Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism and rape"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
I challenge someone to justify this article in light of my comments above. The article is offensive, ludicrous, poorly cited, and draws widespread conclusions from a sample of TWO individuals. COME ON. I know your all very religious, but that doesn't mean you've lost your ability for critical thought (I should know. I'm a born-again atheist).
 
I challenge someone to justify this article in light of my comments above. The article is offensive, ludicrous, poorly cited, and draws widespread conclusions from a sample of TWO individuals. COME ON. I know your all very religious, but that doesn't mean you've lost your ability for critical thought (I should know. I'm a born-again atheist).
 +
::I too reject the idea of deities since there is one and only one God. Secondly, you didn't show why this system of morality is valid: "I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans." Where is the basis of the ought? Lastly, atheism does not have a good historical track record when it comes to morality and the issue of violence: [[Atheism and murder]] and [[Atheism and sadism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
  
 
== Seriously?! ==
 
== Seriously?! ==

Revision as of 13:38, July 11, 2012

Wow...so two atheists are complete jackwads and this allows you to tar anyone who doesn't believe in your almight sky daddy. wtg SterlingMaloryArcher 20:41, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Why does TheAmazingAtheist still have over 280,000 subscribers? Is the Freedom From Religion Foundation merely a shadow of its former shelf post Dan Barker's statements? Why is there not a single piece of negative information on Dan Barker's Wikipedia page?[1] Where is the negative reporting of Dan Barker on this atheist/skeptic wiki? Of course, this is easy to explain. Atheists love their sin and hate God. Conservative 21:09, 16 February 2012 (EST)
Addendum: Given your lack of response, I suggest you read THIS Conservative 22:06, 16 February 2012 (EST)

atheist moral relativism vs. the Bible

Of course atheists assert there are no absolutes in morality. They reject out of hand the one source of absolutes in morality on this and every other subject, namely, the Bible. This fact cannot be emphasized enough, in my opinion. DavidE 09:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Seriously?!

This is just getting silly now. I am an atheist, in so much as I reject the notion of deities, and yet I condemn rape. I can do this without 'borrowing from the judeo-christian world-view' too. I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans.

The means by which I can arrive at this morality requires no fear of Hell, and when I don't rape someone as I pass them by in the street, it's not because I fear the wrath of an all powerful God or a burning lake of sulfur for all eternity, but because I have no desire to cause suffering, and, quite frankly, I wouldn't enjoy it. The world-view to which this article refers is in fact borrowed from Buddhism anyway, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself' is really just a long-winded means of referring to Karma, derived in something like 600 BCE.

This article implies that the only reason Christians do not rape people is because of a fear of God. So, if God was somehow proven to not exist, all previous Christians would then go on a lovely little rape spree, now that God won't be punishing them?

(The notion that Christians are less likely to rape than atheists is also ridiculous. Another article (Decline of Atheism) states that only 2% of the world are atheists. Statistically, the VAST MAJORITY of rapists must be religious, and given Christianity is the largesr religion, it should have the greatest share of rapes).

I could go on justifying my point, I could point to Lott offering his virgin daughter up for rape in order to save Gabriel (who, as an Angel, is MORE than capable of taking care of himself. As powerful as 1000 roman legions, or something like that?), and numerous other stories such as this in that lovely tomb of morality than is the Bible.... but I think these comments will be largely ignored.

I challenge someone to justify this article in light of my comments above. The article is offensive, ludicrous, poorly cited, and draws widespread conclusions from a sample of TWO individuals. COME ON. I know your all very religious, but that doesn't mean you've lost your ability for critical thought (I should know. I'm a born-again atheist).

I too reject the idea of deities since there is one and only one God. Secondly, you didn't show why this system of morality is valid: "I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans." Where is the basis of the ought? Lastly, atheism does not have a good historical track record when it comes to morality and the issue of violence: Atheism and murder and Atheism and sadism Conservative 09:38, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Seriously?!

This is just getting silly now. I am an atheist, in so much as I reject the notion of deities, and yet I condemn rape. I can do this without 'borrowing from the judeo-christian world-view' too. I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans.

The means by which I can arrive at this morality requires no fear of Hell, and when I don't rape someone as I pass them by in the street, it's not because I fear the wrath of an all powerful God or a burning lake of sulfur for all eternity, but because I have no desire to cause suffering, and, quite frankly, I wouldn't enjoy it. The world-view to which this article refers is in fact borrowed from Buddhism anyway, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself' is really just a long-winded means of referring to Karma, derived in something like 600 BCE.

This article implies that the only reason Christians do not rape people is because of a fear of God. So, if God was somehow proven to not exist, all previous Christians would then go on a lovely little rape spree, now that God won't be punishing them?

(The notion that Christians are less likely to rape than atheists is also ridiculous. Another article (Decline of Atheism) states that only 2% of the world are atheists. Statistically, the VAST MAJORITY of rapists must be religious, and given Christianity is the largest religion, it should have the greatest share of rapes).

I could go on justifying my point, I could point to Lott offering his virgin daughter up for rape in order to save Gabriel (who, as an Angel, is MORE than capable of taking care of himself. As powerful as 1000 roman legions, or something like that?), and numerous other stories such as this in that lovely tomb of morality than is the Bible.... but I think these comments will be largely ignored. LucoDaw 09:20, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

I challenge someone to justify this article in light of my comments above. The article is offensive, ludicrous, poorly cited, and draws widespread conclusions from a sample of TWO individuals. COME ON. I know your all very religious, but that doesn't mean you've lost your ability for critical thought (I should know. I'm a born-again atheist).