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.
Well I could certainly use the money. Best to wait until after my divorce though. Half a tiara won't have quite the same look.
@ Sheldon
Well, we could certainly sell reverse jig saw version to your ex...the one wher you get the puzzle complete, tear it apart and then throw the pieces on the fire...or even a mini version with just a package of vital puzzle pieces and a scalpel....
@Sheldon
What you have asked theists to do by your proposition is to prove something objectively that has no objective basis whatsoever! Not only religious morals, neither does your atheistic morals have any objectivity. If you say otherwise, tell me how you can prove your morals objectively!
@ROYISM.
How apt, you start with a lie, I've never claimed objective morality exists, quite the opposite, and what's more you know this. You also completely and typically ignore the thread OP entirely, as it exposes a previous lie of yours that your religion contains objective morality.
Just as previously you repeatedly refused to answer whether there is any context in which it is moral for a man in his fifties to rape a nine year old child?
The inference from your dishonest evasion obviously is that you would either have to claim your religion's most revered prophet behaved immorally or that the rape of a nine year old child can have a context when it was moral. Thus destroying your own claim that your religion provides objective morality.
So please answer the thread OP questions, and the longstanding question you have shamefully refused to answer, and stop trying to dishonestly assign claims to me that I never made.
@Sheldon
You said: How apt, you start with a lie, I've never claimed objective morality exists, quite the opposite, and what's more you know this.
Here is your post: ‘I would also like to ask to any theists here to list ten objectively moral actions, with evidence obviously,
It is this post that I was referring to when I stated that are demanding theists “to prove something objectively that has no objective basis whatsoever.”
You said: “Just as previously you repeatedly refused to answer whether there is any context in which it is moral for a man in his fifties to rape a nine year old child?”
In the previous posts we were discussing the topic of objectivity in morality. And you put forth this question by making a moral judgement, while the basis of the judgement was yet to be cleared. Okay, now here is my answer. ‘Rape of a nine year old child by a fifty year old man’ is morally WRONG.
We have seen you post multiple times that objective morality is possible and only possible through the existence of your deity. Many theists make this claim, and I quite clearly aimed the question at them, so are you being deliberately obtuse?
Another lie, the question contains no judgments, though one can be inferred from an answer. I personally however clarified my own views multiple times, and explained the reasons I made this moral judgement based on my own subjective moral worldview. So again you're lying.
I asked if it there was ANY context in which the rape of a nine year old child could be considered moral, so you are being evasive. Do you believe Mohamned's rape of a nine year old child was immoral? Do you even believe it was non consensual and therefore rape? Do you believe a nine year old child can ever give informed consent to sex with a 50 year old? It's pretty simple really if as you claim your religion contains objective morality, then how are our morals now better now than Mohammed's were then? Or do you think it would be a more moral society if 50 year old men were still allowed to rape or have sex with 9 year old children?
You also still haven't offered ten examples of objectively moral acts with evidence. Nor have you offered ten beliefs you hold without any objective evidence that have nothing to do with your religious beliefs.
Or alternatively to the second question demonstrated objective evidence for any deity.
So again no real answers from you ROYISM, just dishonesty and evasion, deliberate?
@Sheldon
You said: “Another lie, the question contains no judgments, though one can be inferred from an answer.”
GOD!!! I was referring to your question on ‘rape of 9 year old’. You ask these questions in the middle of discussions pertaining to objectivity of morality. And I did not answer it because if you can’t show me objectively how you arrived at that moral judgement, then why should I even entertain it.
You said: “I personally however clarified my own views multiple times, and explained the reasons I made this moral judgement based on my own subjective moral worldview.”
Why should I entertain your ‘SUBJECTIVE” moral worldview? It’s only as good as anyone else’s subjective worldview. Some people say killing animals is cruel. Some say homosexuality is wrong, and vice versa. All these positions are equidistant from any moral referral. Meaning… they could all be equally right or equally wrong.
You said: “I asked if it there was ANY context in which the rape of a nine year old child could be considered moral, so you are being evasive.”
I thought I made it very clear. Okay let me dumb it down further: “THERE IS NO CONTEXT IN WHICH THE RAPE OF A NINE YEAR OLD CHILD COULD BE CONSIDERED MORAL.”
You said: “Do you believe Mohamned's rape of a nine year old child was immoral?”
Please bring your proof. Where did you get this information from?
You said: “Do you believe a nine year old child can ever give informed consent to sex with a 50 year old?”
Oh I see. Since you seem to be cocksure that a 9 year old can’t give consent, then you surely must be knowing the right age of consent. Which is that, can you please enlighten me? I think if you can cite that age objectively, then the rest of your questions will be automatically answered.
A lie again, this question is longstanding, and the original context was you claiming objective morality was possible and only possible through your religion.
The context is obvious to everyone, as if Mohammed was immoral then your claim is demonstrably false, if Mohammed was objectively moral then his his rape of a nine year old child must also be moral. You have avoided giving a direct answer, is there ANY context in which a 50+ year old man having sex with a nine year old child is moral. It's a yes no question, so please stop with the dishonest evasion. As my or anyone else's opinion is moot to your answer.
More dishonesty, as I have not claimed you should. It's not my moral worldview the thread questions are examining, it's the theistic claim for objective morality, and so secular morality is entirely moot. So why do you keep trying to evade this? If you want to examine the subjective morality of atheists or secularism start a thread, or use one if the many that already exist.
Again you are shockingly dishonest in evading my question as you know there are only two answers, and my own subjective view is irrelevant to either.
Was it moral for Mohammed to have sex with a nine year old child? You e already said there is no context in which this could be considered moral...
So there is only one answer. So if objective morality is possible and only possible through your revealed koran, how did your religion's most revered prophet and author of the koran, (allegedly) to whom your deity revealed this objective morality, be immoral in having sex with a nine year old child when he was over 50 years of age?
Are we going to get a candid answer one wonders? Or more irrelevant evasion about my moral worldview which has zero bearing on the thread questions.
And you STILL haven't offered ten examples of objectively moral actions ROYISM? Or offered ten examples of beliefs you hold that have nothing to do with your religious beliefs and for which you can demonstrate no objective evidence? Or of course demonstrate objective evidence for any deity?
Same old ROYISM...
@Sheldon
You said: “How did your religion's most revered prophet and author of that time to whom your deity revealed this objective morality immoral in having sex with a nine year old child when he was over 50 years of age?”
I said ‘RAPE’ was wrong. Not sex through marriage. Why is it suddenly you dropped the word ‘rape’ from your question. If you are alleging rape, then bring the proof.
You said: “And you STILL haven't offered ten examples of objectively moral actions ROYISM? “
Meaning of Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Going by that meaning of objective, I take my morality from Islamic scriptures. I take whatever is stated there as my moral dictum. I don’t take or reject any dictum in it based on my personal feelings or opinions. So here are 10 moral codes I follow from it without any personal bias.
I don’t drink alcohol.
I don’t lie, cheat or steal.
I don’t use foul language or abuse people/calling names
I don’t give or take interest (on loan or otherwise)
I make sure that my neighbor is not going hungry
I don’t worship idols
I forgive personal wrongs done unto me
I don’t eat meat slaughtered in non-Halal ways
I give a fixed part of my savings in charity every year
I take extreme care in making sure my parents are not offended in any way by my words or deeds.
@ROYISM
So you think it's objectively moral for a man in his 50"s to marry and have sex with a nine year old child?
It's a yes no question, so do please stop with the semantics.
Your list doesn't have any evidence those actions are objectively moral, your doing precisely what my OP said not to and simply assuming your religious beliefs make them objective.
Something is objectively true independent of anyones opinion. The fact you are claiming to be an amoral automaton who blindly follows the rules set out in your religion's holy book doesn't make those rules objectively moral. Hence my question, which you seem not to understand.
But then I'm not sure we can expect cogent understanding of moral complexity from anyone who thinks 9byear old children can give informed consent to sex with adults in their 50's.
Do you have children, would you have been happy to marry them off at 9?
Dear oh dear..
@Sheldon
You said: “So you think it's objectively moral for a man in his 50"s to marry and have sex with a nine year old child? It's a yes no question, so do please stop with the semantics.”
YES. The moment you say ‘marry’, then it means it’s happening with the consent of not just the girl, but the two families as well. The appropriate age for sexual intercourse in Islam for girls is menstrual cycle. So, if the girl is sexually mature in this sense and there is the consent of the families… then who are we to sit 1400 years away from that event and pass our judgement on them wearing our 21st century lens.
Your said: “Your list doesn't have any evidence those actions are objectively moral, your doing precisely what my OP said not to and simply assuming your religious beliefs make them objective.”
That’s why I gave you the definition of ‘objective’… my moral tenets will not be influenced by my personal bias. I may be living in a society where Hijab for women may be considered as tyranny or whatever. Yet, I would consider Hijab as morally right… because I am following a book, not personal whims and fancies. Anyone who follows that book will end up with the same conclusion, no matter what his background is.
You said: “Something is objectively true independent of any ones opinion.”
Agreed.
You said: “The fact you are claiming to be an amoral automaton who blindly follows the rules set out in your religion's holy book doesn't make those rules objectively moral.”
You could argue they are not logical… but they are objectively moral so long as they are not influenced by my personal opinions.
You said: “But then I'm not sure we can expect cogent understanding of moral complexity from anyone who thinks 9byear old children can give informed consent to sex with adults in their 50's.”
That’s just an assertion, because you have to first show me on what basis you are making the judgement.
You said: “Do you have children, would you have been happy to marry them off at 9?
I have children and I WILL NOT marry them off at 9. That’s because Islam does not prescribe 9 as some cut-off age to marry off girls. It only says that marriage is permissible starting from when a girl hits puberty. However, when exactly you want to get them married off is up to each one’s discretion depending on the needs of the time. Now that we have a system of education, university etc… I would not marry them off and risk jeopardizing their education. There is also the law of the land that one has to follow.
Then I just hope you have no children, and never have any influence over any, you're an amoral scumbag.
Which doesn't make them objectively moral, and I explained this, and can't dumb it down any more for you, sadly since you're an amoral automaton this is to be expected.
Well there you go, an amoral automaton, QED. Even good Nazis managed to "follow the rules."
A particularly idiotic and vapid tautology, yet you espouse with pride, as if being closed minded and with no morals of your own is something to take pride in. And as we see, this achievement has culminated in you asserting raping nine year old children is moral, and YES it is rape you vile amoral cretin.
"blockquote> ROYISM "You said: “Something is objectively true independent of any ones opinion.”
Agreed."
You really don't see the irony, this is a typical failure among theists I find. Try asking yourself what validates something as true. You might want to try and grasp the purpose of this thread, as there is a huge clue in the OP questions.
"blockquote> ROYISM"You said: “The fact you are claiming to be an amoral automaton who blindly follows the rules set out in your religion's holy book doesn't make those rules objectively moral.”
You could argue they are not logical… but they are objectively moral so long as they are not influenced by my personal opinions."
Oh dear, objectively true means it is true independent of ANYONE'S opinion, it does not mean something becomes true just because you choose to blindly believe it without offering an opinion ffs. dear oh dear.
"blockquote> Royism "You said: “But then I'm not sure we can expect cogent understanding of moral complexity from anyone who thinks 9 year old children can give informed consent to sex with adults in their 50's.”
That’s just an assertion, because you have to first show me on what basis you are making the judgement."
On the basis you have no morality, you have said so, you simply blindly follow an archaic barbaric and cruel religious tome:-
I didn't ask if you will, I asked if you would be happy to marry them off at nine?. It's amusing you think you can be so dishonest now and we won't notice. However it's quite sickening to think you have children, If I knew your identity, and you lived in the UK I'd phone social services.
The time is irrelevant, if a precept is objectively moral then it can never change, something else you have failed to grasp the significance of.
That's just your subjective opinion, how can your opinion and secular law usurps objective morality from an all powerful deity? And again I never asked if you would marry them off, just if you would be happy to do so, and we can all infer the answer from your nauseating posts.
Your religious beliefs sicken me...
@Sheldon
You said: “Then I just hope you have no children, and never have any influence over any, you're an amoral scumbag.”
Baseless assertion. With what moral standard are you judging me?
You said: “Which doesn't make them objectively moral, and I explained this, and can't dumb it down any more for you, sadly since you're an amoral automaton this is to be expected.”
You did no explain anything. I gave you a proper definition. And I showed you how my moral standard is not influenced by my personal opinions.
You said: “Well there you go, an amoral automaton, QED. Even good Nazis managed to "follow the rules."
In so far as the rules go… they were objective of course. For that matter any book of constitution or law is objective.
You said: “A particularly idiotic and vapid tautology, yet you espouse with pride, as if being closed minded and with no morals of your own is something to take pride in.”
You are just making assertions (just adding more expletives doesn’t improve your argument)
You said: “and YES it is rape you vile amoral cretin.”
Just calling me names doesn’t prove anything! A marriage that happened with the consent of family members in a society where that was a norm – not matter what gymnastics you do – cannot be rape.
"blockquote> ROYISM "You said: “Something is objectively true independent of any ones opinion.”
Agreed."
You said: You really don't see the irony, this is a typical failure among theists I find.
My morality is indeed independent of my personal opinions. To that extent it is objective. Otherwise it too should have changed over time like yours.
You said: “it does not mean something becomes true just because you choose to blindly believe it without offering an opinion ffs. dear oh dear.”
That’s not my claim. Let me give you an example. The rules of chess are objectively true. What does that mean? It simply means that everybody who is interested in playing chess will be able to agree on a common set of rules and play by them. These rules don’t change with time or according to the emotional state of the player etc. Whereas appreciating a piece of art is subjective. It changes from person to person based on their opinions.
Now, my morality functions more like the chess rules rather than the art appreciation. Whereas yours is like the latter.
You said: “I didn't ask if you will, I asked if you would be happy to marry them off at nine?.”
It’s obvious that I am not happy doing so, that’s why I wouldn’t get them married off.
You said: “The time is irrelevant, if a precept is objectively moral then it can never change, something else you have failed to grasp the significance of.”
Goodness me. Let me go back to my chess example. The chess rule says that the bishop can be moved in any direction depending on the discretion of the player. That gives the player the right to decide how he wants to move it based on the situation of the game. He may also choose to not move it at all. This is all within the rules of the game. But just because there are options that players can exercise, it doesn’t mean that the rules are not objective.
Similarly, Islam says that a girl can be married off from the time she hits puberty. But depending on the cultural and social mores, the needs of the time, etc… she can marry any time she/family chooses to. It could be 18, 25, or whatever age. This does not go against the moral tenets. It’s still objective.
You said: “That's just your subjective opinion, how can your opinion and secular law usurps objective morality from an all powerful deity?”
I have not usurped anything from the deity. I am just exercising the freedom of choice granted by the deity within the rules prescribed by HIM. As explained above.
Refusing to have an opinion on something doesn't make it objectively true. However believing something is itself an affirmation of a claim. It is your opinion that your religious books archaic superstitious dogma is objectively true, this doesn't make it so. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim? I
The thread OP asks for ten examples of objectively moral actions, with evidence, you've failed to answer this, just offering a list of religious doctrinal beliefs, the inference is clear.
Only a vile immoral scumbag would try and justify the rape of a 9 year old child, and it is rape by definition, as a nine year old child cannot give informed consent.
Its pretty illuminating to see you get all self righteous about the rights of an insentient blastocyst, then claim it's moral for an adult in their 50's to have sex with nine year old children as long as they marry them.
Do you think this is ok for 50cyear old women btw, to marry and have sex with 9 year old boys? The mind boggles at the fetid swamp you peddle as objective morality.
Why on earth do you keep trying to to offer excuses of context? The vile immoral attitudes of the period compared to today are irrelevant as you keep claiming Mohammed was dictated perfect objective morality directly from a deity, si the time period has no relevance ffs.
This perfect morality has you claiming raping 9 year children is moral, and murder is excusable if its revenge. Christ on a bike....
That chess analogy is incomprehensible idiocy. If as you claim morals are objectice, then Mohammed's rape of a nine year old child cannot be mitigated by the attitudes of the society and time he lived in, if you don't understand this then you clearly don't understand what objective morality is, but then it is clear you don't understand it as you think simply not having an opinion makes something objectively true. I'm still shaking my head with incredulity at the stupidity of that claim. If refused to have an opinion on the claim the earth is flat and believe it blindly does that make it objectively true? Dear oh fucking dear but that is dumb.
So raping children after marrying them is fine, as long as it's not your children. Christ almighty...and you think that's objective morality.
Thank you, this exchange has perfectly illustrated the moral bankruptcy that blind unquestioning adherence to archaic superstition must produce.
I reiterate you are an amoral automaton, and I leave it to others to read this thread and justify if they can your vile attempts to justify paedophilia and the rape of children.
Your false affectation claims to any morality, let alone objective morality is in tatters.
See you in a few months for another repetition of this demonstration of the vile immorality your beliefs fester.
@ Royism
Let us narrow this down a little then ROYISM as I suspect you are using weasel words....
Do you think that the marriage of a six year old to a 50 year old man is moral?
Do you think the sexual penetration of a nine year old by a 50plus year old man is moral? 'Married' or not?
Do you think a six year old can give informed consent to sexual acts such as "thighing?"?
Do you think a nine year old can give informed, free consent to full penetrative sex with a 50 year old man?
Are there any circumstances that you can explain where such acts are ethical and moral?
@Old Man shouts
You said: “Do you think that the marriage of a six year old to a 50 year old man is moral?”
Okay let me give you the full background of that marriage between Mohammed (PBUH) and Aisha.
No. 1
Aisha was 6 years old. In the Arab custom back then, parents would enter into marriage agreements for their children with partners they considered suitable. This is only an engagement, though they called it ‘marriage’. None of the marital laws applies to this agreement. If after the child comes of age and for some reason the union doesn’t take place, it’s not treated like a divorce or anything. No alimony is paid etc. Meaning this engagement is just an informal agreement.
No. 2
The marriage is considered consummated only after the bride and the groom unite sexually. The physical marker for the marriageable age (sexual union) for girls is menstruation. However, depending on the situation, the mental maturity of the girl (as judged by the parents), cultural norms, social mores etc… this age can be delayed.
So when Aisha hit puberty, she was married off in the full sense of the word.
No. 3
Marriages (back then and even today) in the Islamic society is a not just a union of 2 individuals, rather it’s a merger of two families. As in, the family members (mainly parents, who put the interest of their child foremost) play an active role in helping the bride make the right decision. So, the consent of the bride is backed and supported by the wisdom of the elders in the family. But yes, the ultimate consent has to come from the bride.
The union took place with the full consent of Aisha’s family. Moreover, it was not an unusual union in the society. In fact, Aisha was already engaged at 6 before the prophet’s proposal. It was cancelled when the new proposal came. Meaning, this was a norm in that society.
You said: “Do you think a six year old can give informed consent to sexual acts such as "thighing?"
Can you bring the proof for this from hadith?
@ROYISM
Either an adult over 50 marrying and having sex with 9 year old children is objectively moral, or it is not. The era in which it occurred is entirely moot to that point. Something you don't seem to understand.
If it's not then how can anyone believe a man who did this also received specific instructions directly from a deity on objective morality? If you think it is ok for adults in their 50's to marry and have sex with 9 year old children then say so, and be prepared for the inference everyone here will make about any beliefs that make such a vile assertion.
@Sheldon
You said: “Either an adult over 50 marrying and having sex with 9 year old children is objectively moral, or it is not. The era in which it occurred is entirely moot to that point. Something you don't seem to understand.”
Please read the example of ‘chess rules’ I have mentioned in my reply to another post of yours. That answers this time-period confusion.
@ Royism
Evasion. Many cultures "back then" endorsed child marriage but rarely consummation. Do YOU think it is Moral...? Do you think a six year old child is able to give informed consent to that sort of union?
More evasion. Do you think a nine year old girl is capable of giving informed consent to a marriage? Or a sexual union?
Obviously not in the 'best interests" of the child....when the child in question is procured for the sexual interest of a much older male.
So fucking what? Answer the fucking question without evasion...I asked if YOU thought it was moral...I will make it direct.. would you allow your nine year old daughter to be secually penetrated by a 50 year old male?
Stop evading direct questions. Answer my original questions.
Here they are again, so you can address them properly....
Do you think that the marriage of a six year old to a 50 year old man is moral?
Do you think the sexual penetration of a nine year old by a 50plus year old man is moral? 'Married' or not?
Do you think a six year old can give informed consent to sexual acts such as "thighing?"?
Do you think a nine year old can give informed, free consent to full penetrative sex with a 50 year old man?
Are there any circumstances that you can explain where such acts are ethical and moral?
Simple questions asking for a direct and honest answer from you.
@Old man shouts
You said: Do you think that the marriage of a six year old to a 50 year old man is moral?
Yes it is moral. That’s the reason I gave you the background to that story. In an age when a girl who comes of age has nothing productive to do other than tend to goats (no school, no university etc)… and in a population where the average lifespan is low, and there is a need to produce a lot of children simply to avoid getting decimated by plague or an epidemic, war etc… what better thing does a pubescent girl have to do other than starting a family early?
So, it’s not fair for you to sit wearing your 21st century lens and judge a civilization that existed 1400 years ago.
You said: “Do you think the sexual penetration of a nine year old by a 50plus year old man is moral? 'Married' or not?”
As if the penetration would be fine if it were by a 15 year old boy? What difference does it make?
You said: “Do you think a six year old can give informed consent to sexual acts such as "thighing?"?”
You still didn’t produce the proof for that. Where did you get this info on thighing?
You said: “Do you think a nine year old can give informed, free consent to full penetrative sex with a 50 year old man?”
The marriage in itself means consent. And that happens with the knowledge and wisdom of the parents and the family members who take the decision in the best interest of the girl given the time, culture and the society.
You said: “Are there any circumstances that you can explain where such acts are ethical and moral?”
It was ethical in those times (as explained above)
@ ROYISM
Once again your evasion is evident to all. Blind Freddy can see what you are trying to do...unfortunately it is only yourself you are tying in knots.
my Question: You said: Do you think that the marriage of a six year old to a 50 year old man is moral?
Your answer "yes"
You are amoral. I didn't ask about any of your religious stories. I asked a simple moral question.
You proved yourself utterly immoral...or utterly misled buy your book of conduct you slavishly follow. You should not be allowed control or care of the vulnerable. If you lived in Australia I would report you to Social Services.
I did not. You brought it into the conversation and approved its conduct.
You said: “Do you think the sexual penetration of a nine year old by a 50plus year old man is moral? 'Married' or not?”
You replied: As if the penetration would be fine if it were by a 15 year old boy? What difference does it make?<"cite>
What a reply. I will just leave it there and listen to the sounds of the readers retching in disgust if you think that is an adequate response.
You replied: "You still didn’t produce the proof for that. Where did you get this info on thighing?
I don't need fucking proof, I was asking you a question, whether the act as reported occurred or not...I asked your belief on informed consent. Just answer it and stop evading questions about sexual misconduct.
you replied, sickeningly: "The marriage in itself means consent.
No it fucking doesn't. And you haven't answered the question.
You replied, unfeelingly and without a trace of morality: It was ethical in those times (as explained above)
I didn't ask about "times" I asked YOUR OPINION. And like Jo, the christian, you have proved yourself utterly amoral , lacking compassion and any sort of introspection that could lead to ethical behaviour.
This is what blindly following a 'book' and a 'perfect man' does to your head. It makes you in so many ways a monster with a smiling face.
Read your replies as a human and a father. I read them and vomited.
@Old man shouts
You said: You proved yourself utterly immoral...or utterly misled buy your book of conduct you slavishly follow. You should not be allowed control or care of the vulnerable. If you lived in Australia I would report you to Social Services.
All you guys are just emotionally hyperventilating begging the question on your moral position. You have not shown the objectivity of your moral standard, but are just getting emotional and crying foul at me. If this were a Christian site and you had said that you support ‘abortion’, then you would have seen the participants riling with rage at your outrageous and patent immorality. What’s happening here is not any different from that. IF you can demonstrate the objective basis on which you are judging my morality, then I would be able to appreciate your POV. I do understand that your anger is genuine… but sorry, with no objectivity in your argument, I am not in the least perturbed by that anger.
@ROYISM
So you do not attempt to answer the questions as asked. You evade and wriggle and dodge instead of answering.
You show the true nature of your religion, and, very sadly, the true nature of yourself.
The 'lurkers' on these forums, I am sure would have taken note of your evasions and how your amoral nature has been exposed to public view.
Like 'Jo' you are living advertisement for an atheist view. Who in their right mind would attempt to justify your position and the behaviour listed?
And just so there is no confusion as to the questions you found an inability to answer without equivocation (except the first where you answered 'YES' it IS moral for a 50 year old to marry a 6 year old....)
Do you think that the marriage of a six year old to a 50 year old man is moral?
Do you think the sexual penetration of a nine year old by a 50plus year old man is moral? 'Married' or not?
Do you think a six year old can give informed consent to sexual acts such as "thighing?"?
Do you think a nine year old can give informed, free consent to full penetrative sex with a 50 year old man?
Are there any circumstances that you can explain where such acts are ethical and moral?
Simple questions asking for a direct and honest answer from you.
Your lack of morality and compassion are on full view 'Royism' , what is so very sad is you do not have the capacity of introspection to realise your inhumanity. You fail as a human being.
(Edit add to last sentence "and behaviour listed" also last patragraph of repeated question. )
Apart from the fact that I've covered at length in past posts, the manner in which ethics is a discipline dependent upon axioms, and that the validity of assorted ethical assertions becomes, as a corollary, dependent upon the choice of axioms made, there's another issue that arises readily when covering the matter of whether or not a given ethical assertion can be claimed to be 'objective'. Namely, that in many cases, one can perform tests of those assertions, to determine if their application results in harm or benefit being dispensed to the recipients of the requisite actions. When one can perform such tests, then the requisite assertions can be considered 'objective' in that sense, namely, that their status is determined by observational data.
Of course, there is a lot of preparatory work required, before any such test can be considered rigorous. But, once said preparatory work is performed, and an appropriate level of rigour is established, then again, in that sense, the requisite assertion can be considered 'objective'. As always, to restate a well known cliché, the devil is in the detail.
@Calilasseia
You said: “Namely, that in many cases, one can perform tests of those assertions, to determine if their application results in harm or benefit being dispensed to the recipients of the requisite actions. When one can perform such tests, then the requisite assertions can be considered 'objective' in that sense, namely, that their status is determined by observational data.”
It’s not that easy. Take the example of a lady who wants to abort her pregnancy. She may be doing so because she finds the baby harmful to her career and future prospects. So she might be justified. But then what about the harm to the baby? Whose harm is greater? How do you make a moral judgement of that objectively?
Can you please desist from hijacking this thread, either answer the questions or start your own thread. You have repeatedly claimed your religious beliefs offer objective morality. So let's have ten examples of objectively moral actions please.
Then ten things you believe without objective evidence, that are in no way related to your religious belief. Or demonstrate objective evidence for that belief.
Every atheist I've seen post on here has accepted that the basis for morality is subjective, though once established we can of course make objective evaluations about whether moral choices best satisfy that basis.
No more of the evasion you're infamous for please, ROYISM.
I note with interest how that other posted ignored [1] my remarks about the axiomatic foundations of ethics as currently constructed, and [2] my remarks about the need for much preparatory work in order to make any tests rigorous. I'll note the evasion of those points accordingly.
Though I've experienced enough of ROYISM's evasion to know he's thoroughly dishonest. I have grave doubts he understood your qualifying remarks, or therefore their significance. He's peddling his preferred superstition and is as closed minded as he is dishonest in his approach to that. He has little interest in honest debate, as will become abundantly apparent if he continues to post.
As of course his brief foray into this thread amply demonstrates. Since he has claimed objective morality is possible in his religion and only in that religion, yet has quite obviously ignored the thread OP questions. He has also dishonestly reversed the question to me despite the fact I have never claimed objective morality exists, quite specifically explaining that the basis for human morality an only be subjective. Once a basis is established of course we can objectively examine the effects of our actions and behaviours to see if they align with the basis of our moral worldview.
@ROYISM
"Take the example of a lady who wants to abort her pregnancy. She may be doing so because she finds the baby harmful to her career and future prospects. So she might be justified. But then what about the harm to the baby? Whose harm is greater? How do you make a moral judgement of that objectively?"
Holy fuck, really? You struggle deciding between a "potential" career and terminating a life?
Let me make it simple for you, a life is more important.
I will now be muttering and shaking my head all evening pondering why there is such a pompous self-serving amoral person on this planet. Now I have to go wash my hands, I feel dirty just interacting with ROYISM.
@David Killens
You said: Let me make it simple for you, a life is more important.
A fetus is life too! How else do you think it grows?
Pages