Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[BilliardsBall]

Nobody. But if the Universe was made by an all-powerful creator with any ounce of good in it, suffering would not be a part of that Universe. There would be no reason for it to exist whatsoever.


I didn't say anything relevant to this.


That is a nonsensical question, and I've also never made any such assumption. I'm talking about the ACT of rape, not the urge.


Because foetuses (up to a certain point) are not living, thinking entities. Also, I never said anything about abortion, so this argument you've brought up is erroneous. I also never aid that it "cannot cause suffering". I already explained that the suffering a rapist suffers from being in prison is justified.


No, because I don't believe foetuses are living thing up until a certain point. You cannot end the life of something that isn't yet living, by definition.


I don't have to accept that axiom because it is literally meaningless, as I have already explained at length. I can answer them because I am able to JUDGE right from wrong by ASSESSING the objective values and effects of certain actions, and determining which actions I consider right or wrong in accordance with said values. I don't have to accept right and wrong as absolute. I just have to accept that I want to live in a world where 1) all people are treated fairly, 2) people have certain inalienable rights, 3) where life is preferable to death, 4) where well-being is valued over suffering, and 5) we do our best to improve general well-being and reduce suffering. When you judge things by these values, there are actual, objective ways you can start to assess right from wrong.



I don't use evolution to disprove genesis. Evolution has nothing to do with it. And I am not "unwilling to use evolution to discuss biological imperatives", it's just that such imperatives have no actual relationship to the discussion of moral values and establishing objective right from wrong. Evolution is merely a mechanism, nothing more. It has no import with regards to the morality of intelligent beings.


Not even remotely. I'm simply telling you that evolution is unrelated to morality. This isn't a thread about evolution - it's about morality. You're bringing in an unrelated subject which has no bearing on the concepts being discussed. I have no problem with you bringing it up, but all you're going to achieve by doing so is make yourself look foolish and pointlessly waste both of our time.


That entirely depends what your justification for it is.


The statements are meaningless without justification and context.


But they don't exist axiomatically. If you were to say "this movie is really good", is that a right statement or a false statement? On the other hand, if I was to say "rape causes suffering", then that is an objectively quantifiable statement.


Not according to your Bible it's not.


Except they aren't "immaterial" in the way you are indicating. A philosophical construct can still exist in relation to a physical or material fact.


You don't have to. It's just an obviously very good standard to use when determining right from wrong, and has served as a foundational basis for all morality from the beginnings of human society, and has proven its worth as a basis by doing so.


Because they aren't intelligent like humans are and are thus incapable of taking into consideration the broader world around them and their impact on it. I find it odd how you keep dragging animals into a discussion about morality. It's like trying to drag the opinions of Mesopotamian sheep herders into a discussion about hardcore gangster rap.


Are you serious? You think the opinions of atheists on a forum (which you are a member of and frequent at your own free will) is turning your life into "Hell on Earth"? You honestly think you're in need of pity?


Which is one of the reasons they are dangerous and deserve to be behind bars.


Okay then. Please demonstrate that God objectively exists.


Since I never said it WAS philosophical in nature, your statement is plainly inane.

Nobody. But if the Universe was made by an all-powerful creator with any ounce of good in it, suffering would not be a part of that Universe. There would be no reason for it to exist whatsoever.

Are you willing to explore with me reasons for suffering? I think suffering has meaning, purpose, even power.

Because foetuses (up to a certain point) are not living, thinking entities. Also, I never said anything about abortion, so this argument you've brought up is erroneous. I also never aid that it "cannot cause suffering". I already explained that the suffering a rapist suffers from being in prison is justified.

On what basis is the suffering a prisoner experiences justified? How did you come to the conclusion, “causing suffering is wrong”? In the animal kingdom, animals cause other animals, sometimes humans, to suffer for mating, self-preservation, food, etc. It seems like you have come to a subjective conclusion regarding suffering in the animal kingdom (if we are animals and not also “souls” or “spirits”.)

I don't have to accept that axiom because it is literally meaningless, as I have already explained at length. I can answer them because I am able to JUDGE right from wrong by ASSESSING the objective values and effects of certain actions, and determining which actions I consider right or wrong in accordance with said values. I don't have to accept right and wrong as absolute. I just have to accept that I want to live in a world where 1) all people are treated fairly, 2) people have certain inalienable rights, 3) where life is preferable to death, 4) where well-being is valued over suffering, and 5) we do our best to improve general well-being and reduce suffering. When you judge things by these values, there are actual, objective ways you can start to assess right from wrong.

If there are “actual, objective ways you can start to assess right from wrong” than “objective judgments exist”, “actual things objectively exist” and “right and wrong” (immaterial concepts) absolutely exist. Do you agree?

Also, you seem to predicate this statement: “When you judge things by these values, there are actual, objective ways you can start to assess right from wrong” of values as 5 values. Rapists ignore your values # 1, 2, sometimes 3, and 4 and 5. Why should I accept your 5 values as right and the rapist’s 5 counter-values as wrong? Is it because it is objectively true that causing suffering is wrong so the rapist are acting counterintuitively to conscience? If it is rather subjectively true that your 5 values ARE values, if the laws of the land change to become the rapist’s values, is rape still wrong? If you meet 100 people who say rape is right, why would you buck their viewpoint?

You may at this point want to refer to the OP, which states as axiomatic, “Rape is wrong”. It sounds like you believe rape is subjectively wrong.

Not according to your Bible it's not.

The Bible isn’t in the OP. What is your point? I say if the Bible says rape isn’t wrong, the Bible itself is wrong, but first, we are going to have to accept these axioms:

*Books can be right or wrong

*Rape is always wrong, because if it isn’t, and is merely subjectively or societally wrong, the Bible gets a pass and you are using a presentist slant here only.

Because they aren't intelligent like humans are and are thus incapable of taking into consideration the broader world around them and their impact on it. I find it odd how you keep dragging animals into a discussion about morality. It's like trying to drag the opinions of Mesopotamian sheep herders into a discussion about hardcore gangster rap.

Are humans “more right” than mere animals? Is that what you’re saying? Because the alternative would be you find rape “societally wrong”, which I think is very wrong.

Okay then. Please demonstrate that God objectively exists.

I surely will—as soon as we can agree what “exist” means and “objectively”. For example, God exists to me but not to you, so we would say God subjectively exists in our combined knowledge.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure. Rape is justified if I am a man who saved 50 pieces of silver, and who wants to marry a not engaged girl who does not like me.

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

Does your answer imply what I think it does, that rape is sometimes wrong, sometimes right, based on societal norms?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The exact mechanism of human origins has no bearing on the philosophical concept of right and wrong. The truth of evolution doesn't "lead" anywhere other than a mere accepting of the fact of the evolution of biological diversity. If you feel there are further implications than that, then it is your job to explain why they should matter.


But they are not axiomatic because they are not self-evident.


The fact that the concepts are used doesn't make them axiomatic. I suggest you look up the word "axiomatic".


I never said wrong doesn't exist - I said it isn't axiomatic. And yes, your argument is vacuous by definition, because it contains no real meaning or definition.


Because, as I have explained multiple times now, right and wrong are only subjective until you apply an objective standard TO them. A vacuous argument is wrong because it contains no solid reasoning or merit, and its premises do not support a particular conclusion (or, indeed, any conclusion).


That's just meaningless word salad. I don't think you understand my argument.


Wow. That's not even close to resembling an answer. I'll make it a lot easier for you and just give you two options which you can choose from:

1) Things are right and wrong BECAUSE God says they are right and wrong.

2) God says things are right and wrong because they are INNATELY right and wrong and God is merely informing us of that fact.

No more tap dances, please. Just a simple 1 or 2. Any further dodging of the question will be interpreted as obvious avoidance because you either lack the ability to answer the question, or because you realize the flaw in admitting either answer exposes the weakness of your theology and morality.

**

How long must I keep reading to learn that all science and all philosophy that says anything is “right” and anything is “wrong” is axiomatic that right and wrong are “things”?

But they are not axiomatic because they are not self-evident.

Hang on a sec-you don’t find it self-evident that some things are always true and others are always false? Please explain.

Because, as I have explained multiple times now, right and wrong are only subjective until you apply an objective standard TO them. A vacuous argument is wrong because it contains no solid reasoning or merit, and its premises do not support a particular conclusion (or, indeed, any conclusion).

To apply an objective standard to something, we have to hold as axiomatic that objectivity and subjectivity exist. Do you disagree?

Wow. That's not even close to resembling an answer. I'll make it a lot easier for you and just give you two options which you can choose from:

1) Things are right and wrong BECAUSE God says they are right and wrong.

2) God says things are right and wrong because they are INNATELY right and wrong and God is merely informing us of that fact.

No more tap dances, please. Just a simple 1 or 2. Any further dodging of the question will be interpreted as obvious avoidance because you either lack the ability to answer the question, or because you realize the flaw in admitting either answer exposes the weakness of your theology and morality.

I would say “2”. I would say that explains the necessity of the cross of Christ. Free will was a right gift. Sin is a real force. Even God has to account for sin, somehow.

I affirm “2”.

 

[viole]

Does your answer imply what I think it does, that rape is sometimes wrong, sometimes right, based on societal norms?

You tell me. The Bible is full with good advices concerning how to get away with rape.

Rape a young girl and you may/must marry her, after some payment to her father. Collect some sticks on Saturday and you will get your skull crushed by stones.

Don't you feel a bit of embarassment to hold that book as the source of your moral values?

You strike me as a decent guy. So, how you can use that indecent book to prove anything concerning basic morality, is totally puzzling to me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nigel]

Wow you guys sound realy smart using big words, talking about philosophy and stuff. I'm just a noob but when I see objectivity it either means something is in a state of being true or fair. Is rape fair...hmm nope. Is the idea that rape is OK true. Well how many versions of truth are there?

The idea that rape is never fair, perhaps except for the case of a rapist getting raped, is always true therefore, it does not matter how many truths there are or where they come from, the idea that rape is OK is also never true.

Next question.

 

[Underhill]

“Justice is flawed” might not equal “Justice is a flawed concept”.

And are you saying that non-religious persons have no inherent mercy?

This is getting old. No, of course I didn't say that.

But mercy is a concept that should not be a part of the justice system. It is based in laws, not feelings of mercy.

If we conclude recidivism is the key factor in sentencing because we make societal choices for good rather than use justice and mercy, are you saying jurisprudence is a matter of popular vote (more people are against rape than for it)? If the vote changes to favor rape, can we say “rape remains unjust or unmerciful” in your system where we put those two concepts away?

Yes, if public sentiment shifts to rape being perfectly acceptable, I think it should be legalized. *bangs head on desk

Because emotion informs us that the Golden Rule should be employed, whereas evolution informs us that the strong may take what they will.

No, logic dictate that the only way I can prevent bad things from happening to me, is to make sure they are unacceptable for everyone.

Bankrupt for all or bankrupt for you or . . . ? You would like to have it both ways? Keep people in prison if they hurt some from the majority but keep God out of the equation though the majority advocate for God?

Bankrupt for anyone. The notion of a caring god who wants what is best creating a world this filled with pain... it's nonsense. But more importantly, god has no place in our legal system. It has always been thus. It's in the constitution. What is to stop our nation from becoming another Afghanistan? I hear people complain about Sharia law all the time, but I suspect they wouldn't be any happier if this country instituted old testament law.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you willing to explore with me reasons for suffering? I think suffering has meaning, purpose, even power.

It doesn't matter if you think suffering has meaning. If an all-powerful God exists, they could create Universe in which suffering is not required and any meaning we get from it we can still get without suffering. An all-powerful entity COULD do that.

On what basis is the suffering a prisoner experiences justified?

I already explained that.

How did you come to the conclusion, “causing suffering is wrong”?

I've also already explained this. It's the same way I concluded that having a hand that is not on fire is preferable to having a hand that IS on fire.

In the animal kingdom, animals cause other animals, sometimes humans, to suffer for mating, self-preservation, food, etc. It seems like you have come to a subjective conclusion regarding suffering in the animal kingdom (if we are animals and not also “souls” or “spirits”.)

We are animals, but we are cognitive, thinking animals that are capable of making moral determinations that are entirely apart from any instinctual or natural requirements, urges or imperatives. So bringing up other, non-cognitive animals is irrelevant.

If there are “actual, objective ways you can start to assess right from wrong” than “objective judgments exist”, “actual things objectively exist” and “right and wrong” (immaterial concepts) absolutely exist. Do you agree?

No. "Right and wrong" only exist once they are ATTACHED to specific, objective concepts. They do not exist in and of themselves. For example, if I were looking to raise a child that is healthy, it is easy to determine that feeding that child battery acid every day is objectively wrong. On the other hand, if someone were to ask me "What's a really good way to get your child taken into protective custody?" me responding with "Feed them battery acid every day" would be right.

Also, you seem to predicate this statement: “When you judge things by these values, there are actual, objective ways you can start to assess right from wrong” of values as 5 values. Rapists ignore your values # 1, 2, sometimes 3, and 4 and 5.

Which is what makes them objectively wrong by my moral standard.

Why should I accept your 5 values as right and the rapist’s 5 counter-values as wrong?

You don't have to accept anything. It's just clearly what is better overall for everyone in society. Do you disagree with that?

Is it because it is objectively true that causing suffering is wrong so the rapist are acting counterintuitively to conscience?

I didn't mention intuition or conscience. To assess the suffering of others takes actual understanding and empathy, not intuition or conscience.

If it is rather subjectively true that your 5 values ARE values, if the laws of the land change to become the rapist’s values, is rape still wrong?

Yes, obviously, because rape would still be objectively contrary to those five values, whether society mostly agrees or not.

If you meet 100 people who say rape is right, why would you buck their viewpoint?

You've already read my five values, so you already know my answer to that question. Not one of those five values is "What the majority of people around me determined to be right".

You may at this point want to refer to the OP, which states as axiomatic, “Rape is wrong”. It sounds like you believe rape is subjectively wrong.

It is not "subjectively" causing suffering, it is demonstrably and OBJECTIVELY causing it, and since I determine right or wrong in accordance - partially - with what causes or prevents suffering, it is objectively wrong.

The Bible isn’t in the OP. What is your point? I say if the Bible says rape isn’t wrong, the Bible itself is wrong, but first, we are going to have to accept these axioms:

*Books can be right or wrong

*Rape is always wrong, because if it isn’t, and is merely subjectively or societally wrong, the Bible gets a pass and you are using a presentist slant here only.

This argument doesn't even make sense. Do you not understand that I have determined that rape is objectively wrong? What about this is difficult for you to grasp?

Are humans “more right” than mere animals? Is that what you’re saying?

That statement doesn't even make sense. We are capable of considering "right or wrong" independent of our instinctual nature. Animals aren't.

Because the alternative would be you find rape “societally wrong”, which I think is very wrong.

Since I have never said that, and I have been very clear in explaining how and why I find rape objectively, morally wrong, that would be an extremely silly thing to say.

I surely will—as soon as we can agree what “exist” means and “objectively”. For example, God exists to me but not to you, so we would say God subjectively exists in our combined knowledge.

No, we couldn't. "Subjectively exists" is an oxymoron. Something either objectively exists or it doesn't exist at all. It can't exist "subjectively".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hang on a sec-you don’t find it self-evident that some things are always true and others are always false? Please explain.

Easily. It is not axiomatically true that something is always true or false because what is true or false can change, or may not even be determinable to our minds, or may not even exist beyond a subjective or conceptual level.

To apply an objective standard to something, we have to hold as axiomatic that objectivity and subjectivity exist. Do you disagree?

Yes. You don't need to hold something as axiomatic in order to hold it as true. I don't need to conclude that objectivity exists AXIOMATICALLY, I just need to accept that - as far as I am reasonably capable - I can determine that objectivity is a concept that does exist, or is at least useful in examining the world.

I would say “2”. I would say that explains the necessity of the cross of Christ. Free will was a right gift. Sin is a real force. Even God has to account for sin, somehow.

I affirm “2”.

Thank you for your answer.

Now, since you believe that what is right or wrong is independent of what God says, and that humans are capable of using free will to determine what is right or wrong, does that not imply that God's input is unnecessary in the moral process? Ergo, atheists can be right - even objectively - and not require a God to tell them so.

 

[Nigel]

The idea that humans evolved with might is right instincts is a lie for children. We are not lions, we are more like Bonobos, who have a loving and cooperative society. Complete with love indoctrination passing from mother to child.

All our darkness comes from the internal conflict between this loving cooperative instinct and our intelligence. Our instinct, our conscience tells us we are bad humans, so our ego sets out to prove our conscience wrong. When we inevitablely fail to understand ourselves, to prove that we are OK, we turn to hatred and other twisted ways if thinking. Rape is an attempt to kill the innocence that we lost.

The idea that it is animal instincts taking over is just an excuse.

So no even if it was common place, lawfully, even mandatory to rape. It is not fair, one person involved is being dehumanised so that the other can feel release. No it is never OK. What the Bible says the context of it, is irrelevant.

Do we then through the baby Jesus out with the bath water? A lot of things are written in the book like "love thy neighbor". Do we need a book to tell us this, no we have a conscience. But it contributes to a body of evidence that supports what our conscience has to say. A sort of collage of experience that molds who we are. I mean the whole point is, this is the old testament, a story about where we were and why it did not work. This is the new paradigm, the new testament, this is how you should live. Concluding that the Bible condones rape is childish.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

None of that mentions a woman being unclean while she's on her period, female slaves do not go free, she is to ask no questions or even speak in church, nor does it mention that a woman who doesn't bleed on her wedding night is to be put to death. And there is also the issue of buying and paying for a woman for marriage.

Shadow Wolf, hope you're doing well.

Sorry I haven't replied before now, my health has been failing me. I hope to recover.

Anyway, I can tell you read the article....you pointed out some of the issues it did not highlight. I'm real glad you took the time to read it!

This is another article that provides an explanation on a couple of them.

Does the Bible Discriminate Against Women? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I'll look for others that discuss the rest.

Best wishes!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Bible itself is clear that because a slave is your property, you can beat them as severely as you want provided you don't kill them and they recover after a few days.

Hey, Shadow Wolf (your user name is awesome, BTW... It sounds like an American Indian name), I'll also look for information on this topic.

Keep in mind, at least there were laws governing the treatment of slaves! As 'property' considered valuable, and a living being, treating them well usually followed -- usually.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey, Shadow Wolf (your user name is awesome, BTW... It sounds like an American Indian name), I'll also look for information on this topic.

Keep in mind, at least there were laws governing the treatment of slaves! As 'property' considered valuable, and a living being, treating them well usually followed -- usually.

@Shadow Wolf, Jehovah reminded the Israelites many times of their former life as slaves in Egypt, hoping this would give them empathy toward others who were slaves.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yet I am an atheist, and that is not my value.



Correct. I am an atheist. My moral foundation is elucidated int eh Affirmations of Humanism.



Belief in a god is not a foundation for anything. It may be your premise for all other beliefs, but it is founded on nothing more than a claim and the will to believe.



Murder is wrong to secular humanists. No god needed.

And the ethics of Christianity evolve over time.



There is no ethics of atheism.

If you can't understand what we are and say, you needn't bother lecturing us what we are and must necessarily believe. If you do anyway, you should consider how you are perceived by those who recognize that you don't understand them.

And the ethics of Christianity evolve over time.

Unfortunately, this is true in Christendom. But tell me, does this have any bearing on the Bible's contents?. It's words haven't evolved!!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then you are wasting your time, your going about things exactly backwards. You judge a teaching by those who obey it, not by those that defy it. However to do so you must know what the teachings are, but what you describe is to do things the other way around. Christianity is the only group I know where the entrance examine is admitting you have failed to measure up to it. And even though your standards are ridiculous, I would bet they are also inconsistent, because Christianity contains more morally exceptional actions in it's history that any similar group I can think of. For example the most generous demographic on earth is Christian conservatives. So you should already be a Christian using your own ridiculous methodology, or your not because you merely cherry pick the misdeeds in Christian history to examine the faith by.

Hey 1robin, hope everything is fine for you.

Unfortunately -- or, maybe, it's good -- the saying, one bad apple spoils the rest, is true. It should get people to consider exactly what they are supporting. Christendom, for the most part, has established a bad reputation in valuing human life! 99.9% of all religion!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is wrong in that it is objectively contrary to the moral imperative of well-being.

Is objective right or wrong determined by theological decree, or is something right or wrong regardless of whether God says it?

Our conscience says it....(if it's working properly, i.e., not calloused.)

And that comes from God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You tell me. The Bible is full with good advices concerning how to get away with rape.

Rape a young girl and you may/must marry her, after some payment to her father. Collect some sticks on Saturday and you will get your skull crushed by stones.

Don't you feel a bit of embarassment to hold that book as the source of your moral values?

You strike me as a decent guy. So, how you can use that indecent book to prove anything concerning basic morality, is totally puzzling to me.

Ciao

- viole

I think you may misunderstand me. Rape is wrong. If the Bible condones rape, the Bible itself is utterly wrong IMHO.

But you are confusing the question, "Viole, is rape objectively/inherently/100% of the time wrong?" with "Does the Bible say rape is sometimes right?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wow you guys sound realy smart using big words, talking about philosophy and stuff. I'm just a noob but when I see objectivity it either means something is in a state of being true or fair. Is rape fair...hmm nope. Is the idea that rape is OK true. Well how many versions of truth are there?

The idea that rape is never fair, perhaps except for the case of a rapist getting raped, is always true therefore, it does not matter how many truths there are or where they come from, the idea that rape is OK is also never true.

Next question.

Not trying to be a smartie pants, so I agree. But "fair" is a subjective word, so let's use your "state of being true".

If rape is never true, never okay, never right, you believe in an absolute moral principle. "Rape is wrong". You will see over a dozen pages on this thread of atheists saying there are no moral absolutes. It kind of makes their worldview crumble otherwise!

 

[McBell]

. It kind of makes their worldview crumble otherwise!

Except that one persons opinion on what is and is not "moral" does not crumble my worldview...
Does it crumble yours?
If so, why?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is getting old. No, of course I didn't say that.

But mercy is a concept that should not be a part of the justice system. It is based in laws, not feelings of mercy.



Yes, if public sentiment shifts to rape being perfectly acceptable, I think it should be legalized. *bangs head on desk



No, logic dictate that the only way I can prevent bad things from happening to me, is to make sure they are unacceptable for everyone.



Bankrupt for anyone. The notion of a caring god who wants what is best creating a world this filled with pain... it's nonsense. But more importantly, god has no place in our legal system. It has always been thus. It's in the constitution. What is to stop our nation from becoming another Afghanistan? I hear people complain about Sharia law all the time, but I suspect they wouldn't be any happier if this country instituted old testament law.

**

“Justice is flawed” might not equal “Justice is a flawed concept”.

And are you saying that non-religious persons have no inherent mercy?

This is getting old. No, of course I didn't say that.

But mercy is a concept that should not be a part of the justice system. It is based in laws, not feelings of mercy.

The justice system and justice are people systems. People believe in justice and mercy. Laws progress from the beliefs of people.

In ancient Israel, the law was to be tempered with mercy and soul-searching. After pronouncing a death sentence, for example, the leaders were to pray and contemplate for several days before carrying out the death sentence—in case they felt they should relent. Jesus’s trial and execution weren’t done in proper order.

Yes, if public sentiment shifts to rape being perfectly acceptable, I think it should be legalized. *bangs head on desk

Are you being facetious? Is the *bangs* a sort of face palm sarcasm? I don’t think if the public allows The Purge every July 7 rape is right!

No, logic dictate that the only way I can prevent bad things from happening to me, is to make sure they are unacceptable for everyone.

Just wondering where you get the notion of “bad” from. A rapist might say, “rape is good”. Why is your vote the correctly objective vote? Are you using ad populum? I’m not sure if you are.

Bankrupt for anyone. The notion of a caring god who wants what is best creating a world this filled with pain... it's nonsense.

This is not the last stop for you or I. This is a journey. You WOULD be correct regarding a best world not having suffering—when did I say this world and not the next is “best”?

But more importantly, god has no place in our legal system. It has always been thus. It's in the constitution. What is to stop our nation from becoming another Afghanistan? I hear people complain about Sharia law all the time, but I suspect they wouldn't be any happier if this country instituted old testament law.

Why did you bring up Sharia and OT Law? Muslims rape people using Sharia law, and the atheists tell me the OT condones rape. I just am trying to (still) figure out why 100% of atheists are unable to say “rape is always/100%/objectively wrong”.

 

[Underhill]

**

“Justice is flawed” might not equal “Justice is a flawed concept”.

And are you saying that non-religious persons have no inherent mercy?



The justice system and justice are people systems. People believe in justice and mercy. Laws progress from the beliefs of people.

Perhaps, but the rule of law does not allow, and should not allow, for mercy. It should act in the best interest of society. Anything else is irresponsible.

In ancient Israel, the law was to be tempered with mercy and soul-searching. After pronouncing a death sentence, for example, the leaders were to pray and contemplate for several days before carrying out the death sentence—in case they felt they should relent. Jesus’s trial and execution weren’t done in proper order.

And Daniel was thrown in a lions den while jonah was swallowed by a whale.

I couldn't care less what a religious judicial system did. It sounds good until you realize any system that is based in how someone feels is bound to make mistakes. (as it did in your example)

Which is my entire point.

Are you being facetious? Is the *bangs* a sort of face palm sarcasm? I don’t think if the public allows The Purge every July 7 rape is right!

Society will never go there. Using a terrible movie as an example doesn't help your case.

Even at its lowest society simply ignored rape.

Just wondering where you get the notion of “bad” from. A rapist might say, “rape is good”. Why is your vote the correctly objective vote? Are you using ad populum? I’m not sure if you are.

A psychopath might say rape is good.

This is not the last stop for you or I. This is a journey. You WOULD be correct regarding a best world not having suffering—when did I say this world and not the next is “best”?

What next world? I'm not going to argue nonsense. If god made the world, and knows everything, then he knew exactly what he was creating. He is a true monster of the worst kind. He is the person who beats a child for stealing candy that you leave in easy reach.

Why did you bring up Sharia and OT Law? Muslims rape people using Sharia law, and the atheists tell me the OT condones rape. I just am trying to (still) figure out why 100% of atheists are unable to say “rape is always/100%/objectively wrong”.

I have said it at least 6 times now. Do you have a reading disability?

The point is that using religion to dictate law is a dangerous game and I gave two good examples.