• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Regardless whether or not there exists an "objective" moral stance on an action, the "subjective" moral stance on said action can be held by a great many or all of the members of a given community/society, etc. Atheists included.

I am an atheist. I recognize morals as being subjective ideas. I am in agreement that rape is inherently wrong within our shared, subjective view of reality/morality. I am free to condemn anything I wish to that doesn't live up to my standard of subjective morals. If most everyone else feels the same on a particular subject, then we reach consensus - the closest thing we're going to get to "objective" morality.

Where is the problem?
 
Last edited:
Jeremiahcp

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
BilliardsBall said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape"

I said no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

What does the bible have to do with it?

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

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean....
Deuteronomy 22:25-28 ESV / 232 helpful votes
“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

And

Galatians 5:19-21 ESV / 48 helpful votes
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I know. I know. Yall just looking at the wrong contradictions. Like murder. God kills and condemns killing. When he kills its fine. When others do it, its not.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Carlita said:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
Click to expand...
Allow me to finish that:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
I find that incredibly insensitive and malevolent.
Carlita said:
When he kills its fine. When others do it, its not.
Click to expand...
That's not a valid excuse.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
BilliardsBall said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I recall, rape was a little more complicated back then. There were certain classes of women that certain men had a right to 'know,' and I recall the penalty for rape of an unbethrothed woman is fifty shekels to her father and he must marry her.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Revoltingest said:
Almost the end.
I'll add that our agreement on this doesn't originate in the dictates of some book.
Tis just who we are.
Click to expand...

Important addition. I've always been a little leery about people who insist that one's morals have to come from a book. The only thing stopping them from murdering, stealing, and coveting my wife's *** is a book? That's a bit worrisome.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Kilgore Trout said:
Important addition. I've always been a little leery about people who insist that one's morals have to come from a book. The only thing stopping them from murdering, stealing, and coveting my wife's *** is a book? That's a bit worrisome.
Click to expand...
Perhaps God gave faith to bad people, & reserved atheism for the good ones.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top