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.
@xenoview
No, I don't think it's moral.
You'd need to define a child and explain the situation. In India kids are married to each other sometimes at a very young age. And like I said before here, they may still live on their respective homes for years.
@LogicFTW
Do tell what they meant with all that and how it related to the topic if you know. They don't seem to want to be understood.
@leper
IF you bothered to read my detailed replies to Royism you woul see links and authors of papers the clearly define a child, age of consent, informed consent. In addition I referred to the WHO report on the Rights Of The Child which also references developmental milestones.
Not only that I also recommended that the reader look up Maslow and Child Development Studies.
So all you have brought to the conversation is your ignorance.
@Old man
I don't read all your posts for obvious reasons and that has nothing to do with the definition of a child since that varies according to place, time, context, and the person who's asking and who's asked.
@ Leper
Well, there's a surprise....perhaps you could supply your definitions of a child....I have supplies academic opinions so please share what you think are valuable definitions...
@Old man
Like I said, it depends. I have never attempted to give a universal number to it. Nor do I care to evaluate the "official" definitions. Personally, I think in marriage the girl can be regarded as a child if she is 13 or under, but often up to 16 qualifies. 16 and over is not a child anymore.
I shan't even feign surprise. Does the prospect of lifelong emotional and or psychological damage raise any concerns for you? That might be a reassuring benchmark as a starting position, rather than glibly joining ROYISM in the idiocy of pointing out they have reached puberty. .
Slightly reassuring, but do you think it is harmful exploitation for an adult to have marry or have sex with someone you label a child, do you recognise the larger the age gap the more it indicates the adult as a vile sexual predator who has no regard for the well being of that child? In UK the law regard any kind of sexual contact with anyone under the age of 16 as illegal, but 13 or under is considered a far more serious offence.
That does't really tell us much, the law can only draw an arbitrary line, but we are surely capable of morality that the law doesn't impose, it is ok for a man in his 50's or even 60's to peruse and seduce a 16 year old? If that same man has any contact prior to that girls 16th birthday the law might well consider it to be grooming, and rightly so in my opinion. Now why is that I wonder? It's as if the law recognises that despite 16 being an arbitrary legal line, that we all have a larger moral duty to protect people than that. Attitudes are changing all the time and this is a good thing if that change is being driven by concerns for the we;welfare of vulnerable young children and adults, and disregard the sexual appetite of people who for whatever reason think their desires men they can disregard the rights of others less able to protect themselves or even to understand they need protection.
@leper
I want to reply to your question, but: I lost the context, which post of mine are you referring to?
Long threads like this the "reply" diagram/tree gets pretty broken unfortunately, to the point that it is not clear at all which response is to which post.
@leper
A child is anyone under the age of 18. Any more word games?
@Royism/Leper
Perhaps try googling "recursive" and maybe even "morality" you are already on the internet, if you are using chrome you can simply highlight the words and right click and choose search google. It takes less than 2 seconds. Or do you guys really need special hand holding through this process?
Story time!
When growing up I lived right next to a small university that had lot of foreign students. For a while a young man (student) from Saudi Arabia lived in the tiny house next door. One day he was telling us kids about Islamic law. What he told us was so ludicrous, I didn't believe it. And I've thought about what he said since then and I just assumed I misunderstood him when I was a child and that is why it sounded so ludicrous; or maybe he was just pulling our leg. But after reading Leper's statements today(about rape not being rape if the victim had an opportunity to kill themselves to avoid being raped); I'm not so sure.
I wonder if perhaps I understood him correctly all along, because what Leper said was kind of similar to what that foreign student told me.
/e edited typos
@Nyar
The stupidity, inhumanity and misogyny of Sharia (Islamic) is only matched by the credulity of those that support it. It is appalling, cruel and sexist as well as racist, religionist, exclusionist and the dumb ducks want it everywhere....because of their shitty book and pedophile priest.
The Catholics of the Orient....or the lice in the bed....
@Nyarlathotep
Well don't keep us in suspension, what kind of things did he tell you?
@Leper
I am not going to answer for nylar, but he already outlined the gist of what this person told him in the same post.
Also, it is: "suspense", not "suspension."
Holy mohammed, how deep are you going to dig this pit? This is pretty hilarious mind. How many different ways is ROYISM going to contradict himself...
Having their cake, and eating it too.
Poor @Sheldon, you replied before you thought again. They didn't contradict themselves. In the first part they're talking about personal preference due to circumstance and in the second about morals. I hope that makes it clearer for you.
An hilarious, but demonstrably stupid claim, it's manifestly a contradiction. Unless of course someone is really so stupid as to not correlate preferences of behaviours and actions with morality. In which case I can only look on pityingly, and let others who do understand marvel at the immoral stupidity religion seems to fester in the minds of its adherents, who mock a law as inadequate that sets the age of consent at 16, because it's arbitrary, then try to claim raping children as young as six is ok, not even rape in fact, as if marriage negates the need for consent. Dear oh dear. Still I must thank you of all people for accusing me if not thinking, I can't imagine any better validation of my rationale.
Yeah of course you're right, no contradiction there at all. Fnarrr...
So according to ROYISM and Leper. The koran offers a "universal moral code that applies to all times and in all places," but is inappropriate to apply to ROYISM's children at the current time and in the culture of the current place.
Surely this is a wind up now?
You said: Holy mohammed, how deep are you going to dig this pit? This is pretty hilarious mind. How many different ways is ROYISM going to contradict himself...
The two statements I made are NOT contradictory.
Statement 1 - “No I won’t. Because according to our current times,
Statement 2 - “My morality is derived from my scriptures. So, what is stated in it is the universal moral code for all times and all places"
A universal moral code is not nullified by its time-based application. I won’t give my 9 year old daughter in marriage based on the current educational and other factors.
However the universal code doesn’t stipulate a specific age. It just gives us a baseline limit and allows us to choose any age as we may deem fit for the time.
Therefore the 2 don’t contradict.
Ah, I see, you mean this objective moral code applies universally for all times and all places, but you apply it subjectively according to time and place?
No wait???
I think the pit just got a little deeper.
Sheldon
You said: “Ah, I see, you mean this objective moral code applies universally for all times and all places, but you apply it subjectively according to time and place?”
Haha.
When a universal law gives you the freedom to choose from a set ranging from A to G. And if someone chooses A for a certain time, and someone choose B for a certain time, and someone chooses C for a certain, you don’t say that the universality of the law has been compromised because the people made different choices at different times. All the choices fall within the stated universal law.
Yes the pit is getting deeper, and i see Sheldon with his worn-out shovel in it.
@royism
you're saying that the universal objective moral code, is subjective and changes with each person?
@Xenoview
If the code allows for choices and you exercise your choice, the code still remains universal.
If a rule says that voting rights begin from athe age of 18, it means that starting from 18 you can vote, but not necessary that you have to. And if someone decides to vote at 25, then the person has only exercised his right according to the rule. This doesn't affect the validity of the rule.
@ROYISM
Just checking that I'm understanding: Does this mean that while you would not allow your 6 yr old daughter to be married away to a 50 yr old man, you would view it as moral for someone else to do so with their child? Since it is within the acceptable choices/range that has been given? Would you say, then, that your choice to not marry your daughter off is not because you think it would be immoral, but just out of personal preference?
@Stone Jade
Royism might marry his 10 year old daughter if the time was right. He might even do it for some money.
Royism,
So, it sounds like you’re saying that in Islam, marriage with ensuing sexual intercourse is ok starting at age nine but that it is not compulsory to do so at the age of nine. Correct?
You also said you would not let your daughter marry at nine. Please indulge us with a list of the reasons why you would not.
@royism
Is the code objective or subjective? Does the code come from god?
@ROYISM
You're the advocating the rape of children as young as 6 as moral, and then talking about universal objective codes for all times, and all places, then stating you wouldn't want this for your children as it is inappropriate based on contemporary cultures. Just how far are you going to dig before you even realise, there is no moral code, just an open ended invitation to rape children if it suits you, and the obscene idea that this is moral because an archaic superstitious book doesn't unequivocally condemn it as immoral.
Hilarious, a universal moral law that allows the individual to decide if they want to rape children or not, or traffic their 6 year old daughters to 50+ year paedophiles, which you claim is applicable for all places and all times, but then simultaneously isn't. I think your pit is now so deep you can no longer see you're in it. Lets see if you can glimpse reality from down there, one more time then...
@ROYISM
So if an a universal moral code for all times and places says it is moral to marry your children off at 6vyears old to middle age men, why haven't you done so?
The choices here are mutually exclusive, marry them off at 6, don't, how can two mutually exclusive choices both be moral?
You also claimed you hadn't married them off because in contemporary societies women and girls can get an education, so how does this change in time and culture triumph over a universally moral code that says the moral thing to do is marry them off at 6? Surely the best example for morality is your religion's prophet? Yet you seem to think you know better for your own children, how bizarre.
@SHELDON
You said: So if an a universal moral code for all times and places says it is moral to marry your children off at 6vyears old to middle age men, why haven't you done so?
Because the universal moral code does not stipulate a specific age by which all girls must be married off. It has only set a lower limit, above which you can choose any age that is appropriate for the time/context.
You said: “The choices here are mutually exclusive, marry them off at 6, don't, how can two mutually exclusive choices both be moral?”
No, it’s not mutually exclusive. Supposing you say that the age of consent is 16, do you mean that all girls must be either married off at 16? I hope not. Therefore, whether a girl marries at 16, 18, 20, 25, 30… they all fall within your standard of consent, right? That’s exactly how it is with my standard as well.
You said: “You also claimed you hadn't married them off because in contemporary societies women and girls can get an education, so how does this change in time and culture triumph over a universally moral code that says the moral thing to do is marry them off at 6?
No where does Islam say that marry a girl at 6 or 9 is a moral thing. Islam allows you to eat beef. But that does not mean it is exhorted as some desirable moral goal. IF you don’t like beef, you don’t have to eat it. Hope you get the drift.
You said: “Surely the best example for morality is your religion's prophet? Yet you seem to think you know better for your own children, how bizarre.”
You are right that the prophet is the best example for a Muslim. But that does not mean we have to do all that he did without an appreciation of the context. He has only traveled on camelbacks. Does that mean we must not use any other transportation other than camels? Of course no.
Pages