Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Polymath257]

You are entitled to your opinion.
Naturally, if one is against the institutution of marriage being meaningful in society,
one would try to demean it.

In my opinion, you have not succeeded..

How is that relevant? It seems to me that a violent husband is a direct attack on the institution of marriage.

Our are you saying it is ok for the husband to beat his wife? Force her to have sex?

A woman is not a child. She does not need a husband to"correct" her. She is an adult just like her husband. If he is violent towards her, he should be prosecuted. If he forces her to have sex against her will, he is a rapist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know of anybody opposed to others getting married except the those who object to interracial or same-sex marriage.

That is not the topic .. I said "if one is against the institutution of marriage being meaningful in society",
which implies that sex outside of marriage is not acceptable.

What the humanist says is that people need not be legally married to form households, raise children, or to engage in intimate relationships, and I agree.

..and that is what you base your view of "rape" on..
..you see marriage as incidental with no real meaning.

..Being a wife and being raped at home by a husband isn't significantly different from being raped in a park by a stranger.

..which paints marriage as a redundant institution.
The Police are asked to do an almost impossible job, by judging people's bedroom behaviour.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are entitled to your opinion.
Naturally, if one is against the institutution of marriage being meaningful in society,
one would try to demean it.

In my opinion, you have not succeeded..

You're the one demeaning marriage. You're trying to change it from a partnership of equals based on love to religiously-sanctioned rape.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If he is violent towards her, he should be prosecuted.

Of course .. if a man or woman lumps his partner over the head with a claw hammer,
it is a serious business.
..but to suggest that a married person who sleeps with their partner when they would rather not, should be prosecuted by the Police is quite ridiculous, imo.
The Police force have already got a difficult job .. they don't need to be marriage counsellors.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You're the one demeaning marriage. You're trying to change it from a partnership of equals based on love to religiously-sanctioned rape.

No. YOU are the one trying to change it.
Marriage is a religious institution, and not what you want it to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..but to suggest that a married person who sleeps with their partner when they would rather not, should be prosecuted by the Police is quite ridiculous, imo.

Sex without continuous consent is rape.
Prosecuting rapists is reasonable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. YOU are the one trying to change it.
Marriage is a religious institution, and not what you want it to be.

A religious institution for rape?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sex without continuous consent is rape.

In a marriage contract, the husband and wife have a duty towards each other.
If they no longer can or want to fulfill their duties, they should dissolve it.

I do not agree with the Catholic church. Divorce is allowable, although undesirable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course .. if a man or woman lumps his partner over the head with a claw hammer,
it is a serious business.
..but to suggest that a married person who sleeps with their partner when they would rather not, should be prosecuted by the Police is quite ridiculous, imo.
The Police force have already got a difficult job .. they don't need to be marriage counsellors.

Someone who is forced to have sex when they don't want to have sex, is being raped. A person who forces another person to have sex when that other person doesn't want to have sex - no matter who that person is - is a rapist.
What's so hard to understand here?

 

[Polymath257]

That is not the topic .. I said "if one is against the institutution of marriage being meaningful in society",
which implies that sex outside of marriage is not acceptable.

Marriage can be meaningful even if sex outside of marriage is acceptable and common.

..and that is what you base your view of "rape" on..
..you see marriage as incidental with no real meaning.

Not at all. For example, I am married. I see marriage as important and meaningful.

But a husband forcing his wife to have sex against her will is a rapist.

..which paints marriage as a redundant institution.
The Police are asked to do an almost impossible job, by judging people's bedroom behaviour.

I call garbage here. If the husband is forcing his wife to have sex, he is a rapist. Let the courts and a jury sort out our.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a marriage contract, the husband and wife have a duty towards each other.
If they no longer can or want to fulfill their duties, they should dissolve it.

Indeed. One of those duties that should have been obvious - but apparently needs explaining for you - is that spouses have a duty not to rape each other.

If you want to have sex but you can't get your wife to have sex with you willingly, it's your job to do what it takes to make her willing. If you can't do that, then learn to live with disappointment. You don't just rape her.

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you a poe? Because I'm not sure I could come up with a better way to create a bad impression of Islam than the one you're giving right now.

 

[Valjean]

That is not the topic .. I said "if one is against the institutution of marriage being meaningful in society",
which implies that sex outside of marriage is not acceptable.

Holy non sequitur, Batman!
Explain this implication, please.

..and that is what you base your view of "rape" on..
..you see marriage as incidental with no real meaning.

Huh? How are you drawing that conclusion?

..which paints marriage as a redundant institution.

How so?

The Police are asked to do an almost impossible job, by judging people's bedroom behaviour.

Society's done the judging. The police just try to enforce the law -- in theory, anyway, with a nod to Revoltingest.

 

[Valjean]

Of course .. if a man or woman lumps his partner over the head with a claw hammer,
it is a serious business.
..but to suggest that a married person who sleeps with their partner when they would rather not, should be prosecuted by the Police is quite ridiculous, imo.
The Police force have already got a difficult job .. they don't need to be marriage counsellors.

But their job does include arresting those guilty of assault, no? Isn't forcible, non-consensual sex just as much an assault as a hammer to the head?

 

[Valjean]

No. YOU are the one trying to change it.
Marriage is a religious institution, and not what you want it to be.

Here in the states it's a legal contract, with religious underpinnings. The person performing the ceremony explicitly states s/he does so "by the power of the state," not the church. It's up to the state to enforce any laws pertaining to the contract.

 

[Alien826]

In a marriage contract, the husband and wife have a duty towards each other.
If they no longer can or want to fulfill their duties, they should dissolve it.

I do not agree with the Catholic church. Divorce is allowable, although undesirable.

Would you please spell out what you consider these "duties" to be? I'm assuming we are talking about sexual "duties" as that is the subject now. I'll ask some simple questions that may help.

Is it the duty of a wife to allow her husband to have sex with her at any time, whether she feels like it or not?
- if the answer is "no", what is her duty?
- whatever the answer, does the same duty apply to her husband, in all respects?

If she refuses him, for whatever reason, is he allowed to compel her to comply?
- if the answer is "yes", what are the limits, if any, on what he may do to compel her?
- if the answer is "no", why is compelling her forcibly not rape?
- whatever the answer, do these rules apply also to the woman? A woman may be physically more powerful than her husband. Is she allowed to use force to get him to fulfill his sexual contract with her?

This not about how society views marriage, just two people that have made an agreement between them, trying to live under that agreement as best they can.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I said "if one is against the institutution of marriage being meaningful in society",
which implies that sex outside of marriage is not acceptable.

I guess I wasn't able to interpret your words the way you say you intended them to be understood. Marriage, whether common law or civil, does not require monogamy. Religious beliefs don't define marriage. If you wish to incorporate them into your marriage, that's an option, but doesn't make it more of a marriage with them or less of one without them, just as having a wedding in a church doesn't change what it is.

..and that is what you base your view of "rape" on..
..you see marriage as incidental with no real meaning.

Marriage doesn't make what would be rape with a stranger not rape with a wife. Where do you get these ideas? I realize that you're Muslim, but if I recall correctly, you were formerly Christian, still identify with that religion as well, and were raised in the UK. Where did you learn that a man has and ought to have that kind of control over his wife's body?

which paints marriage as a redundant institution.

Marriage isn't necessary if one doesn't feel like it is. What's redundant is the church's involvement in a legal marriage.

The Police are asked to do an almost impossible job, by judging people's bedroom behaviour.

They're paid to identify crime in any room or even outside.

to suggest that a married person who sleeps with their partner when they would rather not, should be prosecuted by the Police is quite ridiculous,

Not in my culture, assuming you meant investigated by the police and prosecuted by the DA. I'm a humanist, and we advocate for equality, tolerance, and individual autonomy. I find your values unacceptable for me and the people I care about.

Marriage is a religious institution

No, it is not, at least not in the West. Marriage need not involve a church, although that is an option, but you could probably also get married in an amusement park or fast-food restaurant with the owners' permission. The church isn't authorized to marry anybody nor to grant divorces. It is entirely superfluous, or to use your word, it's redundant.

In a marriage contract, the husband and wife have a duty towards each other.

Yes, but in humanism, that duty is different than what you imagine. The husband has a duty to love and respect her unless that is impossible, in which case he still has a duty to not attempt to forcefully control her against her will her. This world needs less misogynistic religion in it.

 

[Colt]

I don't know of anybody opposed to others getting married except the those who object to interracial or same-sex marriage. What the humanist says is that people need not be legally married to form households, raise children, or to engage in intimate relationships, and I agree. I have been married and monogamous most of my adult life, but don't mind that others prefer other arrangements. Absent a religion telling me what I should value, why would I?


Which previous post about marriage? The immediately previous post was about rape. Is it too difficult to write a sentence that answers me, even if you think you've already written it somewhere else?

I'm assuming that you have no satisfactory response, so, my answer is the same: "I don't see a relevant difference there. Being a wife and being raped at home by a husband isn't significantly different from being raped in a park by a stranger." Why would my position have changed given your reply?


Of course you think that. You find faith good and holy and precious, and critics of it malicious. Humanistic, critical thinkers who identify as Abrahamic monotheists yet contradict creationists, for example, aren't hated as much as atheistic humanists. They're seen as misguided, but good people if they hold a god belief. But atheists with exactly the same opinions are considered evil, as you illustrate. We're accustomed to that, and don't take it seriously or personally. The religious with their devils and demons frequently like to frame challenges to their beliefs in such terms.

True live and let live atheist? That's not a part of the definition of atheist. Of course you prefer the kind of atheist with nothing to say, but most are critical thinkers, and what you are seeing is critical thinking from people who love knowledge (philosophers, literally) and love truth, but not the fervently believed, unfalsifiable intuitions that the religious (and others) often call knowledge and truth.

No. It's a comfortable and happy worldview once one has assimilated it. For you, it's doom and gloom, because you're expecting more. You're like the guy who loaned money and is angry that it wasn't returned. I'm the guy who understands that money loaned is often money never seen again. I can't be disappointed.

In a sense you are correct about your own resignation to suicide. There is no recollection for the dead.

 

[muhammad_isa]

//If the husband is forcing his wife to have sex, he is a rapist. Let the courts and a jury sort out our.

..all very well in theory .. but in practice, it is a nonsense.

..and that is the main reason why "rape" prosecutions are so few.
It is not due to lack of funding .. although economic concerns are part of reality..
..it is about how to prove it was without consent .. which is NOT difficult to do in a society
that does not accept sex outside of marriage.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Indeed. One of those duties that should have been obvious - but apparently needs explaining for you - is that spouses have a duty not to rape each other.

If you want to have sex but you can't get your wife to have sex with you willingly, it's your job to do what it takes to make her willing. If you can't do that, then learn to live with disappointment. You don't just rape her.

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you a poe? Because I'm not sure I could come up with a better way to create a bad impression of Islam than the one you're giving right now.

Well said. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it believed among Muslims that women are considered inferior to men and the property of men? I'm thinking of the news I've heard from Islamic countries like Afghanistan, where women are gravely mistreated and legally oppressed. I feel empathy for the Muslim women who are oppressed. I remembered the following news while I was reading what I regarded as a very disturbing post by muhammad_isa.

Harry Potter actress' family charged over kill threats

Harry Potter actress's brother admits attacking her

Harry Potter actress Afshan Azad 'beaten and abused'

Harry Potter Actress' Brother Jailed After Attacking Her

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it believed among Muslims that women are considered inferior to men and the property of men?

No .. nobody is the property of another.
We are born as an individual, and return to G-d as an individual.

Good Muslim men are for good Muslim women..
..and good Muslim women are for good Muslim men.

The rest are for each other, and they do whatever tickles their fancy.