mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Rephrase please.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Rephrase please.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Uh, no. Not all females feel the need to be mothers, and termination of a pregnancy can depend on a lot of external factors like medical necessity or not being able to care for a baby.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So to be clear, what you are saying here, is that under Islamic beliefs, if a married woman does not wish to have sex at any given moment, she does not have the right to say no to her husband? And that a person who is raped while being married, is not actually being raped, because they are married? And the only way sexual intercourse is considered illegal, is if the two people engaging in the act are not married?
Is that all right?
I've been thinking about this, and I've got an example for you, from my own life, that happened just last night...
Oftentimes I go to bed before my husband does because I have to get up early in the morning and he doesn't. (lucky him, I know!) So sometimes late at night, he'll come to bed, and sometimes he's in a frisky mood, and will try to start something up with me. He always, always, ask me before anything gets started ... "Are you sleeping?" .... "Do you feel like it?" .... "Are you too tired" ... something along those lines. Sometimes I'll say I'm in the mood, but sometimes I'll tell him to get lost because I'm tired. On those nights I tell him I don't feel like it, he backs off and I presume goes to spend some alone time in the bathroom or something (
). The next night, if he tries again, he might get the same answer, or a different one. But he always respects the answers he gets from me and doesn't continue if I'm not interested.So, in that scenario I just gave you, in the instances where I tell my husband I don't feel like it right now, in your opinion, does my husband have the right to have sex with me anyway? I don't want to leave the marriage, as I love my husband very much and vice versa. I just don't necessarily want to have sex every single time he's interested (and probably vice versa on that one too, though that has never happened yet
).And if I "withdraw consent" as I have in the given scenario, does that mean I've annulled the marriage, in your opinion?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I'm both. Atheism is lack of belief in god(s).
Agnosticism is a subset of belief.
Agnosticism speaks to knowledge (or lack thereof)
Atheism speaks to belief (or lack thereof)
There are agnostic atheists.
There are agnostic theists.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
A person who doesn't believe in god(s) isn't necessarily saying "there are no gods."
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I never said that.
..but it has nothing to do with LAW.
From what I gathered in his choice to assign meaning to Islam is that a woman surrenders certain rights when she marries, namely her right to bodily autonomy. He won't admit this, but he avoids all clarifying questions about it, which suggests shame and embarrassment in a clear answer.
He writes that it is illegal to cause actual bodily harm on another, but what about psychological harm? Nothing? And is it considered physical harm if a woman fights her husband as he tries to have sex with her and she gets injured? I can see Muslims think that she brought it on herself for not allowing her husband what he wants. So the rules of it being illegal to cause harm is up to interpretation, no matter how theists try to imply there are black and white rules. If the Quran says it is ALWAYS illegal to cause harm to others how did the 9-11 hijackers justify their acts? Because of jihad, as there are always excuses around the absolute laws from Gods when these Gods are absent.
Last edited:
*Chuckle* Nice provocation!
How do you define 'degenerate' here?
You may or may not know that research tells us that all humans have brains with evolved moral tendencies. These are, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and (like very many other animals) child nurture and protection. You've also evolved to have a conscience and a capacity for empathy.
You'll notice that these tendencies are capable of being in conflict eg dislike of the one who harms vs respect for authority, but that's part of being alive.
You may also be aware of the decline in religious belief throughout the First World. the US dominoes being among the last to fall, but falling they are. In much of Europe, religion is more a matter of manners than a set of supernatural beliefs. Considering that a god without a congregation is an ex-god, you might wonder why any actual god would allow such a decline to happen, and send him and her the way of Zeus and Thoth and Odin and so on down a huge list.
That's not my view. Indeed I think it's weird to confuse personal priorities with God. But in a free country, well ...
Apparently not judging by the number of abortions requested. And not all natural inclinations still serve us. We have lower centers from our reptilian and pre-primate mammalian past that generate instincts and impulses that often need to be kept in check by the higher human centers, where symbolic reasoning occurs, and sometimes gives us conflicting instructions. Yes, it's natural for women to have sex, get pregnant, and raise babies, and in the absence of any reason not to, those that are fertile do. But others have different ideas, ideas that consider the future such as completing a formal education and family planning - options that haven't been available to women until recently.
I disagree. It was to generate children and to guarantee paternity. It was to make families large, not strong. Most of that behavior, whether compelled or forbidden, is of little to no benefit to anybody in the family. This is why women encouraged to get married as soon as they were fertile and forbidden to deny their husbands sex even if that's not what they wanted - to make families larger, not stronger. How does forbidding masturbation or the rhythm method make families stronger? It doesn't. It makes them larger.
And of course, this is a religious understanding of a family - a social unit for the purpose of raising children. That was never my purpose, and my family has been two married adults and their dogs since I married in 1990. For our family, a good restaurant is one with no children running around or crying - not the ones they call family restaurants, where family is code for minor children.
You find no value to marriage other than to be able to get sex whenever you want it? What value do you think it has to a wife who doesn't like sex but complies begrudgingly?
How do you expect to enforce your sex contract if she's unwilling? And the standard for rape is not bodily harm. It's lack of consent, which generally implies force if she is an adult hasn't been drugged. That alone defines it as physical, mental, and sexual abuse even if no visible marks are left behind.
That's up to the individual. The two countries I've lived in are both majority Christian, both with secular governments that only recognize government-issued marriage licenses. In the States, clergy are deputized to represent the state in a church wedding, and can sign marriage certificates, but here in Mexico, church weddings are ceremonial and have no legal status. Couples are only married by the state in a separate and unrelated procedure.
So you make up for it by making no sex unacceptable after marriage, and by no sex, I don't mean no sex ever, but no sex even once.
Last edited:
Right, you never say one way or the other. Your silence is thunderous. All you have to do is say "Married women in Islam have the right to reject demands for sex by their husbands." Can you do this? You can cut and paste, just let us know that under your understanding and committment to Islam that married women have this basic, first world right.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Perhaps you could answer the questions I posed to you and respond to the example I provided for clarity purposes.
This clears up nothing.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Errr, no.
All you are doing here is describing the harms of violent assault .. that is a given.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You still don't follow?
A society where marriage is an "optional extra", the only way to distinguish between an illegal sexual act
and a legal one, is by asking whether the persons concerned were adults, and if it was by mutual consent.
In a traditional society where sexual acts are illegal outside of marriage, the problem does not arise.
Now, you are making up scenarios about wives giving consent to their husbands. This is not a matter
of law in a traditional society .. it is between man and wife. If a woman is married to an unreasonable husband,
then she is entitled to a no-fault divorce at any time. She can also seek prosecution in the case of actual bodily harm.
Do you understand?
If not, what do you not understand?
If a wife under Muslim law refuses to have sex what can a husband do to her? Does the law say he can't force her against her will? You have yet to say he has the right to refuse.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I asked you very specific questions for a reason. You didn't answer any of them.
I took the time to type out an example, seeking clarity from you. You didn't respond to it.
It's kind of hard to reach some sort of clarity of your position on this subject if you refuse to answer direct questions and respond to direct examples.
I didn't "make up" a scenario. I gave you an example from my life, that happened to me just last night. You've refused twice now to respond to it.
Are you sure you're even reading through my posts??
No, I don't. See above.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Yeah, you think you've found a clever loophole, but in reality you haven't.
Furthermore you seem to be all mixed up .. I think you mean does she have the right to refuse.
..so yes, if a woman goes to the police and claims she told her husband he could not have sex with her,
no crime has been committed, unless he is guilty of violent behaviour.
The fact that there is no law against a man sleeping with his wife without her consent on every particular occasion,
does not give a man the right to mistreat his wife.
It is merely a ploy by those who want sexual freedom, imo .. which leads to evil.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You are being melodramatic .. I haven't refused to comment on your bedroom behaviour, I just don't think it is appropriate.
You don't have to take my word. Wikipedia, while not a source itself, links like a bibliography to sources. Many concepts that exist aren't mentioned by either because dictionaries are common use manuals not technical manuals. Pew research is likewise what is considered trending.
Such as ignostic or apatheist, both of which have been used in philosophy and theological discussions for decades. Similarly agnostic atheist was coined by philosopher Robert Flint way back in 1888.
But neither Mirrium or Pew say atheism or theism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What's not appropriate? I shared it with you, so obviously I have no qualms about it. And it would very much help clarify your position - that's the very reason I brought it up in the first place. I'm really, really trying to understand your point of view here and you aren't making it any easier.
Honestly, it seems that you won't answer because you know your position on this is heinous, in my opinion.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Have it your own way..
If he behaves like an animal, and doesn't care about how you feel, he wouldn't be much of a husband, imo.
It is not about legal rights .. it is about the love that a man has for his wife.I've been thinking about this, and I've got an example for you, from my own life, that happened just last night...
Oftentimes I go to bed before my husband does because I have to get up early in the morning and he doesn't. (lucky him, I know!) So sometimes late at night, he'll come to bed, and sometimes he's in a frisky mood, and will try to start something up with me. He always, always, ask me before anything gets started ... "Are you sleeping?" .... "Do you feel like it?" .... "Are you too tired" ... something along those lines. Sometimes I'll say I'm in the mood, but sometimes I'll tell him to get lost because I'm tired. On those nights I tell him I don't feel like it, he backs off and I presume goes to spend some alone time in the bathroom or something (
So, in that scenario I just gave you, in the instances where I tell my husband I don't feel like it right now, in your opinion, does my husband have the right to have sex with me anyway?
If he behaves like an animal, and doesn't care about how you feel, he wouldn't be much of a husband, imo.
No .. I didn't mean that literally .. I meant that that is how you could withdraw your consent in law.