Buddy R #fundie

Buddy R #fundie answers.yahoo.com

(reply to the question as to whether morality is subjective)

Atheists are in a difficult position. Without God, there can be no such thing as an absolute right or wrong. Laws then just become one person's subjective morality imposed on another person.

An atheist who is consistant with atheism has to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with raping a baby. Viewing it as wrong would only be a subjective opinion.

Given that that is the case an atheist can't say that anything anyone does is wrong.

69 comments

old comment by Eden

Well fundies are in a difficult position.

If anyone rapes a baby and says that god wanted him to do it, they first would have to prove that god didn´t order it.
If god orders something (like commiting atrocities, taking slaves and the like) it automatically is good, according to the moral compass of fundies, no matter whether other people think it is bad or not (and god, according to the bible ordered his chosen people to do things like slaughter the population of whole cities and to take the virgin girls of said cities as sex slaves).

So a fundie who is consistant with his christian fundamentalist beliefs has to say there is nothing inherently wrong with raping a baby if god orders so. Viewing it as wrong would be contrary to the fundamentalist belief, that everything that god does/orders is automatically good.

Given that that is the case a christian fundamentalist can´t say that anything anyone does is wrong as long as said person claims that he does/did it because god ordered it

old comment by the old firm

No. Just no.

I'm a feeling and reflecting human and thus know what would hurt me. And I don't want other beeings to experience something, which I know would be painful to me. And I know that all other humans and most animals feel pain the same way.

So, in conclusion, I stick with: What you don't want to have done to you, that don't do towards another. Oh, and if you treat others like you want to be treated, you can't go to wrong. It's called the "Golden Rule" and is found nearly in any culture.

So tell me, where does God come in that equitation? And the God of the Old Testament is NOT a beeing with high moral standards. He's more of a "might makes right" kind of guy.

old comment by misshani

Where in the Bible does it say it's wrong to rape infants? Where does it even imply that raping them is wrong when it is written that God himself "righteously" makes parents sacrifice their children to him (Judges 11)? Or "righteously" curses people by having them cannibalize their children (Deut 28:53)? And if a people don't worship him, he "righteously" promises to crush their infants and rip open their pregnant women (Hosea 13:16).

"Righteously" raping virgin girls is certainly not a problem for Him (take your pick). So why not infants?

Sure, that was the Bronze Age, and you could say it was another culture.. But when a 9 year old girl was raped in Brazil by her stepfather, the Catholic Church chose to excommunicate her family and the doctor that gave her an abortion to save her life, but not the rapist. To the outrage of the people there, the church's stance was that his crime wasn't as big as theirs. That was last March.

Viewing child abuse, infanticide, and pedophilia as wrong is only your subjective opinion, along with everyone else in the civilized world. Unfortunately, your God just doesn't agree.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Atheists are in a difficult position. Without God, there can be no such thing as an absolute right or wrong."

Explain why there should be an absolute right or wrong.

"Laws then just become one person's subjective morality imposed on another person."

No, laws become a societies collective morality imposed on society as a whole.

"An atheist who is consistant with atheism has to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with raping a baby."

Why, exactly, does "There appears to be no god" logically lead to "baby rape is a-ok"?

"Viewing it as wrong would only be a subjective opinion."

True, but I'm pretty sure that's one of those opinions that, while subjective on an individual level, is one of those nearly universal taboos and you'd be hard pressed to actually find many people that disagree with it. I have no doubt that if you polled all six billion of us, and everyone who answered was absolutely honest, that you'd find at least a handful that disagree with the rest of us.

"Given that that is the case an atheist can't say that anything anyone does is wrong."

You're not very good at this, are you?

old comment by RPJ

I highly doubt that a stable society could be maintained while baby-raping is legal (though in ancient times, pedophilia was much more common, so it probably wouldn't destabilize a society all by itself). Certainly in modern times, no society would find it permissible.

Most reasonable people find it reprehensible as well (except fundies who lack a sense of morality and are only restrained by a fear of authority).

"wrong" is a subjective word, but I'm going to assume that you are referring to some sort of ordained, immutable and superuniversal rule. In this sense, you are correct; there is nothing "inherently 'wrong'" in raping a baby; the Universe doesn't care. It is "merely" an act which most societies would consider antisociety, and which most people would consider atrocious, which are pressure sthat have kept the human race alive for thousands of years.

old comment by Antichrist

Absolute right or wrong? Lets look at the modern take on the commonly known 10 commandments

1) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Well you people claim this, but then ignore what Jesus had to say and follow your Republican leaders to slaughter like good little sheep.

2) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,"
Except crosses, the bible, pictures of Jesus, etc.

3) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;"
Unless we're lying for the lord (this has to do with swearing oaths, not cursing)

4) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Unless there's a game on. Oh and how many women put on the big spread on Sunday? Isn't that "work"?

5) "Honor thy father and thy mother:"
and nag them to absolute death about your fundie fantasies. Threaten them with hellfire and disrupt all family get togethers until you are no longer welcome.

6) "Thou shalt not kill."
Unless it's in war, corporal punishment, or an abortion doctor. Well to be honest, I'm not sure how this made it into the top 10 since most of the bible goes on about how to kill people in the most horrific ways

7) "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
Unless you can keep it secret

8) "Thou shalt not steal."
Unless you put Gods name on it, or it's from the government, or those stinkin heathens

9) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Unless you are "lying for the lord" or your neighbour is another stinkin heathen.

10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's
Ahh crap, you people worship greed so much there's nothing I can say here.

So much for Christian absolute morality. Laws are there to make society run smoothly. Just remember whats good for the fox is bad for the goose.

And what the fuck is with you people and the raping of babies and animals? Damn, I wouldn't let your kind anywhere near my kids or my pets!

old comment by Sagan's Ghost

Fundies are in a difficult position. Without God, there can be no such thing as an absolute right or wrong. Laws then just become one person's subjective morality imposed on another person.

(That is why they have wet dreams about establishing a theocracy.)

An atheist who is consistant with atheism has to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with raping a baby. Viewing it as wrong would only be a subjective opinion.

(Baby rape?? What kind of monster are you?)

Given that that is the case an atheist can't say that anything anyone does is wrong.

(Unlike irrational, delusional religionists that have a direct line to an imaginary deity to advise them??)

old comment by Berny

There are some things that are always defined as bad: murder, rape (whether of a child or an adult), theft, physical assault. Virtually every civilized society has drafted laws against those and they are not based on religion.
Other things fall under the category of immoral from a religious perspective. Those would be homosexual activity, adultery, premarital sex, recreational drug use (I include alcohol in this), dancing, etc. Most civilized societies do not place restrictions on those although many religious people would frown on some or all of them.
The problem of morality for the religious is that it is very much subjective. While all faiths can agree that killing is wrong, some do not have a problem with killing someone who has left the faith. The same applies to rape. Most would agree rape is wrong but some faiths are OK with retaliatory rape in matters of honour.
This is why religion needs to be excluded in any matters of law and justice.

old comment by Sylvana

All morality is subjective. There is no absolute right and wrong. Further right and wrong even within society changes depending on the circumstances. Hence why people who kill in self defence dont go to prison.

Further eventhough empathy would prevent most people from finding baby raping acceptable, in the past, such events were reasionable common and acceptable as a means for one society to previal over another. However once again such actions carried no absolutes, killing someone from a rival society was acceptable, killing someone from your own society was not.

Hence, times change as does morality, along with the scenarios of that subjective morality in application.

old comment by Marc

As others have already pointed out, we don't need your god to tell us the difference between right and wrong. We are social animals, as such, we've evolved this thing called "empathy" and the ability to work together (working together increases our chances for survival). Things which impede our ability to work together, such as raping infants (where do you people come up with these examples?) are considered "wrong." Why? Because a person who rapes infants is a detriment to the clan/tribe/state.

Things which help our ability to work together (like giving food to the hungry-the hungry person is fed, and thus able to contribute to the group-again-increasing the group's chance for survival) are considered "good."

I wrote this post with all of ten seconds worth of consideration. It might not be the best written analysis of morality, but I think it serves as a good guideline. It's certainly kept me from raping infants for the last decade or so of being an atheist.

old comment by DaaanceYouLoser

Actually, he's totally correct. Most of the responses here sound as ignorant and senseless as any religious fundamentalist rant. For example, doing something wrong is "automatically" wrong. Uh, automatically? What is the logic behind that? One hundred years ago the average atheist would say that homosexuality is "automatically" wrong, after all.

The man is right. Atheism in no way promotes an idea of concrete right and wrong. As an atheist, all one's choices should be based on rationalisation, isn't that correct? On logic, and fact, rather than belief? So then, by that rule, one can really ONLY choose what would please him personally the most. After all, there is absolutely no rational or logical reason to help someone, sacrifice something, or refrain from doing something, if it doesn't benefit you directly. Therefore, if you want to actually rape a baby, it would be irrational to the atheist NOT to do it, assuming you could get away with it. I see absolutely no sensible argument against this principle. Morality does not benefit everyone; if you want to murder someone, assuming you would not be punished for it, there is no rational reason you shouldn't, as an atheist. To refrain from actually doing it would be a moral decision, and morality can surely not be a factor in an atheist's decision; as they will say time and time again, "morality is subjective," "there are no black and white matters," et cetera. How, then, can the atheist possibly rationalise refraining from an act he wishes to commit, as long as it benefits him directly?

"If I were the supreme invisible man in the sky, I would have included "Don't fuck kiddies" in the top one or two. Your god is so stupid he didn't even include it in his top-ten no-nos list." ~Zeus Almighty

Um, why? You do realise that modern American society is one of the only societies in history that actually condemns sex under the age of 18, right? What you would consider "kiddies" would likely include about 90% of your ancestors when they married and gave birth. Even in old times of American civilisation, women married gave birth as young as thirteen. So why would the 10 Commandments include "don't fuck kiddies" when we're one of the only societies in history that doesn't?

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

@ DaaanceYouLoser

Actually, both you and the OP are wrong. Ethics was a well developed branch of philosophy among the Pagan Greeks of old. The goal of ethics was to teach people how to live the best possible life, and to build a strong society that would last for the long run. Notice I said that ethics was a branch of philosophy, NOT theology or mythology. That is because ethics can and do exist and exert real world influence without the need to appeal to deities.

Take your murder example. A society where murder is tolerated cannot survive nor can its members live to heir fullest because a society that accepts murder would be filled with fear. Furthermore, the taking of human life is often a traumatic event for the person who does it. Just ask any police officer who has had to kill in the line of duty. Again, murder can be said to be wrong without appeals to deities.

Ironically, a review of history reveals that appeals to deities makes the violation of ethics not harder, but easier. If you want to kill someone, just convince yourself that the other person is an agent of Satan (if a war has been declared, the government will gladly help with that). If you want to rape a baby, just convince yourself that your deity "gave" you the baby, as members of the polygamous Mormon offshoots do.

Most of us here at FSTDT have had this conversation many times before. Your arguments are old hat, refuted many times on many pages. Have you got anything original to bring to the discussion, or are you going to make more noise for no one's benefit but your own now?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

I - an Atheist - can be a good and civilised person to my fellow human beings, because I can. [/hyper-smartarse]

Given that this is the case...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#United_States

...any right-wing Fundamentalist Christian can't say that anything we Atheists do is wrong. Just search in Wikipedia for 'Atheist Terrorism', to have more than just your argument completely blasted out of not just the space-time continuum, but the infinite multiverses.

And all because of I - an Atheist - choosing to be a good, decent and civilised human being.

Moral: Religion doesn't have the monopoly on morals, you know. If religion ever [i]had[/i] any in the first place, to be able to even think of having the [i]right[/i] to condemn the activities of anyone not exactly like them. Matthew 7:1; also Matthew 7:3-5, and all that jazz.

image

God: 2,038,344

Satan (and only on God's authorisation): 10

Anon-e-moose: 0

So I must be fucking up somewhere, re. my Godless, heathen, Atheistic amorality, amirite?! [/hyper-sarcasm]

Frankly, and as proven above, we Atheists are more than infinitely superior to your 'God' - more so his 'believers' - in every conceivable way, never mind morally.

Buddy R #fundie answers.yahoo.com

69 comments

Confused?