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.
Sapporo,
According to the Jewish Babylonian Talmud David knocked Bathsheba up when she was six (6) years old. The whole population was a herd of baby rapers.
And never forget, the age of consent was seven (7) in America in 1895.
It's not a competition.
For much the same reason that Aisha's age was put at 9 ..probably falsely, because virgins are hard to find and a virgin was essential for Mohammeds credibility. AND ( sickeningly) for a man to cure syphilis it was necessary t have a preburtal virgin or so it was thought in the 19th Century...go figure.
Funny how ROYISM claims that morality is objective and NOT subjective but in defending Muhamed's rape of a child he claims that morality was much different then. How fucking hypocritical!
It's not just hypocritical it's moronic, and ROYISM even admitted you can't judge people's actions then by today's standards, if that's not moral relativism wtf is it? It really is nauseating to watch religious apologists do mental cartwheels like this, trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
If it was objectively moral for Mohammed to rape a nine year old girl, then it must be objectively moral now as well. Otherwise objective morals do not exist. HE's actually destroying his own argument and can't see it. FIG simply has no morals, and has no understanding of morality.
You said: “It's not just hypocritical it's moronic, and ROYISM even admitted you can't judge people's actions then by today's standards, if that's not moral relativism wtf is it?”
You don’t seem to understand what an objective standard is. Let’s say there is a ruling mentioned in a given situation… it would up valid as long as the situation lasts. But once the situation changes, that ruling would not be applicable. That does not mean it’s subjective… For example, if a ruling says that I have to give charity if I am rich… and then I suddenly become poor, the ruling does not apply any more. This does not mean that the ruling has changed and therefore subjective. The ruling has not changed, only the situation in which the ruling is applicable has changed.
Similarly, if the conditions that existed in the prophet’s time exists today, then it would be absolutely morally acceptable to marry off girls at puberty. For example, let’s say there were no universities or schools for girls to pursue an education, the need to produce a lot of children was imminent owing to low lifespans of humans and the dwindling nature of populations etc. Then it would be perfectly fine. There is more to that discussion… but I think this much will suffice for now.
Royism, you wrote, “You don’t seem to understand what an objective standard is. Let’s say there is a ruling mentioned in a given situation… it would up valid as long as the situation lasts. But once the situation changes, that ruling would not be applicable. That does not mean it’s subjective”
That contains zero cleverness in your vain attempt to convince.
"A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them."
You haven't a clue what you're talking about, so there is a pretty concise definition of objective morality with all of your bullshit flimflam analogy removed. It means that if it were EVER moral to rape a nine year old it would remain so independently of any human opinion. Which is what you're claiming, though you clearly don't understand what it is you're saying. It's no less morally repugnant for that of course.
@ Sheldon
"A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it.”
Agreed… but it is not independent of the context in which it is uttered. If A utters a moral maxim: ‘Feed your neighbor when he is hungry…” The maxim is conditional, meaning it is applicable only if the neighbor is hungry. If he is not hungry, I don’t have to feed him. This does not mean it is not objective.
"A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it.”
"Agreed… but it is not independent of the context in which it is uttered."
Of course it is, what a truly idiotic claim. As I said you have no concept of morality, and now it is clear you laughably have no understanding of the religious concept of objective morality you are asserting exists, but only when it suits you, so you can still claim a fat middle aged man raping a nine year old child is objectively morally, but not always.
Dear oh dear...religion really does rot the human brain.
@Myk
Dang, have you not figured it out yet.? It's pretty damn simple. Morality is completely objective. Period. Unless, of course, it is inconvenient to the defense of certain immoral acts. At that point, it is STILL totally objective, but we are allowed to use our own judgement to bend, turn, and wiggle our way around it. Doesn't mean it is subjective, though. Absolutely NOT. It simply means that God allows us to adapt his perfect objective morality to changing times and societies. See? Not too complicated. Get with the program, Myk.
I know, ROYISM's claim is mind mindbogglingly stupid. He's trying to claim that morality exists that transcends all human opinion, then offering two different and contradictory opinions on the morality of an act, just so he can justify Mohammed's rape of a nine year old child. Christ on a bike I'll have to stop reading his guff, as vile as it is I am more worried the stupidity of the claims might be infectious.
@Sheldon. Re: "...I am more worried the stupidity of the claims might be infectious."
Well, apparently it MUST BE infectious. After all, we do have suicide bombers.
"If you can convince people to believe in absurdities, then you can convince them to commit attrocities"
Voltaire.
ROYISM believes in the demonstrable absurdity that his beliefs have accessed objective morality. Now those beliefs have convinced him the rape of a nine year old child is morally defensible.
If Royism thinks silence means consent, we'll assume he's in favour of bestiality.
"If Royism thinks silence means consent, we'll assume he's in favour of bestiality."
Well apparently Mohammed once *ROAD* a winged horse, yeeeeeha.
@Sappora
Said: Royism thinks silence means consent, we'll assume he's in favour of bestiality.
That's a gross misrepresentation of my point. If you don't have an issue with the groom, then you can choose to remain silent, if you want. But you have all the right to voice out your disapproval, and Islam insists that girls should have the right to do so. So, your comparison to bestiality is ill founded.
I haven't seen you speak out against bestiality, therefore according to Muhammad, you consent to it.
@Sapporo
Silence is consent only in the case of a marriage proposal
It is not a misrepresentation of your claim at all, it is precisely the slippery moral slope your nonsensical claim is on, and no decent society agrees with you that silence represents consent, that's appalling. Almost as appalling as the idea a nine year old can give consent in the first place. Your beliefs have removed your morality entirely.
Sapporo,
Bestiality is legal in America.
ROYISM also thinks puberty should represent the age a child can give consent to marriage and sex, regardless of the physical age of the victim, and he has claimed he's fine with the idea that a nine year old girl can give consent to marriage and sex with a man in his 40's.
What a rare glimpse of theistic (objective) morality we're having.
Additionally, he doesn’t seem to know that science has been able to show that the brain is not fully mature until the age of ~25.
Not the real low point of his claims for me, that reverse apotheosis was when having sententiously claimed objective morality on behalf of Islam, he said we couldn't judge Mohammed's behaviour out of the context of the epoch in which he lived, priceless. You almost feel sorry for them sometimes, until it suddenly hits home, he's advocating that sex with a nine year old child is morally acceptable.
Precisely.
@CyberLN
Additionally, he doesn’t seem to know that science has been able to show that the brain is not fully mature until the age of ~25.
Oh... great. So would you characterize every union below 25 as pedophilia? Let's fill up our jails with these millions of heinous pedophiles all across the globe.
Oy
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Don't you think a more salient point is that your claim a nine year can give consent is a vile and immoral one? The fact we mature emotionally past the age of consent in many countries does raise serious questions about the morality of older people exploiting this, but the age of consent also (like all laws) has to be a practical working law, if you introduce a law that criminalises virtually everyone below the age of 25 is that really indicative of improved morality? Clearly a better tack would be to educate people that certain age differentials are exploitative even if they are not illegal, and try and protect young people from such exploitation.
But hell, I'm talking to man who has repeatedly defended the rape of a nine year old girl by a 47 year old man as moral, so I guess I'm wasting my time anyway.
@Sheldon
ROYISM also thinks puberty should represent the age a child can give consent to marriage and sex, regardless of the physical age of the victim, and he has claimed he's fine with the idea that a nine year old girl can give consent to marriage and sex with a man in his 40's.
So much from a person who is yet to produce a reliable standard to judge the age of consent???
@ Royism
One thing for sure it aint nine years old, especially when with a 53 year old man with bad teeth, a beard and shaven pubes...just ask any nine or nineteen year old if that prospect excites them. .
What kind of 53 year old thinks raping a child is acceptable never mind the customs of the time ( which were not as you state) ?...oh wait, there's that P word again.
Pages