- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Persuaded Content
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@ChewingTinFoil
1. When we don’t have an answer to something, it isn’t logical to assume something. Instead you should have critical thinking and have explanations for why this and that happened.
I agree. That's why it is almost comical at this point when @MayCaesar starts singing the Science of the Gaps song every time I point out scientific flaws with the creation of the universe and with abiogenesis. Or when I give examples of medically documented miracles - such as the miracle of Calanda, where there are 24 eye witness testimonies, recorded in a court of law, of a man whose leg was amputated, of it growing back overnight 18 months later. He will make a science of the gaps appeal and start singing 'even when science says it is impossible, trust me, for science it is possible.'
When you walk up on a beach and see a iPhone, you could reason that natural forces such as the wind blew just right and shaped and formed the minerals in such a way that it formed a phone, I guess. But it makes more sense to reason that due to the complexity of the object, it is more likely that some intelligence is behind it. It the same way it makes sense to reason that some intelligence is behind the creation of the universe and the creation of life. DNA is an incredibly complex code. Code needs a coder.
2. To say that the universe is fine tuned is insane. God could create an infinite amount of things better than this universe.
Nobel prize winner, Roger Penrose, calculated the odds of the low entropy of the universe at the big bang that permits a universe where life is possible at (10^10) ^123 to 1. Considering that there are only about 10 ^ 80 particles in the universe - those are astronomical odds. And that is just one of many conditions that needed to be met.
The cosmological constant (which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10^120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.
Even atheistic scientists admit that the universe appears finely tuned for life. Stephen Hawking has admitted: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” (A Brief History of Time, p. 125)
To dismiss the fine tuning by saying 'God could have created a better universe' is like saying the Mona Lisa is a trashy painting and shouldn't be considered a masterpiece because Leonardo da Vinci could have done better. It is a silly argument, that ignores the incredible fine tuning of lots of different fundamental forces and factors.
3. There has been many creatures with different dna coding than us and died out due to the way it has been coded. The reason we are alive is because it was successful over the MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of creatures whose dna coding weren’t. Looks like that “coder” needed to study a bit more. It’s all about natural selection and evolution.
A huge issue with your argument is that you can't get to DNA from just minerals. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and do it. You'll get a Nobel prize if you do. There are at least 10 chemical 'miracles' that would have to occur first. And none of them have been replicated yet, and this is with intelligence guiding the process. In fact, we are further away from explaining how life could begin from non-life today, than we were 100 years ago. 100 years ago, it was thought that one celled life forms were not complex and that they were essentially just goo, so if you just had the right mix of minerals and some lightning you could make life. We now know that life is much more complex - even the simplest life forms are beyond our ability to explain and replicate.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
1) Slavery in the time of Jesus was historically very bad. Roman rule brought in a different set of rules and it was closer to true chattel slavery. In fact, there were several restrictions on setting slaves free. If you had a certain number of slaves you couldn't let them all go - that was an actual rule. One of the reasons Christians were persecuted was because they taught "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29). Teaching that people are all created in the image of God and that people are equal in the eyes of God was a belief that was deemed destructive to Roman emperors.Joeseph said:@just_sayin
ARGUMENT TOPIC : Just Sayin claims that the biblical usage of the terms "property" doesn't mean property , " possession" doesn't mean possession, "slave " doesn't mean slave , " inheritance " doesn't mean inheritanceThe word (Hebrew la·’ă·ḥuz·zāh ) translated 'property' in Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV does denote 'possession', but does not regulate the person to property, that's a bad translation of its meaning. Think more in terms like LeBron James is the property of the LA Lakers. He has an obligation to the Lakers which restricts who he can play for, but he is not their physical property. If the team owner changes, his contract moves to the new owner. He does not lose his rights as a person. The word for buy (better translated 'acquire' [qanah] - which is also used to describe when women have babies ) in this passage, involves an official voluntary contractual arrangement. So the servant was not property, without any rights, as implied by your argument.
You're actually arguing and disagreeing with the bible .......
Leviticus 25:44-46
New International Version
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
What part of that verse are you struggling with?
A slave could become a permanent thing if they asked for that. As far as the contract being passed down, well, that actually guaranteed the slave/servant would be paid and taken care of. Otherwise, if the owner/boss died then they would not get all that they had agreed to work for. As with any other slave/servant, if they did not like the situation, they could run away and they were not to be returned.
Slaves were your property for life and your childrens inheritance , you're disagreeing with your gods word on the matter, right?
The foreign slave/servant did not lose his rights:
“Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. 34 Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:33-34 (Odd you didn't quote this verse)
This is not talking about slaves , your dishonesty is appaling , what is it about "inherited property" you dont follow?
Also do you call beating your slaves " loving them as yourself"
“If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan, - Leviticus 25:47 - points out that the slave could get rich, that means they kept their possessions, and could even have slaves of his own. That's definitely not chattel slavery.
They definitely are chattel slavery lets remind you of the distinction betweens bondsmen and chattel slavery in your gods words.......
Leviticus 25:39-46
New International Version
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
The slave was treated the same as the non-slave when there was a physical injury:
“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed. 20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. - Exodus 21:18-21
This verse is sometimes mistranslated to say 'for the slave is his property'. The word is not property in Hebrew, it is literally 'silver' or 'money'. The meaning is the 'master' literally loses his money and his slave/servant if he injures him permanently.
The master can beat and mistreat his slaves any way he wishes once he doesnt kill them and you're fine with that?
Again you're disagreeing and lying regards the bible saying slaves are your childrens inheritance and property ,right?
The foreign slave/servant could run away and not be forced back into service:
“If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters. 16 Let them live among you in any town they choose, and do not oppress them. - Deuteronomy 23:15-16
The slavery in the Bible was not thought of as something that made the individual a sub-person.
Really? Being someones property does not make someone a sub -human? Seriously?
it was often the result of poverty, slavery/servanthood was not considered as a position of disrespect. For example the most common uses of the term slave/servant are of people like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David and the prophets. They are the slaves/servants of God.
You mean like buying foreign slaves in a market place?
Caleb’s descendant — Sheshan’s daughter — ended up marrying an Egyptian servant:
“Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant in marriage, and she bore him Atta” (1 Chronicles 2:34,35, NASB).
Here we have marriage between a foreign servant and an established free person with quite a pedigree. The key implication is that inheritance rights would fall to the servant’s offspring, Atta. So not only was it socially acceptable to marry a slave/servant, the inheritance rights went to them or their offspring if they married an Israelite. And the slave could inherit the wealth of his owner.
Whats that got to do with owning people as property?
I am not claiming the situation was ideal. People entered into slavery/servanthood primarily because of poverty.
You're certainly making a case for slavery , your god is the source of your moral code and he thought owning people as property was fine right?
You mean like people sold into slavery?
The ideal world ended with the Garden of Eden. Having laws about something does not mean that it is endorsed. The Bible has laws on divorce, but Jesus made it clear it was not God's ideal but necessary because it was happening and the interests of the woman needed to be protected. The focus of the Bible is on man's relationship to God, and not about ending all social ills. If so, it would have not allowed divorce, or debt to occur. The Bible goes to great lengths to minimize the impacts of poverty and debt with the 7 year rules and the year of Jubilee ending all debts and returning all land to its original owner. However, debt still existed. Again, my point is that the slavery/servanthood in the Bible is not the same as the slavery associated with the antebellum south.
What are you on about Jesus forbade divorce. The bible says its ok to own people as property one they are not Jewish debt didnt come into it regards chattel slavery you keep pretending otherwise , the 7 year law only applied to Jews.
It's truly telling you have to resort to actually lying to try in some way to justify an abhorrent practice and you admit it wasnt " ideal" but the best an all wise god could come up with.
Also your attempts at trying to say slavery in the time of Jesus was somehow an enlightened practice and a solution to poverty , how utterly ridiculous.
2) Again, if you want to call LeBron James property, then so be it. I am not denying what the Bible says, but trying to explain to you its meaning and how you are distorting it. The situation for non-Israelite slaves is not one of property as we think of it:
a - property can't decide to leave and you have no legal recourse to get it back - Yet, any slave could leave and there was no legal recourse to keep them in their situation
“If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters. Let them live among you in any town they choose, and do not oppress them." - Deuteronomy 23:15-16
That rule applies to all slaves - even non-Israelite ones. In fact, it especially applied to them. Historically foreign slaves fled the surrounding nations to come to Israel because of that law.
b - You can do whatever you want with your property - but you couldn't injury or kill a slave. You couldn't mistreat them or break any rule that applied to any other person according to the Bible. There was a contract and you had to fulfill your end of it.
c - Can your property inherit your fortune? Slaves could inherit the fortune of their master/boss. They were counted as members of the family - and several slaves/servants voluntarily choose to remain slaves for life. They could marry into the family. They could have slaves of their own. They could have money and riches that did not belong to their masters, and they could even acquire their own master/boss as their slave/servant.
if slavery in the Bible was just like antebellum slavery, it is hard to understand why so many slaves/servants choose to voluntarily remain slaves for life when their contract had ended. The truth is that the slavery of the Bible was not the same as slavery in the antebellum south, nor was the slavery described in the Bible, like the slavery in the surrounding nations around Israel.
Speaking of doing whatever you want with your property, who was that old guy who got kicked off the site for slander? He laughed about getting sexual favors from his vacuum until he had to go to the ER. B-r-o was bitter cause he had a micro manhood. Ah, that triggered my memory - he called himself Little Dee. Anyway, what he did with his vacuum was definitely not consensual, nor biblical.
All sex with slaves in the bible had to be ,not only consensual, but also had to be within the confines of marriage. That meant that slave had all the rights and protections of any other married person and had to be treated the same as any other spouse. I doubt Little Dee had to marry his vacuum.
3) The 7 year and year of jubilee regulations did apply to some non-Israelite slaves. I mentioned this before. The Leviticus 25 passage rules are for Hebrews. The term 'Hebrews' includes Israelites and foreigners who had converted to Judaism ( Hebrew 'ger'). And yes, they were treated as native-Israelites with regard to rules regarding slavery/servanthood.
My comments are not to claim that slavery is a good thing. I am more concerned to be accurate about what slavery/servanthood in the Bible actually meant and how it was practiced. -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
The word (Hebrew la·’ă·ḥuz·zāh ) translated 'property' in Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV does denote 'possession', but does not regulate the person to property, that's a bad translation of its meaning. Think more in terms like LeBron James is the property of the LA Lakers. He has an obligation to the Lakers which restricts who he can play for, but he is not their physical property. If the team owner changes, his contract moves to the new owner. He does not lose his rights as a person. The word for buy (better translated 'acquire' [qanah] - which is also used to describe when women have babies ) in this passage, involves an official voluntary contractual arrangement. So the servant was not property, without any rights, as implied by your argument.
A slave could become a permanent thing if they asked for that. As far as the contract being passed down, well, that actually guaranteed the slave/servant would be paid and taken care of. Otherwise, if the owner/boss died then they would not get all that they had agreed to work for. As with any other slave/servant, if they did not like the situation, they could run away and they were not to be returned.
The foreign slave/servant did not lose his rights:
“Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. 34 Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:33-34 (Odd you didn't quote this verse)
“If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan, - Leviticus 25:47 - points out that the slave could get rich, that means they kept their possessions, and could even have slaves of his own. That's definitely not chattel slavery.
The slave was treated the same as the non-slave when there was a physical injury:“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed. 20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. - Exodus 21:18-21
This verse is sometimes mistranslated to say 'for the slave is his property'. The word is not property in Hebrew, it is literally 'silver' or 'money'. The meaning is the 'master' literally loses his money and his slave/servant if he injures him permanently.
The foreign slave/servant could run away and not be forced back into service:
“If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters. 16 Let them live among you in any town they choose, and do not oppress them. - Deuteronomy 23:15-16
The slavery in the Bible was not thought of as something that made the individual a sub-person.
While it was often the result of poverty, slavery/servanthood was not considered as a position of disrespect. For example the most common uses of the term slave/servant are of people like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David and the prophets. They are the slaves/servants of God.
Caleb’s descendant — Sheshan’s daughter — ended up marrying an Egyptian servant:
“Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant in marriage, and she bore him Atta” (1 Chronicles 2:34,35, NASB).
Here we have marriage between a foreign servant and an established free person with quite a pedigree. The key implication is that inheritance rights would fall to the servant’s offspring, Atta. So not only was it socially acceptable to marry a slave/servant, the inheritance rights went to them or their offspring if they married an Israelite. And the slave could inherit the wealth of his owner.
I am not claiming the situation was ideal. People entered into slavery/servanthood primarily because of poverty. The ideal world ended with the Garden of Eden. Having laws about something does not mean that it is endorsed. The Bible has laws on divorce, but Jesus made it clear it was not God's ideal but necessary because it was happening and the interests of the woman needed to be protected. The focus of the Bible is on man's relationship to God, and not about ending all social ills. If so, it would have not allowed divorce, or debt to occur. The Bible goes to great lengths to minimize the impacts of poverty and debt with the 7 year rules and the year of Jubilee ending all debts and returning all land to its original owner. However, debt still existed. Again, my point is that the slavery/servanthood in the Bible is not the same as the slavery associated with the antebellum south.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Feel free to debate anyone you want. You don't have to wait for me.cheetahgod360 said:Well uhh never mind. I can only choose one more since just is here
Help me to understand a few things about your argument.
1) If the victim disagrees with the rapist, who decides who is right between them? From your comments I get that the argument has embraced a might makes right position. Is that correct? Does the morality or rationality of rape depend on who achieves their goals? The victim does not achieve her goals. So why would it be OK to deny her achieving her desired outcome?
2) Would you apply the same principles to other moral situations - for example sexually assaulting a child to get meet your own personal goals or needs? Killing someone to get their stuff? And if so, why is this position more beneficial or moral than one that recognizes the rights of individuals? -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
I pointed out what the passage actually says and why your claim was false. You deflected to 'well since we neither know the language, its hard to say who is right'. You know better than that. It is a simple thing to look up what the original word is and what it says. As a former deacon, you know that. The Bible does not endorse rape. That is a false claim.Factfinder said:@Joeseph
Excellent rebuttal. Just sayin ran from this post https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/180303/#Comment_180303 because he has no answer in his indoctrination for it.
Strip away their excuses for "bad" translations and cherry picking verses with no regard to context and there's nothing left but their blind faith which they can't defend. One would think the god of the bible could truly deliver the 'infallible' word of god without relying on human hands to scribe it into so many erroneous transliterations and translations? -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
Good summary. Even prisoners of war were not allowed to be raped. Sex always had to be in a marriage setting and could not be compelled.RickeyHoltsclaw said:@Joeseph ; Why not study and practice discernment as opposed to listening to your fellow demonic atheists who are headed to de-ath in He-ll as you?Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are the ones that deal with rape (verses 25–27). The law has already prescribed the death penalty for that crime. Why would verses 28–29 address rape again and, in so doing, change the penalty? Obviously, different crimes are in view.
2) Exodus 22:16 is a parallel law: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.” No force is involved, only seduction. It’s a case of consensual sex and requires the same penalty as prescribed in Deuteronomy 22: the man pays a fine and marries the girl he slept with.
3) In the wording of Deuteronomy 22:28, the penalty is enforced if “they are discovered.” The fact that both of them are “discovered” indicates the consensual nature of the sexual act. The condition that “they” (plural) are found out makes no sense in the case of rape. Thus, this law covers a consensual tryst. A man who seduces a young woman, sleeps with her, and then expects to avoid all responsibility is thwarted in his plan. God instructs the couple to get married and stay married.
4) There are two distinct Hebrew words used in the same passage. In Deuteronomy 22:25, the word chazaq is translated “rapes.” But in verse 28 is a completely different verb (taphas), translated “seizes” in the ESV and “has intercourse with” in the NLT. The different verbs suggest different behaviors.
Critics of the Bible also point to Numbers 31, in which Moses tells his fighting men that “the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18 NLT). Critics wrongly assume that the captive women were to be raped. Rape is never mentioned in the passage. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women eventually marry some of the Israelites? Yes, probably. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@Joeseph ; Why not study and practice discernment as opposed to listening to your fellow demonic atheists who are headed to de-ath in He-ll as you?Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are the ones that deal with rape (verses 25–27). The law has already prescribed the death penalty for that crime. Why would verses 28–29 address rape again and, in so doing, change the penalty? Obviously, different crimes are in view.
2) Exodus 22:16 is a parallel law: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.” No force is involved, only seduction. It’s a case of consensual sex and requires the same penalty as prescribed in Deuteronomy 22: the man pays a fine and marries the girl he slept with.
3) In the wording of Deuteronomy 22:28, the penalty is enforced if “they are discovered.” The fact that both of them are “discovered” indicates the consensual nature of the sexual act. The condition that “they” (plural) are found out makes no sense in the case of rape. Thus, this law covers a consensual tryst. A man who seduces a young woman, sleeps with her, and then expects to avoid all responsibility is thwarted in his plan. God instructs the couple to get married and stay married.
4) There are two distinct Hebrew words used in the same passage. In Deuteronomy 22:25, the word chazaq is translated “rapes.” But in verse 28 is a completely different verb (taphas), translated “seizes” in the ESV and “has intercourse with” in the NLT. The different verbs suggest different behaviors.
Critics of the Bible also point to Numbers 31, in which Moses tells his fighting men that “the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18 NLT). Critics wrongly assume that the captive women were to be raped. Rape is never mentioned in the passage. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women eventually marry some of the Israelites? Yes, probably. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@MayCaesar
Oh, you also think that there is no reason to consider impact of one's positions on other individuals without god? Digging yourself in a deep hole here, I see.
Imagine, guys, tomorrow god showing up and saying, "I am leaving, folks. No more objective morals for you: live your lives without me". We will need to survive a short zombie apocalypse!
Add to that the irony of his "objective morals" position he thinks is supernaturally delivered was scribed by humans in reality and given to his religion by human hands.
-
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
The values and objectives is dependent. I don’t care about the rights, but it simply depends on what YOUR goal is. To your goal the rape victim’s interests are more important. But to me, if the rapist wins, he/she wins. If the rape victim gets their way, they won. I don’t care about their values, I only look at the aftermath. So let me repeat it to you, values importance depends on situation. In a neutral situation, the variables are neutral as well.cheetahgod360 said:@just_sayin
Cool.
Most atheists don’t like “acts of violence” because they too have the drive that stopped cavemen from killing each other. If you haven’t out what that is, it’s called morality. It can be in their own view of morality that’s far less than the Christian moral view but anything that has emotion usually has morality to some degree. Including me, I just don’t let it blind me. And that’s the reason why atheists don’t like rapists either.The values and objectives is dependent. I don’t care about the rights, but it simply depends on what YOUR goal is. To your goal the rape victim’s interests are more important. But to me, if the rapist wins, he/she wins. If the rape victim gets their way, they won. I don’t care about their values, I only look at the aftermath. So let me repeat it to you, values importance depends on situation. In a neutral situation, the variables are neutral as well.
You are a gold mine of sound bites!!!! I wish more people were on the site. You are essentially arguing that might makes right. I'm not accusing you of being Hitler, and I am using it as an analogy. In an atheistic evolutionary view, Hitler did nothing wrong in killing Jews, because it accomplished his goal. That's what the view you have championed for rationally concludes. When there is no objective moral source then what is right or wrong becomes one individual or group vs another individual or group. The interest of the victim is not considered, because in atheistic evolutionary thought the individual or group is not created in the image of God, but just an obstacle or tool to use to accomplish one's desires.
This kind of moral foundation is far from the notion of do unto others as you would have done unto you and 'Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.'. Your fellow atheists are so mad with you right now, because you are saying the quiet part out loud. Turn up the volume!!!! -
There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me
@MayCaesar, leave it to you to miss the point I made. I have repeatedly pointed out that atheism leads to the logical conclusion of the OP. When an objective moral source is denied, then individuals or groups will conclude that what they want is the greatest good, no matter how that impacts another individual or group. Without an objective source of good, you can't really recognize what is evil. Thank you, once again, for making my point for me. I am loving this debate topic!!! - it is spotlighting the inherent problems of an atheist moral system.MayCaesar said:
This is a pretty good argument for Christians being the least moral people in the world. That they think that there is no good reason to be against rape other than the word of some celestial creature say a lot.just_sayin said:
Again, I want to give you a bullhorn so that others can hear you. Most of the atheists on this site would agree that there is no objective morality, but would get uncomfortable with the logical conclusion - that acts of violence are OK. They cling to a religious morality that their view does not support. Their moral values are borrowed from a system they reject. If they were logically consistent, they would be pro-rape also.
I find it hilarious, you are attacking the guy who says rape is wrong and defends moral absolutes, while ignoring the ramifications of the logical conclusions of a non-objective moral system. That is so you, May. It speaks volumes.
