Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[F1fan]

Of course I do..
The Qur'an lays them out clearly.

OK, do married women have the right to refuse sex if their husband demands it?

And do you think the Quran has authority over people who don't assign it meaning and significance?

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, do married women have the right to refuse sex if their husband demands it?

Do men have the right to refuse sex if their wives demand it?
The answer is, that it is not a criminal matter in law.

And do you think the Quran has authority over people who don't assign it meaning and significance?

In a democratic society, people are free to make laws .. be it from the Bible, the Qur'an or anything else.
In other words, if the majority want Islamic law, why is that not acceptable?

 

[Polymath257]

Let's go back to where this conversation all started 18 pages ago..

@Valjean said "It seems to me that religion often separates moral behavior from consequences. It justifies evil with scriptural law".

..and now we are discussing woman's rights?
We have our opinion, and you have yours.

I have made it clear.
Sexual intercourse between a man and wife cannot be considered "illegal" .. end of.

And that is a perfect example of religion justifying evil. if it is 'legal' and 'acceptable' for a husband to force himself on an unwilling woman, then the legal system and societal norms are inherently evil.

Yes, we are talking women's rights because that is one place where religion justifies evil.

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense. It is all about your perceived injustice towards women.

Yes, an assault on a woman, where she is forced into sex she doesn't want, is an injustice. That you can't see that says a lot about your value system and its ability to justify evil.

 

[Polymath257]

Do men have the right to refuse sex if their wives demand it?
The answer is, that it is not a criminal matter in law.

Yes, of course they do. And the wives have the right to refuse sex if their husbands demand it. If the wife *forces* her husband to have sex, then she is guilty of rape.

In a democratic society, people are free to make laws .. be it from the Bible, the Qur'an or anything else.
In other words, if the majority want Islamic law, why is that not acceptable?

Because the right of people take precedence to the laws. Even if all but 10 people say its ok to rape, that is not enough to say it is ok.

 

[Polymath257]

That is not a matter for the police.
In a society where sex before marriage is not acceptable, consent does not come into it.

Huh? How in the world do you get that??? Consent is *vital* always, every single time. Period. Whether inside or outside of marriage.

If a wife says no to sex and the husband forces her, then the husband committed rape. I don't see how there can be any debate about that. The husband is not only wrong, but criminally wrong.

That sex is or is not acceptable outside of marriage is irrelevant. It is *always* wrong to force someone into sex.

If your religion or social norms allow that sort of behavior, then your religion and society are justifying evil.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And that is a perfect example of religion justifying evil. if it is 'legal' and 'acceptable' for a husband to force himself on an unwilling woman, then the legal system and societal norms are inherently evil.

Yes, we are talking women's rights because that is one place where religion justifies evil.

It is NOT evil.
The evil is in a system where the marriage contract is relatively meaningless.
i.e. one has to ask permission of their partner before intercourse

Marriage is not a "status symbol" .. it is a means of preventing evil in society.
There is legal and illegal sex, where consent is not presumed unless married.

"She/he did not say no" becomes irrelevant and is never a defence in law.

It is an illusion that women are safer in a system of consent, and sex before marriage is the norm.
It is a case of putting selfish worldly desire over purity and truth.

 

[Polymath257]

It is NOT evil.
The evil is in a system where the marriage contract is relatively meaningless.
i.e. one has to ask permission of their partner before intercourse

What??? You think that makes marriage meaningless?

Sorry, but to be meaningful, there has to be mutual respect and what you describe has NO respect at all.

I find it supremely evil. And I happily condemn any religion or society that supports it.

Marriage is not a "status symbol" .. it is a means of preventing evil in society.
There is legal and illegal sex, where consent is not presumed unless married.

And it *is* presumed if married? Sorry, that is actual evil justified by religion.

"She/he did not say no" becomes irrelevant and is never a defence in law.

How about she *did* say no? Is that ever a reason to prosecute?

It is an illusion that women are safer in a system of consent, and sex before marriage is the norm.
It is a case of putting selfish worldly desire over purity and truth.

From what I see, it is no illusion. If a woman can be forced into having sex when she does not want it, that is not safety. That is oppression.

If she cannot deny consent, then she is not safe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because the right of people take precedence to the laws. Even if all but 10 people say its ok to rape, that is not enough to say it is ok.

That is nonsense.
That is purely a case of you thinking you are right, and have the right to thwart the majority.

I see little difference in military dictatorships, that force their opinion on others and what you suggest.
I do not agree with Muslims, Christians or anybody else forcing their opinons of govt./law on others
in a non-democratic way.
I see that as hypocrisy. People are happy with democracy, as long as they agree with the laws it makes,
but otherwise they do not want democracy, it seems.

 

[muhammad_isa]

From what I see, it is no illusion. If a woman can be forced into having sex when she does not want it, that is not safety. That is oppression.

No, it is not.
A woman should not be forced to marry. She may marry a person of her own choosing.
The bridegroom must give her her dowry, and her earnings are her own.

A husband MUST provide for her and any children.
At any time, if the wife is not happy with her husband,
he must free her and the marriage contract is terminated.

 

[F1fan]

OK, do married women have the right to refuse sex if their husband demands it?

Do men have the right to refuse sex if their wives demand it?
The answer is, that it is not a criminal matter in law.

Wow, you are working hard to evade answering a simple question. Your evasion suggests you are embarrassed to reveal your actual attitudes. So you can't even say that a woman has the right to refuse sexual demands of her husband. Even prostitutes have the right to refuse service, but not wives in your view.

In a democratic society, people are free to make laws .. be it from the Bible, the Qur'an or anything else.
In other words, if the majority want Islamic law, why is that not acceptable?

For some reason you don't want to acknowledge that married woman are equal citizens who have basic human rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Are you counting the rapists as "good Muslim men"?

 

[muhammad_isa]

For some reason you don't want to acknowledge that married woman are equal citizens who have basic human rights.

I don't like answering simple questions just to be told that we are all rapists, or some such nonsense.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't like answering simple questions just to be told that we are all rapists, or some such nonsense.

The only people who are rapists are people who force sex onto unwilling participants. If your wife (or husband) is not ready or willing to have sex, and tells you 'no not now,' but you force it because you want it, then you would be a rapist.

Not complicated.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But these aren't the reasons for the biblical admonitions against extramarital sex,

They aren’t? You use the negative emphatically, like you know there are other reasons.
What reasons, then?

Jesus said the Law -- referring to the Mosaic Law, of course — was summed up in two laws: ‘love God, and love (agapé, not eros) your neighbor as yourself.’ Matthew 22:37-39.

Paul said at Romans 13:10, “Love is the Law’s fulfillment.”

Sexual gratification w/o commitment has no place in God’s arrangement, and I see the wisdom in it….

Promiscuity is based on selfishness, and it has resulted in a world full of Unwanted & Unloved Children borne from broken families (as opposed to “born into”…there’s a difference), despite free birth control available in many countries. Ultimately, that’s not loving your neighbor. In the long run, it’s creating more criminals for society (your neighbors) to deal with. Selfish behaviors often lead to unhappy outcomes.

…and aren't relevant to the priesthood, who don't care if you wanted that baby and don't mind if you feel emotional distress for what they consider sin rightfully punished.

You’re referring to Catholicism priesthood?

It in no way is related to the Aaronic priesthood! Not even to the broader Levitical one.

So I have no comment.

…from the church…

I’ll put it simply….any religion of Christendom that supports any political or national effort to kill other humans due to ideology, race, geography, (insert man-made barrier here ______), instead of following God’s Son the “Prince of Peace (Isa.9:6,7)”, is not a valid religion.
IMO.

I'll take your word on the scripture.

Oh, come on! Let’s have a good argument discussion! Lol.

And I agree that religions can be alienating.

Very! Hypocrisy is rampant. (Of course, some individual members in every organization, religious or otherwise, are hypocritical; but when their hierarchy betrays a lack of integrity, questions should be raised. And answers should be found.

@It Aint Necessarily So wrote:
“My chief criticism of the Abrahamic faiths is its transference of the concept of the sacred from the universe to a personage living outside of nature who intends to destroy it, who controls the fates of souls after death, and who gives commandments.”

You might really be surprised to find out the many lies that Christendom has taught their sheep! You actually mentioned one: “souls after death.”
There’s really no such thing. The words have been twisted and obscured, to reflect Platonic thinking, and other pagan ideas.
It’s sorta easy to prove….
As a person who supports natural methodologies to explain life & reality, what you think happens at death, probably is in agreement with the Bible’s statement, that “the dead know nothing.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; see Genesis 3:19 , Psalms 146:3-4 & John 11:10-15).
The only hope the Bible holds out for the dead living again, is the Resurrection — a future event. (Acts 24:15… “going to be”)

They don't exist to benefit mankind or even their adherents.

Christianity started out to do so; it was pure; it got hijacked early on, after the apostles died.
The Bible prophesied this turn of events.

And only at “the time of the end” would “true knowledge become abundant.” Dan.12:4
Hope you and yours have a good day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I consider the post you quoted as a feeble attempt at a No True Scotsman.

Or a True Poe or not.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Shame from abortion is not hardwired human psychology. In fact, despite evangelical propaganda, post abortion shame and depression are uncommon, even in the US. People feel shame about what they're taught is shameful.

Maybe the shame could result because of what is taught, I definitely can see that; but regarding the depression that follows, I don’t agree…

The course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: a longitudinal, five-year follow-up study - PubMed

The course of psychological responses to miscarriage and abortion differed during the five-year period after the event. Women who had undergone an abortion exhibited higher scores during the follow-up period for some outcomes. The difference in the courses of responses may partly result from the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But I appreciate your amicable responses.

We can always disagree without being disagreeable.

Have a good day.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Or a True Poe or not.

That is a good point.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, activist atheists are discontent with just being nonbelievers. The activist atheist promotes the religion of atheism on religious forums rather than atheist forums. IMOP

I'm not discontent. Where do you see evidence of discontent? We're in a debate forum, we debate, we submit ideas and claims for criticism. I assumed we were here to discuss them.

What beliefs, doctrine, moral code, or ritual are we advocating? What makes atheism, a lack of any of these, a religion?

Me, I'm into ideas, and when someone makes a fantastical claim sans visible support, I'm fascinated, and can't help questioning it. When the believers adduce evidence or proofs that are factually wrong, or illogical, pointing this out does not a religion make.

Atheist forums? What would an atheist have to discuss, unless a theist weighed in with some claim?

The spiritual and philosophical truths of the UB are self evident. I don’t care if you don’t like it, don’t respond to my posts if it challenges you too much.

I have a problem with "self-evident," particularly when the claim is evident only to the claimant.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What you call promiscuity pretty much defined my unmarried life and that of all of the sexually mature males I knew, many of whom I am still in contact with. We weren't unhappy then and we don't regret disregarding Christian mores.

I noticed you said “males.” You didn’t include the females.
Females are affected more:

No strings attached: the nature of casual sex in college students - PubMed

The purpose of this paper was to identify the circumstances associated with casual sex encounters, as well as to identify the link between casual sex, depressive symptoms, and infidelity among college students. We found that casual sex was a fairly common occurrence that was related to early...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But the articles highlighting the unhappiness many feel, in the long term, stand on their own merits. There were several, showing unhappiness in those that engaged in promiscuous behaviors.

I don't know how many of the women I know or have met have had abortions, but none have ever expressed regret that they chose it.

Yes, that was mentioned in a few of the articles I read: they don’t like to talk about it.

Maybe their silence is telling.
Have a safe day, IANS!