Has anyone ever thought about how shitty it would be if we made first contact with another race across the stars, and we were the more advanced and ended up puking dogma all over them? That would just be so terrible.

Except that the sheer fact of making contact with a race of aliens will force us to reconsider our dogmas.

Actually I meant that I didn't get why, if they are going to break rules anyway, they don't just have sex with an adult. At least that way they get what they want without harming a child in the process.

Any numbers to back that up? I don't know what necessitates the attack on atheists in particular when you get the very same lack of distinction in discussions on politics and games consoles and football teams etc.

Because they're pederasts. Adults don't turn them on.

I also think that maybe it is something to do with a child being "easier" if you know what I mean.

I can't believe I just written that...

All so the child does not no RIGHT from WRONG. And because it's someone with high power. How does that child know if it's wrong. It just makes me MAD! :fuzmad:

Your spot on know. ):

Since when? I've met some pretty obstinate faithfuls in my time.

It's not about breaking the rules, they're not making some anarchist statement, they are paedophiles, fucking kids turns them on. Just because they dress up in a cassock and wear a dog collar doesn't suddenly put them in this unique echelon where the want to have sex with children because they 'want to break the rules'.

I don't think it's about knowing right from wrong, but of the child being "entised" or simply raped.

I'd like to believe that's true, but somehow I don't.

Entised then raped I think. Not sure.

I mean "enticed" in the sense that you can "encourage" a child to do "things" and then there is just full on rape.

You know what, again, I can't believe I'm writing this, I'm pulling out of this subject in this thread now.

If you have a point, argue it for fuck sake, man. Don't pull out just because you feel uncomfortable with the subject.

It is my view that the holy folk in question are highly repressed individuals who are unable to cope with the conditions they are subject to (or in this case, more likely the conditions they are not subject to). The way they go about relieving this tension is wrong, and I think that other contemptible traits of theirs are responsible for this, thus I do not have much sympathy for these detestable individuals, but it has remained my belief for a long time that a contributing factor is the sexual repression in the Catholic church. It is not natural behaviour to abstain from sexual conduct, and few individuals are asexual, so it has to have some negative psychological consequences.

You may disagree with me, but I have believed for a long time that the manipulation of a person's beliefs regarding sex is a way of controlling a person. I don't know if that kind of repression started out as some primitive set of beliefs, but somewhere along the line (if not to begin with), it has been used as a device to control other human beings, since sex is a highly influential factor in human behaviour (in fact, behaviour of all living organisms, to my knowledge). It is these kinds of beliefs and the reasons I think they continue to exist which exemplifies why I believe that a secular state should totally abandon the sexual beliefs of the last fuck knows how many centuries/millennia.

Well I don't see how these people can get away with it. And it feels like people do nothing about it in today world. ):

I don't think so. Could you ever envision yourself having sex with pre-pubescent people? No matter how desperate I am and how easy children are I simply wouldn't fornicate with them because I haven no sexual attraction to them. I would say that said priests have always had paedophilic urges. I don't think it has anything to do with them taking advantage of children because they're easy.

Only them in particular?

The fuck are you even trying to say there?

Actually, I worded that totally wrong, what I meant to say was, All priests are paedophiles?

As in the ones currently under discussion.

So no.

Urgh, I can't read...

Thanks for pointing that out for me.

Do you guys remember that I grew up with a guy who became the pastor of the church I went to school at as a kid, and was subsequently convicted of sucking off fifteen year old boys at the school?

Here you go: http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2010/06/y...ettlemoir.html

Sickening, I wonder why he gave himself in though, was he already suspected?

The mother of one of the kids found disturbing text messages from him on her son's phone.

As I said in a previous post, guys tend not to think clearly when they're horny. I suspect that most of those priests would probably screw a lamppost if they thought they could get away with it. So, I agree with those who suggested that those priests turn to paedophilia because they see it as easier and less likely of getting caught.

Bear in mind that there are also priests who have affairs with adult women and men. It's just not reported as loudly or as often.

After reading people's objections to my post (and, frankly, I was hesitant about it when first typing it), I'm going to water it down slightly to 'challenge our dogmas'. Whether anyone actually reconsiders them is a different matter.

You're right. People in general are shit at seperating respect for a person and respect for an idea. I just object to the suggestion that it is something that religious people do more often than atheists. In my experience - and bear in mind that I know a lot of ultra-orthodox people - atheists are just as close-minded about different viewpoints as religious people are.

It turns out that minds don't change when exposed to something new. They change some time after when the ideas have had time to settle. But people aren't around to see that like they were for the argument. Look at LDG519: I had no idea that his views had changed so much since he last spoke, and from the sounds of it the change was fairly smooth and gradual, which is consistent with other stories I've heard.

I think usually it's passion or rudeness that is mistaken for closed-mindedness. Or else, the refusal to accept a shit argument. If you start out right and with the facts to support it, whichever side that might be, it's hardly closed-mindedness to not change your mind when handed bullshit.

Oooookay... but that has nothing to do with attacking a person rather than an idea.

I know, it was to do with the thing it was about.

it was definately a slow process and it was pretty smooth for me, but I don't think it was smooth for my christian family, which given what they think will happen to me is understandable, I was already most of the way to atheism when I watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU

it was about 30 minutes after that that I completely changed

Sigh... always good to be proved right.

Huh? what does that prove.

It was in response to your comment, Nathan.

How?

.

I didn't ask what; I asked how.

I don't see the link from me responding to your post about respecting people but not ideas, to your post about why people are naturally close-minded.