Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Shadow Wolf]

Like most things on the internet, you won't find anything accurate about Hegel on the Internet.

Funny. I've found a ton of credible and accurate stuff about Hegel on the 'net, including things he wrote.

This is how people with Pedigree talk and relate, none of us are offended by it. What I tell you is if you feel so inferior to me because I present the Truth can you imagine how much Truth you've missed out on because it is superior to you.

High horse, much?

Now for Atheists to be sincere you have to admit, "Christianity was a net good in History because we have all these laws derived from it,"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's just one of many laws that religion didn't come up with that is far greater than what religions tend to promote and allow. Such as, this secular law guarantees freedom of religion; this is explicitly prohibited in Christianity where death is mandated for those who worship any other god.
Laws against theft, murder, and rape, religion has lacked on those, religion has promoted those in some cases, and really only someone who is a psychopath may need such reminders, but even among psychopaths and sociopaths they usually and generally know better than to rape, kill, and steal. No god or religion required.

Und so das du es auch weisst, ich habe Hegel, Kant, Schopenhaur, Nietzsche, Adorno, und viele andere Philosphen in Deutsch gelesen. J'ai lu Bourdieux, Foucault, Derrida, Isigaray, et autres en francais aussi.

Wie geht es Ihnen?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Morals exist without God or the Bible and have weight. They weigh on our conscience!

If rapists do what you say and "make associations and build ties" with similarly minded people, and change laws to make rape legal, is rape WRONG?

It can be proven that right and wrong are existing, immaterial things.

2 + 2 = 4,509 is 100% wrong.

2 + 2 = 4 is 100% right.

I never said that laws determine what is right or wrong, quite the opposite. This also means I don't believe God ordained laws are necessarily right or wrong. Right and wrong, as a consequentialist, is about the effect behaviors have, not about who says it's right and wrong.

I would claim that pregnancy and having one's own natural children is a blessing. Most mothers say the sickness in the morning and etc. was alright. My wife had a VERY hard labor with our firstborn and almost died, but counts it all joy.

Your compass isn't pointing north any longer because you are astray from God.

I'm glad your wife and child survived. Seriously, I'm very happy for you. I still will never personally have children though. I might adopt once I'm in the position to do so, but I'm not going to have natural born children. And I wouldn't take forced pregnancy as a blessing any more than I would take forced extraction of an organ (one which I can survive, of course) to save another life as a blessing.

Please give us three examples, then, of where rape is not wrong:

1.

2.

3.

I already answered this:
Non-human animals raping human-animals or other non-human animals isn't something I would judge as evil due to the inability to conceptualize how such a thing would be harmful.
Similarly true of children and other children, and severely mental handicapped.
There are also situations of statutory rape such as a 17 and 18 year old which I do not care about.

 

[Underhill]

Please list here the power signifiers of the NT writers/apostles:

1.
2.
3.

How would I know? I am simply basing this on every single other religious leader that has ever existed in the history of the world. But yes, they could be the only ones who have completely altruistic reasons.

I guess that is what faith is for right? Belief that every other religious prophet/writer/apostle is a fraud while yours are the ideal of perfection...

 

[Underhill]

Muhammed, Smith, Russel had immense wealth, dozens of wives and concubines, adulation, fame . . . Jesus embraced a cross. Jesus compelled Himself to go to the cross for you, for me.

So he failed. Or didn't exist. Or maybe he was a good guy who seriously was trying to do gods work. We have no idea since we have no record from him. What we do know is that a bunch of guys wrote some shared stories of him roughly 90 years after the fact. Stories that include 'miracles'. It does make it easier to sell a story if the central character is beyond living memory. Convenient but a topic for another day.

My point is that all of this is based in faith, not reason. Reason says that stories told by a half dozen different authors that talk about impossible acts are probably not true. But, again, it is possible that your religion defies all reason and is right while all the others are wrong. I give it a .00000000000001% chance. But I could be off by a few zeros either way.

 

[1robin]

That's why I used rape in the OP as malum in se, not malum prohibitum.

Yes, you argued that rape would be objectively wrong, which would make it malum en se. My point was to define the terms up front because what a theist means by morality and what a non-theist means by morality are two completely different things. So I usually set up malum en se to mean morality and malum prohibitum to mean ethics. Saves time in the long run.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll repeat, "How many selfish acts would it take for a person to ruin utopia?"

I'll repeat: the question makes no sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree, therefore the OP.

But you have yet to provide a good reason as to WHY.

Rape can propagate the species.

So what?

Rape is enjoyable for the perpetrator, not for the victim.

Hence why it is clearly a morally objectionable act.

Your notions of evolution are not accurate and your notions of jurisprudence are just societal contrivances.

What are you even talking about? We're discussing morals, not evolution or law.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A utopia is where you experience maximal pleasure and peace of mind. Man must be transformed to be allowed into Heaven.

This doesn't make your question any less nonsensical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then you understand the gospel, which is a good thing:

1. Heaven is impossible for sinful man.

2. Jesus died to not only take us to Heaven, but to make us fit to reside there.

3. Trusting Christ transforms us.

That's not what I said, nor in line with anything I've said.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Rape is always wrong. If the Bible said it was okay, the Bible would be invalidated IMO.

In Judges 21:10-24, the Israelites kidnapped and forced women from Shiloh to marry them. Doesn't sound very consensual to me.

In Numbers 31:7-18, Moses instructs his military commanders to "kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

In Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Moses lays out the divinely inspired law regarding surrendered or invaded towns, instructing "you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you".

Further, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it is stated that the "punishment" for raping a young woman "who is not engaged" is to "pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Certainly doesn't sound like the kind of doctrine that condemns rape anywhere near as much as you do.

In 2 Samuel 12:11-14, God uses rape as a punishment. Not for the wives, but for their husband: "Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’"

I'm willing to bet that you will try to spin all of these verses to mean something else, or to downplay the mention or implication of rape completely, but I just want you to seriously ask yourself whether these passages honestly strike you as indicative of an absolute, unilateral declaration of the evil of rape?

 

[JustWondering]

Start reading at page one and you will see atheists saying "rape is bad societally here, but I can see how someone might not say it is a universally bad thing," just as predicted.

Who is saying rape isn't a bad thing?

Why are you bringing up the Bible? I didn't in the OP. We both would know, deep down, that rape is always bad without a Bible in hand, yes?

What?! Two paragraphs of YOUR OP is YOU complaining about atheists criticizing the bible. I stated clearly in my last post that I've never heard any sane person condone rape. Rape is bad and it doesn't require a book of ancient mythology to figure that out.

Try reading posts before responding. Though you forgot what you wrote in your own OP so, I'm not going to hold my breath on this.

 

[Pudding]

Yet another skeptic says "rape is conditionally, subjectively wrong."

I see, one person says "rape is conditionally, subjectively wrong", therefor...? What is your point?

To me, in my opinion, their behaviour is always wrong.

No, to EVERYONE, who has ever lived, rape is always wrong.

I see, you believe you know everyone's opinions about rape.

That is, your belief. Please provide evidence to support your belief's statement if you wish to convince me to believe what you believe.

Even those who commit rape are sinning against their guilty consciences.

I can understand that is what you believe. I don't have the belief regarding to the validity of your religion's belief about sin. Please provide evidence if you wish to convince me to believe what you believe.

 

[viole]

In other words, if I mock you, you're okay, but if you mock me, it makes me feel bad, and since you only care about you, and care nothing for me, you will go on mocking me.

I am not mocking you. At worst, I am mocking your belief. Since you guys make a difference between sin and sinner (hate the former, love the latter), I feel perfectly entitled to make a difference between belief and believer (ridicule the former, respect the latter).

By the way, I am not ridiculing your beliefs either. I just take them at face value.

Additionally, the Bible says skeptics love to mock, and you love to mock, and you don't care that every time you mock me, it proves to me the Bible is true! THANKS FOR PROVING THE BIBLE SPEAKS THE TRUTH THAT SKEPTICS LOVE THEMSELVES, HATE BELIEVERS.

Well, that was exactly my point. You should not complain if I am proving a (rather self fulfilling) prophecy of your Holy Book. I am sure that if authored a book that says that Donald Duck created the Universe, I would not forget to add that prophecy either; you know, to prove that my book speaks the truth.

And again, I do not hate believers. Where do you get that from? I know personally several believers that have no problems with me. And I do not hit them so sweet as I "hit" you....but bad.

As I said, I hate believers in the same way you hate sinners.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

** Blind Post **



I agree that atheists as a whole, are neither immune to innocent of "holier than though". But here, in this rant, I think the main point of the atheist objection is missed.

What is missed is this: The Bible is held by many theists as a book of moral absolutes; yet in spite of that belief that it holds moral absolutes, theists in our cultures hold to moral standards that either are not explicitly stated in the "Book of Moral Absolutes". For example, most theists would hold slavery as being an inherently immoral act; which is not expressly condemned in the "Book of Moral Absolutes". In fact, in the New Testament, slaves are advised to "obey their masters"; so if you are a slave, you are ordered by God himself to obey your owner; yet theists today will condemn slavery. We all also know that "spousal rape" is "rape"; yet if we follow the teachings of Paul, a woman is to submit herself to her husband "in all things" as the "husband is the head of he house as the Lord is the head of the church"; which really implies that for my wife to disobey my command to lie with me, she disobeys God himself.

As an athiest, I do not necesarily believe in "righteousness" or "sinfulness" due to the religious connotations of these words; but as an atheist, I certainly believe in "right" and "wrong"; "moral" and "immoral".

One last note for my rant:

I find it interesting that the theist will fault the atheist for being a "moral relativist" (not all of us are, btw) yet when confronted about such things as genocide and other parts of the Bible that do not conform to today's moral standards, the theist often responds with, "Well, it was right for the time"; which is the precise definition of moral relativism ....

The Bible isn't in the OP as we're not discussing "righteousness" and "sinfulness".

Personally, Bible aside, rape is always wrong. That is a fact and also my subjective opinion. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then you are demonstrating the moral relativism Christians find distasteful in atheists, yes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I never said that laws determine what is right or wrong, quite the opposite. This also means I don't believe God ordained laws are necessarily right or wrong. Right and wrong, as a consequentialist, is about the effect behaviors have, not about who says it's right and wrong.


I'm glad your wife and child survived. Seriously, I'm very happy for you. I still will never personally have children though. I might adopt once I'm in the position to do so, but I'm not going to have natural born children. And I wouldn't take forced pregnancy as a blessing any more than I would take forced extraction of an organ (one which I can survive, of course) to save another life as a blessing.


I already answered this:
Non-human animals raping human-animals or other non-human animals isn't something I would judge as evil due to the inability to conceptualize how such a thing would be harmful.
Similarly true of children and other children, and severely mental handicapped.
There are also situations of statutory rape such as a 17 and 18 year old which I do not care about.

Okay. So self-aware adults committing rape by force (removing the exceptions you gave above) are always wrong or sometimes wrong? Rapists like rape, victims don't like it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How would I know? I am simply basing this on every single other religious leader that has ever existed in the history of the world. But yes, they could be the only ones who have completely altruistic reasons.

I guess that is what faith is for right? Belief that every other religious prophet/writer/apostle is a fraud while yours are the ideal of perfection...

Well, how do you think I came to this conclusion? I've read the Bible and can see the honest integrity of the writers, and more...

 

[BilliardsBall]

So he failed. Or didn't exist. Or maybe he was a good guy who seriously was trying to do gods work. We have no idea since we have no record from him. What we do know is that a bunch of guys wrote some shared stories of him roughly 90 years after the fact. Stories that include 'miracles'. It does make it easier to sell a story if the central character is beyond living memory. Convenient but a topic for another day.

My point is that all of this is based in faith, not reason. Reason says that stories told by a half dozen different authors that talk about impossible acts are probably not true. But, again, it is possible that your religion defies all reason and is right while all the others are wrong. I give it a .00000000000001% chance. But I could be off by a few zeros either way.

The late dates for the gospels and NT are canards.

But I agree, reason says a dozen (not half a dozen) writers regarding the supernatural are probably not true. But I've undertaken research, personally, to help verify the accuracy of the Bible. My religion doesn't defy reason, not at all.

And the odds you've "calculated" seem off the mark, considering the endurance of the Bible and the Jewish and Christian faiths. There are only about a dozen books claiming divine writing in all of world religions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In Judges 21:10-24, the Israelites kidnapped and forced women from Shiloh to marry them. Doesn't sound very consensual to me.

In Numbers 31:7-18, Moses instructs his military commanders to "kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

In Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Moses lays out the divinely inspired law regarding surrendered or invaded towns, instructing "you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you".

Further, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it is stated that the "punishment" for raping a young woman "who is not engaged" is to "pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Certainly doesn't sound like the kind of doctrine that condemns rape anywhere near as much as you do.

In 2 Samuel 12:11-14, God uses rape as a punishment. Not for the wives, but for their husband: "Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’"

I'm willing to bet that you will try to spin all of these verses to mean something else, or to downplay the mention or implication of rape completely, but I just want you to seriously ask yourself whether these passages honestly strike you as indicative of an absolute, unilateral declaration of the evil of rape?

I'm very curious about 2 Samuel and why you are saying God uses rape as a punishment. Are you saying it was foreordained that the people would behave as they did so that God's warning would come to pass? You do know it requires predestination, not free will, to allow for this "punishment" to be fulfilled?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who is saying rape isn't a bad thing?



What?! Two paragraphs of YOUR OP is YOU complaining about atheists criticizing the bible. I stated clearly in my last post that I've never heard any sane person condone rape. Rape is bad and it doesn't require a book of ancient mythology to figure that out.

Try reading posts before responding. Though you forgot what you wrote in your own OP so, I'm not going to hold my breath on this.

Is rape always wrong or sometimes wrong?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see, one person says "rape is conditionally, subjectively wrong", therefor...? What is your point?


I see, you believe you know everyone's opinions about rape.

That is, your belief. Please provide evidence to support your belief's statement if you wish to convince me to believe what you believe.


I can understand that is what you believe. I don't have the belief regarding to the validity of your religion's belief about sin. Please provide evidence if you wish to convince me to believe what you believe.

I believe, accurately, that atheists have subjective morality--morality which frequently goes against evolution, too, which is inconsistent.