Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
You can be married and still need consent to have sex.
edit: you were joking rat spit, my bad.
LMFAO RatSpit is an Athiest. How have we not figured this out before?
*big grin* maybe I am, maybe I’m not :p
rat spit "@Sheldon
It’s not rape if they’re married and the man in question is a great prophet."
So you really believe it is moral to have sex with children as young as nine? That's a disgusting claim, utterly repugnant.
Even as a joke that's pretty repugnant. I do hope you're joking.
@Sheldon
Who said anything about “morality”? Is it moral or immoral to cross the street!!!??? (For example). I’m merely pointing out that it’s not rape. But now I’m interested. Tell me why it’s immoral, please.
Better yet. A group of jihadis has a gun to her head and tells you that unless you rape her, they will kill her. What is the “moral” thing to do?
(Yes. I’m just playing Muhammed’s advocate. I’m not serious). The hypothetical however is meant to be taken seriously.
@Rat Spit Re: "A group of jihadis has a gun to her head and tells you that unless you rape her, they will kill her. What is the “moral” thing to do?"
Hey there, Ratty. You really piqued my interest with that question. Fascinating scenario. Actually had to take a bit of time to think about it. Interestingly enough, I am actually able to mentally "project" myself into settings like that. (Many years of police and military experience.) That being said, right or wrong, here is my response....
In this particular situation, morality is not an issue. If circumstances are so fucked up as to be in this position in the first place, it is very likely both me and the little girl are going to be killed, regardless. Meaning, no matter which "option" I choose, both of us are going to die, anyway. It is only a matter of how soon and by what method. And if this group of fucktards are willing to play such sick and twisted games, it means they are likely to kill me just as soon as I finished having sex with the girl, and then do even worse things to her after I am dead. Now, keep in mind, I would have to consider many, many, many other factors that are not given in your scenario, but as it is, let's say for the purpose of this example, we are in a TOTALLY isolated area, no "friendlies" anywhere near, and I KNOW there is absolutely NO CHANCE the good guys will be crashing in to save the day. We also have to consider exactly how many bad guys are immediately within my range. Are we inside a secured room or outside in an open area? What type of weapons do they have? Again, many, many, many factors to consider. Is the little girl tied/bound/secured or not? So, let's say we are in a secured room, with.... oh... say... six or seven shit-tards carrying rifles, and the little girl is bound to a sturdy table. Absolutely no way out of this place. Cool?
Okay, so, for starters, I will tell you right now, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would obey those fuckers and have sex with the little girl. Not gonna happen. Period. No matter what the parameters are, even if they told me they would let me go free afterwards. That being said, I would rather see the little girl killed quickly with a bullet to the head rather than have her killed slowly by rape and torture at the hands of the fuckers in the room. So, basically, that leaves me two options. One, pretend to go along with them. Then when I get close to her kill her quickly myself and then try to take out as many of the fuckers as I can before they kill me. Or, two, do something to force them to kill her, and then try to kill as many of them as I can before they kill me. Unfortunately, option one would likely be my best option to make sure she does not get tortured by the terrorist fucks. Either way, neither she nor I will be getting out of there alive. My only goal would be to make sure the little girl is not tortured and that I might get lucky enough to take one or two of the slimy pieces of shit down with me. Realistically, it's a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it.
@ TM
It is posts like this that make me glad that you are here TM. I would not have put that nearly so lucidly.
Incidentally that one post alone makes you Waaaaayyyy more moral than that piece of shit in the bible and a thousand times more moral than the same (but different) piece of crap in the Qu'ran. Kudos.
@Tin Man
Excellent response. I think “fighting/dying” for a cause (in this situation - not giving into their sick requests - opposing evil, etc.) is a moral decision - and the right moral decision in this case.
But as you seem to say - it is a logistic kind of numbers game, I think, in the end - especially if you know you’re both going to die and you want to bring some of them along in the process.
@Rat Spit and Old Man
Thank you.... Thank you both... *nodding head once in respect*....
rat spit, "Who said anything about “morality”?"
I did, it's in my post that you responded to.
rat spit "I’m merely pointing out that it’s not rape. "
So you weren't joking then, you genuinely believe a nine year old child can consent to sex with an adult in their 50's?
"Tell me why it’s immoral, please."
If you mean why do I think it is immoral, then I already stated why, several times. It is a deeply pernicious act that causes unimaginable trauma to a child that will have a pernicious effect their entire lives.
"Better yet. A group of jihadis (sic) has a gun to her head and tells you that unless you rape her, they will kill her. What is the “moral” thing to do?"
Jihadists not jihadis (sic), and it would still be deeply immoral to rape anyone, let alone a child, do you even need to ask? I am not responsible for the actions of others, only my own actions. What you are describing is moral relativism, and I do not subscribe to this, and your example is a perfect illustration of why.
You are also completely ignoring the context of my original question. SFT and Royism tried to claim moral ascendancy for their religious beliefs, by claiming morality was possible if their deity was real and offered an objective moral standard. I asked SFT if he believed it was ever moral for a man in his 50's to rape a nine year old child? The inference is obvious for any adherent of Islam. Of course having delivered their sententious and condescending claim against atheist or secular morality, they are both too cowardly to even acknowledge the question, let alone offer a candid answer, but this kind of cowardly evasion if what we have come to expect of many religious apologists on here.
Do you really believe there are any circumstances where a nine year old child can consent to sex with an adult?
@Sheldon
I think it’s disgusting and fucked up - and I have a hard time believing pedophilia is now considered a “mental disorder” - but I was raised in a world that taught us to sympathize with people who cannot control their actions - although I think it’s more than fair that when these people end up in jail, they get what they deserve.
Honestly I’m torn between my liberal upbringing and feeling sorry for pedophiles because they are mentally ill - together with a joy in watching such predators die slow and painful deaths.
The line between mental disorder and fucked up, sick behaviour has already been drawn by the medical community - and the pedophiles have won. It sickens me that the politics of today make concessions for people like this.
It’s a can of worms. I think they deserve painful deaths and if some gene determines them to be the way they are - then what? I don’t know. I’m a product of the times I was raised in.
I’m sure many would not hesitate to say “let them die and burn”. And now the medical community has deemed them mentally ill. It’s a slippery slope which I think science has already gone over.
rat spit,
"I’m sure many would not hesitate to say “let them die and burn”. And now the medical community has deemed them mentally ill. It’s a slippery slope which I think science has already gone over."
People keep forgetting that pedophilia was perfectly legal through the end of the 19th Century. Our ancestors did it and were victims of it. So they were mentally il by today's standard. The Jewish Talmud says that it is OK to have sex with three-year olds and they have never denounced it. The Bible approves of baby raping, which is probably why priests, nuns, and preachers don't seem to be interested in condemning it. Hopefully they have stopped sacrificing and eating them.
I don’t even care if you’re married! If you’re a great prophet - and you’ve received “God’s” permission - I mean - come on? That’s God literally saying, “fornicate with the young”!!!
Just kidding. I don’t actually think that. I was just playing Muhammed’s advocate. I find the whole idea distasteful and in bad taste. It’s objectively wrong to rape a nine year old. There. Are you happy, doG.
By the way. Nice article about the auditory thalamus. But, uh ... how you gunna account for “hallucinations” (as you like to call them) in the other four senses? Hey? How bout dat?
The OP is just a convoluted word soup whining about infinitesimal differences in words and their meanings. Mate, you claim to have proven the existence of a being without which nothing else would exist. Outside your own imagination you have proven shit. I repeat others, you cannot reason anything into existence, philosophy and apologetics suck like that.
St Paul, John Philoponus, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Thomas Aquinas, Dun Scotus, Spinoza, Liebniz, George Hayward Joyce, Robert Koons, W.L. Craig are just a few of the theists who have argued and supported the idea that everything that exists has a prime ultimate supernatural cause, in various re-phrasings, but with the same inherent meaning. And I could include all the heathen Greeks who came up with the idea in the first place and defied whiny-arsed Abrahamic theists to continue believing in their own pagan gods.
Call it the argument of the prime mover, the unmoved mover, the first cause, the cosmological principle, creatio ex deo, creatio ex nihilio, universal causation or even how god created the cosmos, it is still just a wordy vague claim and not a fully explained, documented, proven objective fact. First things first: prove there is a god.
I wont wait for part two, but wouldn't you rather go back to taunting imagined illiterate whiny arsed online teenage atheists who are probably just cyber bullies trolling you?
@Grinseed
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 likes for you. I'm growing tired of all our pseudo-debates here with theists that are spounting nothing more than old centuries apologetics.
Thanks for all them likes Talyyn. Don't know where I'm going to put them all.
I really hate those pseudo intellectual Greek/Jewish syntheses of philosophy and theology.
The one I hate most is the Ontological Argument that insists that if you can think of a god, that god actually exists in your mind, even if you are an atheist, and therefore, (somehow) a greater god must exist in reality. This is cutting edge 11th century theology that incredibly still finds supporters in modern christian philosophy.
But the "greater" is only as great as they can think of it so even then it is downright strange. Kalam argument has a premise that may or may not be true and a huge slippery slope as a conclusion.
If teenagers get under your skin... you won't find success here either.
He won't find success because the atheists here require sufficient objective evidence before they will believe any claim, and he has none. Only endless appeal to ignorance fallacies, in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof on his bizarre claim that our thoughts have an external supernatural cause.
Let's go over the lame bollocks churned out over and over again by the incredulous....
- "But, meh holyyyy book!!!"
- "that's not what I'm discussing here, that's for another thread"
- "you don't understand the context of that scripture"
The list of horse shit is endless...
Pages