The Non-Existent Moral Code of Atheism

Posted on | September 10, 2013 | 151 Comments

If there is no God, there is only Science and, as everyone who has studied the “climate change” phenomenon is aware, Science involves a self-selecting cabal of credentialed insiders empowered to dismiss criticism from anyone who does not concur in the sacred consensus.

So child molestation is harmless — the Science is settled!

Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s best-known and outspoken atheists, has provoked outrage among child protection agencies and experts after suggesting that recent child abuse scandals have been overblown.
In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.
Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”
He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” . . .
“I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.
He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

Ace of Spades:

This just in: Man who has spent entire adult public life attempting a Freudian vengeance against God-As-Father-Figure-Betrayer announces that a bit of “mild pedophilia” did “no lasting harm” to his psychology.

See more at Salon, Memeorandum and Gateway Pundit — but you know, who has been warning you about this? Who took alarm over the Kaitlyn Hunt story? Who told you about the atheist sex scandal?

Who told you about the Pervert Party and the New Abnormal? What about Slutwalk Insanity and the Psychotic Professor?

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Perhaps the apostles of the Gospel of Science could examine these correlations, and confirm my impression that there is a distinct non-randomness involved.

Did I ever mention that Brett Kimberlin is an atheist?

Category: Science, Sex

Comments

151 Responses to “The Non-Existent Moral Code of Atheism”

richard mcenroe
September 11th, 2013 @ 9:54 am

Actually believing them theists assumes facts not in evidence. The one thing we KNOW they believe in is going where the young boys are…just like the secular school pedos who outnumber them at least three to one.
JonesRE3
September 11th, 2013 @ 10:00 am

RT @rsmccain: Can anyone think of an atheist who’s OK with pedophilia? http://t.co/z2ZGYPQ3AH Besides Richard Dawkins, I mean.
Douglas Presler
September 11th, 2013 @ 10:04 am

Thanks for the novel reconfiguration of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
Gestir
September 11th, 2013 @ 10:34 am

Prof. Schwyzer is an adult convert to judaism. Before that he was a pro-life (or in his phraseology “consistent life-ethic”) christian vegan. Sorry if this screws up your “pattern”.
rmnixondeceased
September 11th, 2013 @ 10:52 am

That’s where I learned what a ‘tart’ was in British Public school parlance …
VerminMcCann
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:25 am

Richard Dawkins says and does the things he does because he’s an asshole, not because he’s an atheist.
DaveO
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:39 am

Oh, thought methiest was when two cops compare which meth labs was worse. “Man, that was the methiest trailer burn I ever saw!”
DaveO
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:40 am

Are you saying Judaism requires one to prey on the young women for whom one is responsible?
DaveO
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:46 am

It almost sounds like Dawkins is learning forgiveness. “I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.” It’s a good thing. What he hasn’t grasped is how the events of them shaped who he was and is and could be.
There is still hope for him though, he isn’t dead yet.
DaveO
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:48 am

Clarification:
The ‘it’ of “It’s a good thing” means forgiveness, not pedophilia.
Correction:
Not them but then.
Quartermaster
September 11th, 2013 @ 12:39 pm

#Losing
Quartermaster
September 11th, 2013 @ 12:40 pm

The country really fell into that trap when it elected Lincoln in 1860. It set the stage for all we see now. The US, indeed, has become a Romans 1:18-32 country.
Quartermaster
September 11th, 2013 @ 12:44 pm

He reconfigured nothing. There are many men occupying pulpits who there because it’s an easy way to make a living and are operationally atheists. that’s the reason we see the United Methodists, Presbyterians, and United Church of Christ in the mess they are in. The RCC is just as bad off because of the infiltration of queers. That’s where the boys are and people trust them because of the habit they wear and the queers can get away with it longer and easier.
unknown jane
September 11th, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

Richard Dawkins is a fairly common phenomena among atheists — he appears to have no trouble whatsoever with non-Abrahamic religious systems (such as Buddhism and Hinduism — which are hardly devoid of fanaticism and magical thinking that he ascribes to Abrahamic faiths).
I’m not sure if he then qualifies to truly be called atheist, and there are a lot out there just like him (which is correctly pegged here as someone who has issues with authority in the guise of western civilization).
In short, a bunch of grown ups who are still indulging in teenage angst and rebellion tantrums but wish to call it something more sophisticated than what it really is.

And this is readily apparent with this latest from him — in his desire to rebel against authority (embodied by religion and Judeo-Christian morality specifically), he has shown his hand as a decadent who would do as he willed above all else.

For myself, I’m probably a deist by personal leaning — a very agnostic deist…one step away from full atheist perhaps…but I do not have a beef with Christianity or the moral/ethical teachings found in religious faith (although I’ll pass on magical thinking and the fanaticism please, and it would be nice if more people would practice what they preach, or at least take the time to fully know what they are preaching — seems to cause all manner of harm itself).
unknown jane
September 11th, 2013 @ 2:12 pm

…and I also realize that many atheists — even if they dodge the bullet that Mr. Dawkins and his ilk have not — can be induced to put far too much faith (!) in sciences and philosophy, when the hard truth is that these things are also at the mercy of interpretation and proselytizing at the hands of imperfect humans who have agendas,.bias, and issues of their own.
PubliusNV
September 11th, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

The Non-Existent Moral Code of Atheism http://t.co/KzYv5y2z2Q
Dungeonmaster Jim
September 11th, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

This reminds me of a joke. A young reporter goes to see Bertrand Russell. He knocks on the door, only to have it answered by a stark naked eight year old girl.
“My God!” the reporter says.
“Oh, there is no God,” the girl replies. “Won’t you come in?”
Quartermaster
September 11th, 2013 @ 2:36 pm

I’m not sure Dawkins has faith anything, frankly. If he does it’s what constitutes “science” in his diseased mind. The man is unable to distinguish between science and philosophy. Consequently, his “Science” is warped by the conflation of the two. There are far too many among atheists that make that very serious mistake.
F’rinstance, as I’ve said here before, there are two forms of evolution. One is pretty well settled and we use it in selective breeding. That’s the Micro form.
Macro Evolution, OTOH, is demonstrated by Darwinism and is nothing more than philosophical speculation and is used as an interpretive frame. It isn’t science. Micro and Macro evolution are often conflated so that the former can lend a certain cachet and make the later seem better. The observant and informed, however, see through the ruse.
unknown jane
September 11th, 2013 @ 3:18 pm

He is on record as stating that eastern philosophical/religious thought is “more sophisticated” and thus a more fitting mental endeavor.
While not practicing it, he is giving it a certain seal of approval — which, if he was an actual atheist of integrity, he would not.
As for his beliefs in science, well, when you take into consideration his seal of approval for eastern metaphysics, it does lead one to question what exactly his thoughts on science really are.
Under those circumstances I’m not sure he’s a completely valid source for further study of evolution or any other branch of scientific thought — I would always advise somebody to read him quite closely and critically, and with that prior knowledge.
As for evolutionary theory — there is a foundation laid, and it is leading us to more scientific discoveries. I think the appropriate way to consider Darwin is rather like Mendel, Copernicus, and Galileo…a starting point, not the finished project, and thus theory. I don’t worship Darwin (or discard him completely).
Alessandra
September 11th, 2013 @ 3:31 pm

Nice recall!
Alessandra
September 11th, 2013 @ 3:32 pm

And pedophilia legitimizer
Alessandra
September 11th, 2013 @ 3:39 pm

It’s statements like this that encourage pedophiles; it’s what they grab onto to legitimize their perverted desires and subsequent actions.

While there are obvious degrees of harm depending on individual circumstances each time a child is molested or abused (or the compounded effect of multiple experiences), to minimize and trivialize molestation because it may not leave a “lifetime of trauma and internal damage” every time in a child is effectively to give a green light to it.
If there were any justice in the world, while we couldn’t put Dawkins in jail for what he said, the best that could happen is that he would be completely shunned in society and forced to live alone for the remainder of his days.
ChrisDavis2011
September 11th, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

Where, oh where, is the ever eloquent and talented Alessandra when we need her?
Summer Koryo
September 11th, 2013 @ 5:01 pm

I haven’t read through the comments on this so excuse me if this has already been posited.

I would like a survey conducted of the number of Atheists out there who suffered childhood abuse, or something else incredibly traumatic. Exclude of course the ones raised by atheists.

I just have to wonder if having this awful thing happen to them as a child, would place doubt in their mind as to how God, benevolent and just, would allow such a horrible thing to happen to them.
talace
September 11th, 2013 @ 6:28 pm

RT @rsmccain: Can anyone think of an atheist who’s OK with pedophilia? http://t.co/z2ZGYPQ3AH Besides Richard Dawkins, I mean.
SwiperTheFox
September 11th, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

*laughs hysterically*
SwiperTheFox
September 11th, 2013 @ 6:44 pm

Yes, and there are many atheists that have spent their lives fighting for good causes– Nat Hentoff comes to mind (supportive of American jazz and of pro-life causes)
kryon77
September 11th, 2013 @ 7:41 pm

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is perhaps the greatest ethical work of all time (it’s a set of lecture notes by one of Aristotle’s students), and God doesn’t have a role. The ethical principles are derived from a view of man’s nature, and the requirements of human flourishing.

Aristotle himself may be said to have been a religious believer, but his idea of the Prime Mover is a highly abstract view of God – what we today call Deism – and it’s a God that’s irrelevant to our lives. And it’s irrelevant to Aristotle’s ethics. (Aristotle’s Prime Mover got the metaphysical ball rolling; it played the same role in Aristotle’s view of the universe as the Big Bang theory does for many physicists.)

RSM never actually argues for his view that you can’t have ethics without God.

Because he cannot.

So he just makes the assertion.
Quartermaster
September 11th, 2013 @ 7:50 pm

I long ago rejected Darwin for the reasons I gave above. Origin of the species was utterly debunked years ago, and when Pasteur published his studies, it was the end of Darwin. Neo-Darwinism does not solve the problems of Darwinism. Darwinism is self referent and so can only be a framework for interpretation. As a result, anyone that accept Darwinism is not accepting science, but Philosophy in place of science.

The reality is, Origins are beyond the reach of science. It is not a matter of liking or disliking. Science depends upon experimentation and observation. The fossils themselves can only be used within an interpretive framework, so I can not accept teh cutesy statement “We have the Fossils, we win,” because the fossils do not prove anything other than something existed. I’ve seen a purported series that supposedly shows the progression from a Sea Urchin to a sand dollar. That may be true, but evolution can only work on genetic material that is present, and such series to not show anything gaining genetic material, but a loss of genetic material.

In the end, information theory of which Genetics is actually a branch, is utterly devastating to all forms of macro evolution. We have no way of showing how the information arose that allowed life to come into existence on its own. And the problem of life having to exist to produce other life, is an insurmountable obstacle by itself.

In a nutshell, macro-Evolution is not, and can not be science.
unknown jane
September 11th, 2013 @ 10:11 pm

You seem to have this desire to take me for something I’m not — in this case, a neo-Darwinist (I merely said that Darwin was a start, which he was, and yes, he was wrong about many things, but it was a starting place and I’m glad somebody did it).
I’m afraid you just aren’t going to get me to concede an argument that I’m really not on either side for (although I’m not so sure that you are using micro and macro evolution in a strictly scientific and not ontological way; just as I am not really certain that genetics really is all that devastating to at least some theories of macro-evolution).
Anyway, no matter — I have no issue with your own beliefs, just as long as you allow me mine.

I think we can both agree that having a multiplicity of theories out there and honestly assessing them, testing them, and having a civilized discussion about them is probably the best thing for an open and free society!
unknown jane
September 11th, 2013 @ 10:13 pm

In the meantime, let us both also agree that pedophilia is a disgusting habit and the immigration reform bill is vile (and very unChristian, the both of them), and if we wish to keep our open and free society, our just and fair country…we need to perhaps see if there are at least some things we can work together for…no?
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:30 pm

And now Pope Francis says atheists can go to Heaven…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html
rmnixondeceased
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:32 pm

Heh. The road to hell is littered with the skulls of bishops and popes …
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:51 pm

I think many of these kids feel guilt, shame, and culpability because they have been lead to believe they consented and participated willingly, or least didn’t make much of an effort to resist. Even young children who do not have much grasp of sexuality do understand what “naughty” is! For this “awful thing” they blame themselves, and that creates certain pathologies, scars, including (but not limited to!) doubt in a benevolent and just Creator…
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:54 pm

If society doesn’t turn the tide on homosexual “marriage” and everything that comes with it, Dawkins just may gain even greater celebrity!
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:56 pm

I like Francis… I think he may be the first real holy man the RCC has had in centuries!
rmnixondeceased
September 11th, 2013 @ 11:59 pm

Accentuate the man part for he is simply a frail and faulty human vessel. Holy, yes. Possessing the faults of man, yes, everything else is yet to be seen.
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 12th, 2013 @ 12:24 am

I might add that, given Dawkins’ popular fame and stature in academia, the Left is going to make his opinions on paedophilia part of their belief system!

We must remember that Really Smart People™, like Dawkins or Einstein, can be as naive, ignorant, and misguided as anyone else when they speak to issues outside their field of expertise…
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 12th, 2013 @ 12:41 am

Heh… just a man!
K-Bob
September 12th, 2013 @ 1:10 am

No, he’s just got a dictionary, and knows that morality is not the same thing as ethics.

Ethics starts from a set of assertions that can be easily changed to suit the audience. That’s how you end up with people thinking Margaret Sanger was such a highly ethical person.

Morals don’t change. Only people do.
K-Bob
September 12th, 2013 @ 1:10 am

I’ve avoided studying the man, but what little I’ve seen has the whiff of Liberation Theology. I’d prefer to be really, really wrong about that.
K-Bob
September 12th, 2013 @ 1:15 am

Well the non-Abrahamic religions have more interesting features. Like Shintoism. Where evidently they tow a statue of Oprah in her penis dress every Spring.
Quartermaster
September 12th, 2013 @ 6:51 am

You’re welcome to believe what you will. However, in science there is no room for such, just the facts. The fact is Darwin started nothing. He was a dead end. The problem with all forms of macro-evolution is how does teh additional genetic info get into the organism to allow it to “rise.” There is no known mechanism, but evolutionists will trumpet each new “discovery” as an ancestor of some living thing even though there is no evidence for it, except, of course, their interpretive framework.

What I’m doing is poking holes in what you have said. You can carry on all you like. It isn’t my job to get you to conceded anything. You’ve at least seen some of the problems with what you believe, it is up to you to decide whether you will accept the Darwinist myth or not. I reject it categorically, because it doesn’t hold water and is not science. I have long called it the first post-modern myth. And it is a myth that Dawkins and his ilk really, really want to be true, because the only other alternative to the Philosophical myth is unspeakable to them.
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 12th, 2013 @ 7:02 am

I hope you’re wrong too! I knew a Catholic priest who subscribed to that — He was always ranting about how he couldn’t preach to an empty stomach. He’s in prison in Honduras last I knew…

Yep…….
magsmagenta
September 12th, 2013 @ 8:07 am

Just because Richard Dawkins said something foolish in his personal memoir does not mean that all Atheists are immoral, and it does not mean that all Atheists agree with him.
All Atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in deities. If you want a massive history of child abuse of all types you need look no further than organised religion, from Child brides in Yemen to the Catholic Church covering up for paedophile Priests. A few misplaced lines in a book expressing a personal view from someone who was a VICTIM does not come close to balancing the scale in favour of ‘moral’ codes put forward by religions.
It’s not as if we all follow each other like sheep, as religious people do.
Fareedi al Laayla al Qakhaul
September 12th, 2013 @ 8:47 am

I assert these “paedophile priests” you mention are merely garden-variety homosexuals doing what any homosexual would do with similar opportunities…

But perhaps Dawkins is right. Maybe a little “fiddling about” really isn’t so bad. But, suppose the perpetrator, after having had his way with a child, then proceeds to sniff his own fingers… Has his behaviour now crossed the line into perversion?

I think today I shall listen again to that classic The Who’s Tommy in its entirety, at full volume – The Acid Queen and Uncle Ernie, and all that… It’s been years!
rmnixondeceased
September 12th, 2013 @ 9:13 am

I’ll be listening to “Thick as a Brick” myself …
Douglas Presler
September 12th, 2013 @ 9:46 am

“Operationally atheists”. That’s an even better reconfiguration of ‘no true Scotsman’ than that offered by richard mcenroe. I love learning new weasel words from conservatives!
Joe Dokes
September 12th, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

Sorry fer da bump but I guess now atheists need not worry…the “moral” ones, anyway…da pope sez they’re just fine as is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-dont-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html
magsmagenta
September 13th, 2013 @ 8:45 am

For a start Paedophilia and Homosexuality are not the same thing. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, both male and female, children by definition have not yet reached sexual or psychological maturity and therefore cannot give informed consent to have sexual relations with anyone. This is the crux of the problem with Paedophilia and why it is considered harmful.
Homosexuality by contrast is a sexual attraction to adults of the same sex, who being adults and sexually and psychologically mature, can if they wish consent to sexual relations with any other adult they want to.
If any adult forces themselves sexually on anyone of any age against that persons will, that is termed Rape. You really need to keep these definitions clear when commenting on these subjects.
It’s easy to see how the problem of paedophile priests came about in the Catholic Church, For a start priests don’t have to get married, they have the perfect excuse as the Catholic Church won’t allow it. Priests also have a privileged position of trust in Catholic communities, no one would worry about leaving their children in the care of the local Priest, and local monasteries and nunneries have long had a tradition of taking in homeless and unwanted children who have no one to care for or speak up for them, What better profession for paedophiles to go into, many of whom are manipulative enough to present one face to the local community and another to their victims, who is going to believe a child against Gods representative on Earth?
I can also see the attraction for closeted Homosexuals who want to hide their homosexuality from their community, there is no need to get married to someone of the opposite sex, God is the perfect ‘beard’ and they can get status in the community for themselves and their families. There’s just the problem that they have to remain celibate or go to rent boys and massage parlours.
Either way they would be better off coming out and living as openly gay men and having proper relationships with other gay men and so would the rest of society, but the Catholic Church won’t allow that.
Also Atheism isn’t Richard Dawkins personal ‘Movement’ There have been Atheists around as long at there have been Gods, and many have died for their refusal to acknowledge the religious delusion. I have a lot of respect for most of what he says, and for many other Atheist writers who have the courage to stand up to the whole brainwashing system that is organised religion.
What agenda do you think he’s trying to promote with these remarks? Do you think he’s trying to turn everyone into a paedophile? To what purpose? And what does that have to do with Atheism?

I love the film ‘Tommy’ by the way, Tina Turner is fantastic in it, as is the anti-messianic message. It’s one of the reasons I’m an Atheist and have been long before I knew who Richard Dawkins is.