics of the threat of a fiery hell and damnation, as opposed to facing reality and confronting their REAL problems with no fairy dust or holy pain killers, the harder the fall when they snap out of it, and the more precious life they waste believing lies. I used to believe there was some good to religion. Now I can only tell you my own life is in shambles because of it, and I have a big fucking deep hole to dig myself out of. One thing that Arch is right about, I used to be highly emotional, and maybe still am without thinking things through. I've had to learn that the facts, evidence, and reality are what matter, not my emotions. Religion does not work without emotion, in fact that's really all it is. It's a false high, but the crash is just not worth it.
Comment by onyango makagutu on September 21, 2013 at 3:14am

Angela, so you think religion is useful to those living in the third world and that they need an alternative. No we don't need. People need to be freed from this madness of some middle Eastern god created by men in exile several eons ago and solve the current problems facing us.

Education is it's own reward. We don't need coloured glasses to look at reality. And I have met quite a number of atheists and they are seem to me to be doing very well for themselves. So cut the crap and tell me why you think people in the developing countries need religion.

Comment by onyango makagutu on September 21, 2013 at 3:49am

In your response to archy where he mentioned me, you said he only knows one person and that his knowledge can not be true of the group. It is in that light that I told you there are several atheists I know here who are doing good for themselves and need no religion to hang on.

Ah, so you can't talk about empathy without mentioning Jesus? that is if I get you correctly? 

Comment by Belle Rose on September 21, 2013 at 3:53am
@Angela: RE Its the subject of empathy that I usually try to start talking about ...

Empathy has absolutely positively nothing to do with religion. The third world is oppressed by religion and in holding on to the superstitions of it is creating a LACK of empathy.

Example: when a young girl is held down to have her lady parts cut off due to her religious beliefs (forced upon her) this is a LACK of empathy.

When a woman is stoned to death for being raped in a muslim country under Sharia law this is a LACKk of empathy.

When a woman is told to submit to her abusive husband and shut up about it this is a LACK of empathy.

There is no such thing as an empathetic religion, there are empathetic people. A person can be MORE empathetic if they are not clouded by the lies of religion. REALITY is the only anecdote to human suffering. Our species continues to hold itself down because of the misinformation and lies that religious beliefs create in us. Empathy is at its highest when we see our world the clearest.
Comment by onyango makagutu on September 21, 2013 at 4:14am

So Angela, are you implying the Chinese or Japanese who is not into this Jesus business can't have empathy or can't know it? Or in which way is Jesus and empathy very similar or same? 

As to whether increasing secularism has created a hole, I don't know, there is a bigger hole where I live created by religion. It follows from us against them mentality that runs deep in religious texts, which over time has made it hard for those around me to rise above religious bigotry and ignorance and so something to improve their lot.

Comment by Belle Rose on September 21, 2013 at 4:39am
@Angela: I think that  our ever increasing secular societies have created a hole or loss of something that I cant quite put my finger on....

Perhaps you're expecting so-called "empathy" to be articulated in the same way as the "Christians." Christians will smile and sing Kumbaya and Hakuna-Matata and hold hands and be merry.

Atheists won't.

We don't care about "touchy feely coddle your feelings" sort of dialog. We are ruthless for Truth to be sought, injustices exposed, and lies extinguished. Religion will give you all the emotional hype one could ask for. But when you face the fact that there is no evidence for god, the implications are much more beautiful. The frustration is living in a world that does not share the same awe for our universe and instead is the very source of the pain inflicted upon us. If we lack anything it's more atheists. Equating Jesus with empathy is short sighted. Empathy the way I've seen it is the most beautiful thing when it is developed without belief in god, but with pursuit of Truth an real potential.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin



Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by kris feenstra 27 seconds ago. 114 Replies


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out

Advertise with

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service