Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Surprise, surprise..
It is no wonder that we have so many one-parent families .. she loves me .. she loves me not.

Yeah, he loves me ... he loves me not.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There was a study about marriages and i was surprized to learn that arranged marriages have fewer divorces that two people meeting and deciding to marry.

Wisdom & maturity of the parents, I guess.

Today, many aren’t mature when they marry, and don’t take the time to thoroughly get to know their partner.

So you could only behave this way because you are following rules in the Bible? Or are there other factors that your group has that leads to a different attitude from the norm?

They aren’t “rules” per se; they’re principles, especially helpful for spouses, like “quick to listen, slow to speak & slow to anger” at James 1:19; or to ‘consider others as superior,’ Philippians 2:3,4. It requires self-control, but the benefits are huge! Plus, you probably won’t believe this, but when you try to apply these behaviors, Jehovah God’s spirit will help you. Considering how I lived before I learned these things, I know it’s true.

What is your group?

I thought I said. JW’s - Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Bible warns of greed, yet more conservative Christians allow greed to proliferate in the USA.

Yea I know, which only adds more evidence to my other point, that many people aren’t living by it anymore. But their not applying it, doesn’t invalidate it’s wise guidance. In fact, the trouble that’s resulting, is manifestly bearing out the opposite.

What do you predict will happen?

Truthfully, I believe religious organizations will be attacked & most will be removed by the political elements in the UN, as I believe the Bible predicts.

Same old nonsense. Mature adults can have sex and limit the risks of disease. The implication that sex corresponds to some sort of immaturity is not supported by evidence. It's an obsolete fear.

As I stated, disease is not the only problem associated with promiscuity.

I’ve posted the links. Overlooking them is not the wise course.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah, he loves me ... he loves me not.

You what?
Have any men actually accused their wives of marital rape?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Speak for yourself

You were speaking for all when you claimed, "the joining together of a man and woman in Holy matrimony." I said, "Religion is not a part of marriage. Feel free to include your religion in your marriage if you like, but it's an option, not part of the process." I speak for everybody that has no interest in what religions have to say about marriage.

What was the point of introducing the institution of marriage in Western society?

Not to be able to rape wives with impunity.

The question has already been answered. The legal institution relates to the rights and responsibilities of married couples regarding child rearing and debts and assets, especially after separation or divorce. Today, there are also tax and entitlement benefits to being married, and visitation and death benefits. You might even get insurance through a spouse's employer.

Was it not based on Christian moral values?

Probably. But those aren't enshrined in American marital law, and they're not my values, so it doesn't matter what Christians say or did in this area except to them.

Why would there need to be a register etc?

I don't understand this. Did you mean why would people need to get a license from the government? If so, to formally enter the contract.

We already see the signs of a disintegrating society .. mass shootings .. climate change .. greed.

Are you implying less religion was the cause and that more religion is the answer? If so, I disagree. The evidence is to the contrary. Religion solves no societal problems. It's a self-licking ice cream cone that exist to sustain itself and serves only those profiting from it. What is your religion doing for mankind? How does it help non-Muslims? How does it help Muslims?

Do you suppose that more religion in Catholic churches would help the Catholic clergy to stop raping children there and covering it up, and make catholic churches safer for boys? Maybe a few more Hail Mary's will work.

Do you think more religion among white evangelicals would help them understand that Trump is immoral and to not vote for somebody who brags about being a sexual predator?

Of course .. but you want to play games, and make it about sexual intercourse .. which it isn't. It's about violent behaviour.

My comment was, "Anybody who attacks anybody else is to be arrested and prosecuted. Their gender, purpose, and marital status are irrelevant." You're the one making about sexual intercourse (and marriage) and trying to deflect from the violence you advocate for by implying that force is not violence and marriage is consent to sex on demand.

You can say what you like. It's lies.

That was in response to, "He says that your understanding of marriage condones rape." It's not your call whether he's lying or not. Your words are plainly evident and have been repeated many times. Your opinion as to what constitutes rape in the West is irrelevant. You describe rape, and it is the opinions of those reading your words and of the law that matter.

You want to make sexual intercourse legal outside of marriage, and that is the agenda of twisting it all for your own agenda.

Sex is already legal outside of marriage, but only by consenting adults. No twisting was needed, but yes, it's in support of a humanist agenda, one that promotes the most freedom to pursue happiness as each of us understand it for the most people. The fact that you have chosen to be a part of a religion that has contrary values is only a problem for you as you are seeing in this thread. You get to be a martyr for your faith. You get to promote its values as you understand them and take the rejection that you know will surely follow every time. If you do this again, it must be because you like this treatment or feel obligated to push your religion's values in the face of unanimous rejection. Either way, I'm glad it's not my cross to bear. I get to take the side of decency and compassion, which is a much more pleasant experience. I get to advocate for the Golde Rule while you're advocating for rape as defined in the culture in which you live.

G-d is aware of the intention of all.

That belief is irrelevant to me.

It is quite obvious to me, and I'm sure most policemen, that a man who attacks women and rapes them in public places is a menace to society, and should be caught and severely reprimanded.

I think anybody that advocates for forcible sex is a menace to society even when done at home and even when there is no physical evidence of force, and that anybody that takes your advice and forces sex on anybody "should be caught and severely reprimanded," as in going to prison. I think they like forced sex there.

You are comparing the mistreatment of a woman by their husband as being "no different or worse"...which is ridiculous ..

It is no different if he is married to her. You don't have to like or agree with that, and if you choose to treat the law as ridiculous and violate it, you probably won't like how things turn out.

you couldn't give a hoot whether somebody is married or not

Correct, unless I'm single and looking to meet people.

you want to make the job of the police more or less impossible, by making them investigate domestic tiffs

No, I want rapists indicted and convicted. I don't care how difficult the job is.

where a man and a woman fight in court agaist each other, making lawyers rich, and their children poor.

Then they have an incentive to stay happily married. I would suggest that raping one's wife already makes that impossible for her.

"us" Muslims don't care about our families .. we are all monsters.

I doubt it, but you haven't said anything makes me feel otherwise. Do all Muslim men think like you? Those that do and either act on it or advocate it to others are monsters. They are the moral equivalent of pedophiles and sex traffickers to many if not most of the people around you.

Sexual consent is only an issue in secular societies

You live in one. So do I.

perhaps there should be audio recording in the bedroom, to prove one way or the other.

That wouldn't be good for Muslim men who think like you do, would it?

I'll send you the bill for the cost of all the cases that cannot be proved? How's that? Are you willing to pay extra tax?

He already is. So are you if you pay taxes that support police and public prosecutors.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The legal institution relates to the rights and responsibilities of married couples regarding child rearing and debts and assets, especially after separation or divorce. Today, there are also tax and entitlement benefits to being married, and visitation and death benefits. You might even get insurance through a spouse's employer.

Yeah right .. filthy lucre.

Are you implying less religion was the cause and that more religion is the answer? If so, I disagree.

Of course you do .. you are an atheist.

That was in response to, "He says that your understanding of marriage condones rape." It's not your call whether he's lying or not.

I did not say that he was lying .. I said it is a lie. Maybe he misunderstands .. maybe that's his opinion.

I state categorically that my understanding of marriage does NOT condone rape.

Sex is already legal outside of marriage, but only by consenting adults.

Yeah, we know .. and we know that religion is "backward" as far as you're concerned.

The fact that you have chosen to be a part of a religion that has contrary values is only a problem for you as you are seeing in this thread.

That's your opinion.
Your values are contrary, but you do not perceive.
That is because you do not judge by what G-d has revealed.

I get to take the side of decency and compassion, which is a much more pleasant experience.

Yeah, yeah .. more Muslims are barbarians clap-trap.

That wouldn't be good for Muslim men who think like you do, would it?

No, certainly not.
I do not approve of treason.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do all Muslim men think like you? Those that do and either act on it or advocate it to others are monsters.

How would I know? I don't know that many well.

I suppose you think that to vow "to honour and obey her husband" in front of G-d is archaic too.
It's simple .. if a woman can no longer honour and obey her husband, the contract should be terminated.
Not to do so would be to commit treason in front of G-d.

 

[Polymath257]

Go and ask a policeman..
When is it reasonable to prosecute your husband for violent assault?
What evidence do I need etc.

Answer: whenever there was a violent assault.

 

[Polymath257]

How would I know? I don't know that many well.

I suppose you think that to vow "to honour and obey her husband" in front of G-d is archaic too.
It's simple .. if a woman can no longer honour and obey her husband, the contract should be terminated.
Not to do so would be to commit treason in front of G-d.

yes, the idea that the woman needs to obey her husband is archaic. Both should honor each other. But should work *together* to make family decisions. Neither should be required to 'obey' the other.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

How would I know? I don't know that many well.

I suppose you think that to vow "to honour and obey her husband" in front of G-d is archaic too.
It's simple .. if a woman can no longer honour and obey her husband, the contract should be terminated.
Not to do so would be to commit treason in front of G-d.

I think that the word "obey," which implies that a woman must obey her husband, is nothing more than archaic patriarchal male chauvinistic bull***t and should be omitted from conventional marriage vows. My husband and I agreed to omit the word from our marriage vows, and we have been married for thirty years. We've always had a loving relationship and a strong marriage. He treats me as his equal, and we honor and respect each other. He has never thought of himself as superior to me because he is a man, nor has he ever tried to tell me what to do or control me. We are equal in our loving marriage.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I did not say that he was lying .. I said it is a lie.

Same thing. Lying is telling a lie and telling a lie is lying.

I state categorically that my understanding of marriage does NOT condone rape.

You don't need to keep repeating that. It's been rejected. You've already said that you DO condone rape multiple times, but only in a marriage, only if the violence doesn't leave evidence of the attack, and only if the husband is the offender. Of course, I'm using the legal definition of rape. You seem to have your own.

I suppose you think that to vow "to honour and obey her husband" in front of G-d is archaic too.

The vows are ceremonial, like the entire rest of the wedding apart from the marriage license. There is no duty to obey a husband unless she feels one, and vice versa.

if a woman can no longer honour and obey her husband, the contract should be terminated.

Not your call. But yeah, if she won't "honor and obey" him when he wants to rape her, she probably needs to get out that house and seek a divorce.

 

[muhammad_isa]

yes, the idea that the woman needs to obey her husband is archaic. Both should honor each other. But should work *together* to make family decisions. Neither should be required to 'obey' the other.

..all very politically correct.

The Bible and Qur'an teach differently.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You don't need to keep repeating that. It's been rejected.

..by atheists, but not by G-d.

The vows are ceremonial, like the entire rest of the wedding apart from the marriage license. There is no duty to obey a husband unless she feels one, and vice versa.

The Bible and Qur'an teach differently.

If either partner despises their spouse, they should seek divorce.
It is absurd for either party to seek to destroy the other while in Holy matrimony.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

yes, the idea that the woman needs to obey her husband is archaic. Both should honor each other. But should work *together* to make family decisions. Neither should be required to 'obey' the other.

..all very politically correct.

The Bible and Qur'an teach differently.

No, the marriage that Polymath257 described is not politically correct by any stretch of the imagination. It is a marriage founded on trust, mutual respect, and unconditional love. I believe that it is obvious that a loving marriage is the polar opposite of what the Bible and Quran teach about marriage.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe that it is obvious that a loving marriage is the polar opposite of what the Bible and Quran teach about marriage..

I don't.
I did not see love and harmony, when "the iron lady" was PM.

 

[Polymath257]

..all very politically correct.

The Bible and Qur'an teach differently.

And that is why they are immoral.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't.
I did not see love and harmony, when "the iron lady" was PM.

Huh?? Whatever does that have to do with this discussion?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And that is why they are immoral.

And should be avoided.

Huh?? Whatever does that have to do with this discussion?

My sentiments exactly.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Huh?? Whatever does that have to do with this discussion?

You were talking about marriages where there is no clear leader..
Imagine a country where there is no leader .. why do they have leaders?

The "iron lady" was a woman ... everybody had to obey her.
It ended badly.

 

[Polymath257]

You were talking about marriages where there is no clear leader..
Imagine a country where there is no leader .. why do they have leaders?

I prefer societies that aren't dictatorships. I prefer governments that *share* power and *divide* power.

Also, to compare a country to a household is silly. There is no requirement that there be only one ruler in either. But especially in a marriage, there should be a sharing of power and decision making.

The "iron lady" was a woman ... everybody had to obey her.
It ended badly.

Dictatorships are bad, whether run by men or women. Shared governance is better.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And that is why they are immoral

47 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which God hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which God hath revealed; such are evil-livers.

48 And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which God hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced out way. Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

49 So judge between them by that which God hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which God hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, then know that God's will is to smite them for some sin of theirs. Lo! many of mankind are evil-livers.
- Qur'an The table spread -

Both Muslim men and Muslim women believe the Qur'an is the literal word of God.
We are pleased with God, and God is pleased with us.