Talk:Atheism and rape

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Atheist Offers No Condemnation Of Rape....and neither does theism

Well of course it doesn't, it's not a religion. It's a broad camp with multiple and varying philosophies. Believe it not, theism offers no condemnation either. All you need to be a theist is believe in god(s), no structure is needed to be a theist. Christianity, Islam, Judism, are merely sub-sects of theism. You have a better case to condemn those who are irreligious. That's not the same as atheism; but you can make a case that the irreligious are without moral guidance as there are plenty of atheists who take non-divine sources as moral guidance. There are atheistic religions (like Buddhism, Anton LaVey's Church Of Satan, atheistic Christianity) just as there are irreligious theists (Deists). --Dsherman 13:25, 12 December 2013 (EST) 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)

Atheists reject absolutes in morality until someone wrongs them. Then, the party in the wrong did something absolutely outrageous to them. See also: Atheist hypocrisy. Atheism is not a workable worldview nor is it consistent or logical. Conservative 18:34, 12 December 2013 (EST)


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 mass murder and Atheism and sadism Conservative 09:38, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
I wanted to add that I do thank you for your input and I added a Rebecca Watson quote as a result to the article (claim of hundreds of cases of harassment). Also, it is true that atheists claims concerning the Bible involving poor Bible exegesis are largely ignored and not taken seriously. See this article: Why critics of the Bible do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Again, thanks for your input. Conservative 10:22, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
I have read that article, it relates to those claiming contradictions. I am not claiming there is a contradiction in the Bible, I don't want to have that tired old debate. I read the bible as a believer, many times. It was the content of the old testament that led me to conclude that it was fallacious, as I could not find any reasonable interpretation of so many things. I believe you have to interpret it from a literalist perspective, and that appears to be the consensus on Conservapedia. On that basis, there is very little room for interpretation. I wasn't making any interpretation of the text, simply stating the content of the story. So, my question to you is this - how could I be misinterpreting this story if we are to believe it is the literal truth?
The harassment Rebecca Watson received is unfortunate, but is it any different from the harassment of just about everyone by the Westboro Baptist Church? (As an example)
Moreover, atheism is the absence of a belief, and not a belief system in and of itself. On this basis, the opening sentences make no sense from a purely semantic view point. How can an absence of believe ever provide condemnation of anything? It would be better to put 'some non-christian belief systems offer no condemnation of rape' if you were going to replace that drivel with anything! This is a particularly pertinent point, because it is quite easy to derive senseless criticism of atheism if you treat it as a religion. Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.
Finally, I have made some constructive edits. Now, I find the edit button has mysteriously disappeared. This really isn't the interest of honest discourse, is it? Reverting changes you dislike is one thing, but to prevent any future edits is fairly censorial. I haven't said anything unreasonable. LucoDaw 14:36, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Lucodaw, a few points:

1. I don't believe your Bible exegesis skills are very good. See also: Typical atheist Bible critics and Bible exegesis

2. Show me an encyclopedia of philosophy that defines atheism as you do. Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.[2][3][4]

3. I know that atheists are not in a position to complain about honesty. See: Atheism and deception

4. Given that atheists are the biggest mass murders in history and among the least charitable as a group, I know you are not in a position to claim any kind of moral high ground. See: Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and uncharitableness

5. Atheism is a religion.[5] Conservative 17:17, 12 December 2013 (EST)