Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[BilliardsBall]

How about we pretend you are not telling me something I have already taken into deep consideration, so that you can tell me more about my moral beliefs.

Jeremiah,

Are you an atheist? An agnostic?

A true atheist would have ethical beliefs but not moral beliefs.

And what the heck is wrong with you that you find it a necessity to think about the rightness or wrongness of rape deeply or with deep consideration? I'm not wanting to sound assumptive, so correct me if I'm wrong, but devout people need to think only briefly on the morals of rape. It is usually the atheists who have to "dig deep" to see if anything is "right" or "wrong".

Put differently, at the risk of Godwin's Law, if one more atheist tells me "The Holocaust wasn't evil, but it was certainly a poor socioeconomic choice on the part of the Nazis," I'm going to be ill.

Biblically speaking, right and wrong come fairly quickly to the righteous, slower to the self-righteous.

Again, I don't want to offend you over something you've pondered deeply, but be aware EVERY atheist on this thread is having severe problems with saying these three words are OBJECTIVELY true:

Rape Is Wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Righteous depends on your definition. I, along with most every atheist I know, do believe in right or wrong. The golden rule is the single most logical rule to model a life after with or without religion.



If you find one, feel free.



So you honestly thing just because someone doesn't believe in a god, they automatically have no morals? Seriously?

As someone who spent almost 20 years as a devout christian and another 22 as an atheist, I can tell you that in my experience the difference in morality is academic at best. Each philosophy has it's positives and negatives. But overall, I would say the difference is non existent.

At their worst, I would say atheist tend to live more cluttered lives, while christians tend to live much neater, but much more frustrated existences. (These are generalities so not always true, but none the less I think it's usually accurate.) Atheist may be more likely to engage in a risky behavior but the lack of frustration means less explosive, major break downs.

Much of what you say rings true to my way of thinking, thank you.

But if I am a true atheist, I must of necessity believe in mechanistic evolution (or at least space seed). Rape is propagation of the species, so saying rape is wrong sounds like a condemnation toward the survivability of the human race--or at the least--typical atheist double-talk IMHO. No offense meant, mind you.

Own what you believe. Do you believe in evolution? IT MADE RAPE, didn't it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I never claimed that God exists either, obviously. So, does that prevent me from asking Christians about the qualities of God?

Rejecting X, does not entail that we cannot have a meaningful discussion about X. Actually, it is even necessary. For how can I reject anything if I do not know what that anything is from someone who holds X to be true?

So, is stoning people to death for not holding the Sabbath, something that is inherently right, if inherent right things existed?

Ciao

- viole

Like I said, a meaningful sense. Since you exempt yourself from the light of God, and since you don't believe He even exists, a person I commune with, your queries lack any objective (or often, sensible) meaning.

On the other hand, I used to believe in evolution and that things like morals were subjective, so my shoe (however dim my memory is of the living atrocity of being a skeptic who hates God) is helpful to our conversation.

Of course, to answer this (typical insane) question:

"So, is stoning people to death for not holding the Sabbath, something that is inherently right, if inherent right things existed?"

We must first decide if inherently right things exist. I say my statement, "rape is wrong," is inherently, objectively correct. Do you agree? Because we only need to find one point of agreement here to see if such a thing might exist in the case of the "Stoner Shabbat".

*We only need to agree that not raping is always right to move on.

*We need to find only one person in all of human history who has had contact with the immaterial or spiritual to destroy materialism and empircism as (false) doctrines.

*We need only to look to math and logic and justice and jurisprudence and love to agree we both believe in immaterial things.

Here's why you and your atheist colleagues are stuck fast:

To admit three small words, "rape is wrong", is to admit something is inherently, objectively true. Thus the door to the immaterial, absolute and divine is opened.

(Waits for Viole to tell me math and logic are material things. Holds breath.)

 

[Underhill]

Much of what you say rings true to my way of thinking, thank you.

But if I am a true atheist, I must of necessity believe in mechanistic evolution (or at least space seed). Rape is propagation of the species, so saying rape is wrong sounds like a condemnation toward the survivability of the human race--or at the least--typical atheist double-talk IMHO. No offense meant, mind you.

Own what you believe. Do you believe in evolution? IT MADE RAPE, didn't it?

Evolution didn't make anything. It's an inevitable side affect of evolution in the less intelligent species. But our intelligence allows us to see logic. Logic dictates that rape is bad for me and thus bad for others. If I allow the crime then I leave myself open to it.

But it isn't like evolution planned it that way and thus it is okay. It happens in nature, as does murder, incest and child abuse. But the idea that atheist are in favor of those things as a result ignores our position in the evolutionary chain. Part of what makes us human is our intelligence that allows us to rise above such destructive behavior.

Not to mention it is supremely insulting. This is why people have these absurd prejudices against atheist (as we were discussing in another thread).

 

[BilliardsBall]

It depends on how you define rape. If you mean forced sexual contact against the will of the victim, then it is always wrong because that force is always wrong. If you do, as a lot of modern feminists try, to define rape as "he looked at me funny!", that's a different matter. But you asked about my opinion. Clearly, worldwide, absolutes don't exist. In lots of Middle Eastern countries, rape is not only legal, but acceptable, at least in the eyes of those involved. There isn't any moral precept you can point to that is held universally across all cultures and throughout time. It just doesn't exist.

Typical! Let's talk about rape somewhere else for some others. I didn't ask if you could find someone who believes rape is right. I asked if you can step outside of the small box your atheism offers to say rape is wrong. And it wasn't by the making of a unanimous vote. It was by having you search in your own soul. Sorry, I meant heart. No, you don't have that either. You believe in no immaterial soul or heart. Mind. Will. Being.

Rape is wrong. And if you get raped, pray I'm on the jury. Because rape is wrong and I don't intended to put Middle Eastern Sharia experts on the stand to exonerate your rapist.

Rape is absolutely, inherently wrong. Cultural deniers aren't the problem here. Nazis raping Europeans and Russians raping Nazis doesn't make rape subjectively RIGHT!

Your statement that there isn't a moral objective precept means this is incorrect: "Rape is wrong." You may want to rephrase or else your statement has evolved to become: Sometimes, rape is right.

Cephus, we've disagreed in the past, but please rephrase your statement re: absolutes, because I do think highly of you and don't want to think for even a single moment that you think rape can EVER be right.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Honey, Russia is a more religious country than America with 75% of the population being orthodox and a further 15% being made up of several other diverse religions, guess what, the vast majority are communist so your point is what?

Ill take the word of the Georgian orthodox faith on who was and who wasn't a member of the Georgian Orthodox faith over some forum jockey with a dodgy comprehension of Russian history any time.

Since when were you commissioned to be arbiter of who is and who isn't a christian?

I take it then, that no one in your opinion can be the arbiter of who and who isn't a Christian. After all, you would even invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy if pressed, yes?

Your statement that NO ONE can be the arbiter of who is a Christian (implied) is an ABSOLUTE. Would you be willing to say rape is absolutely wrong?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution didn't make anything. It's an inevitable side affect of evolution in the less intelligent species. But our intelligence allows us to see logic. Logic dictates that rape is bad for me and thus bad for others. If I allow the crime then I leave myself open to it.

But it isn't like evolution planned it that way and thus it is okay. It happens in nature, as does murder, incest and child abuse. But the idea that atheist are in favor of those things as a result ignores our position in the evolutionary chain. Part of what makes us human is our intelligence that allows us to rise above such destructive behavior.

Not to mention it is supremely insulting. This is why people have these absurd prejudices against atheist (as we were discussing in another thread).

Help me understand your logic:

1. Evolution didn't make ANYTHING.

2. Less intelligent species commit rape.

3. I never said, "atheists are in favor of rape" but you wrote, "But the idea that atheist are in favor of those things as a result ignores our position in the evolutionary chain. Part of what makes us human is our intelligence that allows us to rise above such destructive behavior."

Okay, rise above it. Say RAPE IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG so we can all rise above.

 

[ChristineM]

I take it then, that no one in your opinion can be the arbiter of who and who isn't a Christian. After all, you would even invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy if pressed, yes?

Your statement that NO ONE can be the arbiter of who is a Christian (implied) is an ABSOLUTE. Would you be willing to say rape is absolutely wrong?

So you are defining my opinion? What gives you that right? Honey you can take what the hell you want, it does not make it my opinion.

As for your straw man, i take it that you have never been raped? See where dictating another's mindset takes you?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Jeremiah,

Are you an atheist? An agnostic?

A true atheist would have ethical beliefs but not moral beliefs.

And what the heck is wrong with you that you find it a necessity to think about the rightness or wrongness of rape deeply or with deep consideration? I'm not wanting to sound assumptive, so correct me if I'm wrong, but devout people need to think only briefly on the morals of rape. It is usually the atheists who have to "dig deep" to see if anything is "right" or "wrong".

Put differently, at the risk of Godwin's Law, if one more atheist tells me "The Holocaust wasn't evil, but it was certainly a poor socioeconomic choice on the part of the Nazis," I'm going to be ill.

Biblically speaking, right and wrong come fairly quickly to the righteous, slower to the self-righteous.

Again, I don't want to offend you over something you've pondered deeply, but be aware EVERY atheist on this thread is having severe problems with saying these three words are OBJECTIVELY true:

Rape Is Wrong.

That is a giant pile of garbage.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I agree, Jeremiah!

But the OP doesn't involve the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the rape act, rather, it's morality and it's absolute nature.

Is rape inherently wrong or subjectively wrong?

PS. "Wisdom" is knowledge applied, it is immaterial. I thought atheists don't believe in immaterial things like wisdom (the absolute rightness of an action)?!

So you are like twelve?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Much of what you say rings true to my way of thinking, thank you.

But if I am a true atheist, I must of necessity believe in mechanistic evolution (or at least space seed). Rape is propagation of the species, so saying rape is wrong sounds like a condemnation toward the survivability of the human race--or at the least--typical atheist double-talk IMHO. No offense meant, mind you.

Own what you believe. Do you believe in evolution? IT MADE RAPE, didn't it?

I didn't realize rape was the only way one could have a child.

 

[ChristineM]

A true atheist would have ethical beliefs but not moral beliefs.

What a load of rubbish. Why do you need religion to tell what is moral or not?

If i needed to have a god on my shoulder to figure out if its right or wrong to steel or to murder, then i would willingly have myself sectioned for public safety

Morality is not a religious island, it is a human trait, without it there would have been no civilization in which to create religions. Then of course religion stole morality and decreed it as their own (first immoral act of religion) then they used their stolen gains to discredit those who didn't steal (so the immorality festers in the name of religion) , and religion goes on being inherently immoral .

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Someone in this thread is full of hate and anger (*cough* @BilliardsBall *cough*) and we all know that hate and anger lead to the Dark Side.

 

[Alison Wonderland]

I would suggest that you read "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto", then maybe some of Lenin's stuff. You will find that atheism and communism are intertwined. You are correct, atheism is simply the absence of theistic belief. Neither good or bad, simply a different world view. I had this philosophy for many years

How can atheism be "simply the absence of theistic belief. Neither good or bad, simply a different world view" and intertwined with a political agenda. You've completely contradicted yourself here.

 

[1robin]

Because "righteousness" and "sinfulness" are non-universally applicable religious concepts. Many theists do not even ascribe to these ideas, so your attempt to out-fox the atheist fails.

They are if a particular religion is true. For example if the bible is true then it's moral duties and values apply to you, regardless of whether or not you find that convenient.

 

[1robin]

Wait. The bible does condem rape and all other sexual impurity that the apostles defined only between man and woman in marriage. I have read the whole bible, I am an atheist, and I know that rape is inheritedly bad (unnatural) and legally bad.

Only if God exists do objective moral values and duties exist. Without God all you have left is preference to base subjective ethics on. The is no actual right to do or evil to avoid if God does not exist.

What does the bible have to do with it?

If it is true, everything.

We dont need the bible to see how people are affected from having sex they didnt consent to.

Please explain to me how any act is actually right or actually evil without appealing to a transcendent objective standard. No nation has ever based it's laws on the reaction of a third party. If any had it would be opium for everyone.

Only if God exists does the following exist: Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

Without God the best you can hope for is the following: Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

Without God all you have is might makes right.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

Conversation is being held on other threads about absolutes and objective rights and wrongs.

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Today's rant is concluded.

There are of course no absolute morals. It is all subjective. Different morals and ethics for different societies. Rape is no different. Who is to say it is wrong to force a woman to have sex with you? It may be allowed in some societies. Or on some other planets with intelligent life. Make primates rape female primates all the time. It is a right of the alpha make in the pack. We are primates too. Maybe our rules prohibiting rape are wrong. Maybe God created women to be used as toys for men? Who knows? Our rules are simply man made opinions.

The most common female fantasy is rape. Why? Maybe it's hardwired in their brains from primeval times. Perhaps it was once considered a harmless sport. Or mating ritual.

There are no moral absolutes. Why did Lot in the Bible offer up his two teen daughters to gang rape? Just to, what? Save a couple Angels? LOL. The angels couldn't defend themselves? As God's emissary? Absurd story, btw. Obviously rape was no biggie to Lot.

Perhaps it's no biggie in other places.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

They are if a particular religion is true. For example if the bible is true then it's moral duties and values apply to you, regardless of whether or not you find that convenient.

Like when they hung all those "witches" during the Salem Witch trial. Because unthinking morality is just great!

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I don't care if people believe in gods, fairies, or Big Foot, but dogmatic morality is stupid and dangerous.

 

[psychoslice]

Another empty statement, with no validation. You never learn

Ha, I was just thinking the same about you.