Proof that morality can only come from society.

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
"Whatever you may be, whether

"Whatever you may be, whether psychopath or anything else, so long as you have the ability to understand the consequences of your actions"

Does having the ability to understand the consequences of your actions sound like a psychopath to you? You are so ill-informed it's hilarious. You just keep repeating the same subjective mantra over and over...you sound like a text book case of someone who has been thoroughly brainwashed by religious dogma.

psychopath
noun
a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

algebe's picture
I think humans have an innate

I think humans have an innate sense of morality. Our moral sense is so overwhelmingly important to us that we begin to believe that it's universal. To prove it, we invent gods and religions to embody our moral sense and convince ourselves that our moral rules are objective. Unfortunately that behavior ultimately leads to the corruption of our true moral sense, because of the warped nature of manmade gods and the endless capacity of religion to justify even most horrific behavior.

Morality is the product of inner rules refined and improved through our experiences in our families and society, and through exposure to other cultures.

Pitar's picture
Have to agree in large part

Have to agree in large part with mykcob4. Pain being the common denominator to man and his extended culture, one who suffers it will know it. He will not want a repeat of it. Moreover, the cause of that pain will be a lesson he can use to teach avoidance or use to control. We've seen both as a species across our timeline. What comes from it is a set of principles, learned the hard way, that we can call morality. Its method of implementation would be ethics. The point is that man discovered it, taught himself to recognize what is good from it an apply it to build a society upon. When greed and jealousy were strong enough in him he discarded morality and found himself a destructive force that morality, the stronger call upon the will of all free men, eventually overcame and again attained prominence over to restore peace.

What theism did well after man was strong with his morality was tell him it was not innate in him but rather a gift from a deity. This is the deception the religious meme complex constantly reinforces. Theists believe that such a prized character trait must be accepted as the grace of a god such that disbelief will lead man out of grace and deliver upon him a destruction by his own hand. This is where the free will silliness grew out of.

Read this essay and understand the traps and dodges of the religious meme complex as described by Scott Bidstrup. It helps to understand that the theist argument can be tied to a systematic method (meme) of disassociation with reality and the attendant deception of the religious mind to battle with itself as it struggles to side-line reality with religious fantasy.

http://www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm

Sheldon's picture
" If I asked you why if

" If I asked you why if atheism is a benign philosophy are there so many atheists doing horrible things"

That's easy. Atheism is not a philosophy nor is it a worldview nor is it a belief. It's benign because it has no tenets no doctrine no dogma no commandments and implies nothing beyond the absence of a single belief that a deity or deities exist.

The fact that someone can disbelieve a deity exists and still be a scumbag tells us nothing about the lack of that belief. The truth however is that all research shows atheists on any level comparison are at least as moral as theists.

Valiya's picture
Hi sheldon

Hi sheldon

You said: That's easy. Atheism is not a philosophy nor is it a worldview nor is it a belief. It's benign because it has no tenets no doctrine no dogma no commandments and implies nothing beyond the absence of a single belief that a deity or deities exist.

Therefore you are saying that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept (not a philosophy, worldview, belief etc) and is only about the absence of a deity. However, when atheists do good things, you immediately want to credit it to atheism. That’s double standards. If its hollow it’s just that… or it has to explain both the good things and the bad things that stem from it.

rebekaht's picture
Hi Valija, I think I see

Hi Valija, I think I see where you are going here (do correct me if I'm wrong). Since Sheldon referred to the accurate fact that Atheism in and of itself is not a philosophy but rather a statement of disbelief - but concluded his statement with the comment that Atheists are proven to be just as moral as theists it no doubt appears that we want to have our cake and eat it too.

However it's actually not double standards at all. Atheism IS a benign philosophy in that in and of itself does not have any requirements or tenants or laws and simply represents a lack of belief, it does not CAUSE good OR evil. Ergo trying to conflate Atheism as a philosophy with the bad things some atheists do is not relevant. There is nothing in Atheism that requires these actions, therefore we can deduce that it's a case of a large group of people inevitably having those who are both good and bad in it.

However the statement 'Atheists are at least as moral as theists' is a statement of demographic, not of philosophy. It's a relevant nod to the fact that demographically speaking as a section of people, people who ascribe to the philosophy of atheism are no more immoral than those who ascribe to theism. Perhaps I missed where people in this thread were ascribing 'good things' atheists have done to atheism as a philosophy - in which case do please let me know.

Finally - what you are referring to is an issue I see frequently amongst theists. If a theist does something bad, the No True Scotsman is called - no theist would act like that ergo they were never really theists (which as you note, Sheldon did not do in regards to atheism. It is perfectly possible for atheists to be bad people as well as good people) - however if a theist does something good it is instantly the work of god in them and a representation of their particular belief structure working. So - perhaps theists should actually agree that their beliefs should explain both the good and bad things that stem from their beliefs? It would certainly be refreshing.

Valiya's picture
Hi Andromalius

Hi Andromalius

You said: “However it's actually not double standards at all. Atheism IS a benign philosophy in that in and of itself does not have any requirements or tenants or laws and simply represents a lack of belief, it does not CAUSE good OR evil.”

You are saying atheism “does not cause good or evil” but Sheldon doesn’t seem to agree with you. He was in fact arguing that atheism is a force for good. This is how he put it: “The more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes.” Below is the full quotation.

"If all the atheists left America right now, you'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population. Last year, Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman responded with facts rather than witless abuse to claims from Christian psychologists and theologians that atheists were "selfish and pusillanimous curmudgeons", "unnatural" or "just damn angry". He pulled together the available evidence and found that the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes."

Sheldon's picture
Thu, 10/26/2017 - 21:44

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 21:44
valiya s sajjad "You are saying atheism “does not cause good or evil” but Sheldon doesn’t seem to agree with you. "

Another blatant lie and here's my earlier post where I said almost precisely the same thing you are responding to with this dishonest claim.

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 05:34 Permalink
Sheldon " That's easy. Atheism is not a philosophy nor is it a worldview nor is it a belief. It's benign because it has no tenets no doctrine no dogma no commandments and implies nothing beyond the absence of a single belief that a deity or deities exist.

The fact that someone can disbelieve a deity exists and still be a scumbag tells us nothing about the lack of that belief. The truth however is that all research shows atheists on any level comparison are at least as moral as theists.

Sheldon's picture
"He was in fact arguing that

"He was in fact arguing that atheism is a force for good."

Another lie, show one post of mine where I have claimed this. Are you being obtuse deliberately, or are you genuinely too stupid to know the difference between atheism and atheist?

"This is how he put it: “The more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes.”"

And yet another lie, what's clear here is you have no morals at all if you can deliberately distort what I have said here. I am starting to think you're simply trolling. I hope you are, because otherwise it's a very sad display.

""If all the atheists left America right now, you'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population. Last year, Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman responded with facts rather than witless abuse to claims from Christian psychologists and theologians that atheists were "selfish and pusillanimous curmudgeons", "unnatural" or "just damn angry". He pulled together the available evidence and found that the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes."

Again I have to ask are you genuinely too stupid to understand what quotation marks mean? The last sentence was not posted by me, and is just another deliberate lie in a long list of lies you have posted because your grandiose but bare assertions have come to naught. it's obvious this latest dishonest smoke screen is an attempt to deflect the questions you failed so miserably to answer. This is though the kind of immorality you'd have to expect from someone who has to be told not to commit murder or rape, and who admits that these are only immoral as long as his imaginary deity says so. lets hope the voices in his head keep telling him rape and murder are wrong.

Sheldon's picture
" you are saying that

" you are saying that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept "

A shameful lie, I said no such thing. I see that you are determined to continue to display your compete lack of morals by telling blatant lies again. This is what I actually said...

The fact that someone can disbelieve a deity exists and still be a scumbag ***tells us nothing about the lack of that belief.*** The truth however is that all research shows atheists on any level comparison are at least as moral as theists.

You really have no credibility when you can lie so blatantly.
-------------------------------------------------------

" However, when atheists do good things, you immediately want to credit it to atheism."

Another lie, I have not said this, only rejected your laughable, dishonest, and subjective claim that only theists are moral. All the research shows this is not true, and that on any level plane atheists are at least as moral as theists. I shouldn't be too surprised you have avoided addressing these facts, preferring to lie and deflect attention away form your inability to show any of the objective morality you trumpeted so loudly and arrogantly in this thread.

"That’s double standards."

Another irony overload from someone who claims he doesn't know what is moral and must be an automaton to archaic religious dogma, then claims this is objective morality. You even said you don't even know when murder is wrong, unless your religion / (imaginary) deity tells you, priceless.

Double standards from someone who thinks an insentient blastocyst should have the right to use the body of a pregnant woman 'against her consent' but that fully formed humans who can experience emotional and physical pain should not have that right. Your religious indoctrination seems to have left you without even a tenuous grasp of reality, never mind morality.

Valiya's picture
Hi Sheldon

Hi Sheldon

You said: “A shameful lie, I said no such thing. I see that you are determined to continue to display your compete lack of morals by telling blatant lies again. This is what I actually said...”

You are referring to my use of word ‘hollow’. Your over sensitivity seems to fog your cognitive abilities. When I said ‘hollow’ concept, I didn’t mean that you said it in so many words. And that is why I had within parenthesis highlighted what you said (not a philosophy, worldview, belief etc)… if it’s none of this, then it’s hollow. That’s what I meant.

You said: “The truth however is that all research shows atheists on any level comparison are at least as moral as theists.”

You are contradicting your earlier position when you were trying to establish that atheists were more moral than theists. If you have forgotten, here is what you said:

"If all the atheists left America right now, you'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population. Last year, Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman responded with facts rather than witless abuse to claims from Christian psychologists and theologians that atheists were "selfish and pusillanimous curmudgeons", "unnatural" or "just damn angry". He pulled together the available evidence and found that the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes."

When I said " However, when atheists do good things, you immediately want to credit it to atheism."
And you replied: “Another lie, I have not said this, only rejected your laughable, dishonest, and subjective claim that only theists are moral.”

If you now claim that atheism cannot be credited for the good things that atheists do, then of what relevance is your claim of atheists’ morality in our discussion. The good things and bad things they do is totally divorced from the fact that they are atheists.

Sheldon's picture
Thu, 10/26/2017 - 22:01

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 22:01
valiya s sajjad " When I said ‘hollow’ concept, I ***didn’t mean that you said it*** in so many words."

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 06:04 (Reply to #123)Permalink
valiya s sajjad "Therefore *****you are saying**** that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept"

>>>You really are a compulsive liar aren't you? I never said it, nor even implied it.

Sheldon's picture
"You said: “The truth however

"You said: “The truth however is that all research shows atheists on any level comparison are at least as moral as theists.”

"You are contradicting your earlier position when you were trying to establish that atheists were more moral than theists. If you have forgotten, here is what you said:"

>>Except what you are claiming I said is in quotation marks, and not my claim, you do know what quotation marks mean don't you? I'm not sure I can dumb this down much more but I'll try bullet points.

1. You asserted atheist could have no morality beyond subjective opinion.
2,. You made a string of subjective claims about a deity and what it wants.
3. You claimed atheist were immoral and cited totalitarian regimes.
4. I pointed out that human morality had to be based on a subjective assertion, and gave an example.
5. I then asserted that as long as people could agree on that subjective basis they could make objective moral claims.
6 You persisted in lying and distorting this as my claiming atheistic morals were entirely objective.
7 You claimed only a belief in a deity stopped people committing murder and rape.
8 I cited evidence that in the US atheist committed less of these crimes than theists.
9 I cited evidence that many western democracies are predominantly atheist and have comparatively low rates of crimes like murder and rape, i used japan as an example.
10 You claimed I had ignored your example of Russia, but I had not and repeated that totalitarianism was immoral by definition whether it was ostensibly atheistic or theistic and offered examples of totalitarian theistic regimes, which you then ignored.
11 You claimed atheism was a philosophy, a worldview, and a belief.
12 I refuted this utterly because it's asinine, and pointed out that atheism was none of these, as it had no dogma, doctrine, or commandments.and was just the lack of one belief
12 You then lied and claimed I was saying it was hollow.
13. Then you lied again and said I had asserted that atheism makes people more moral.

This is pretty much where we are now, and I am again refuting utterly your claim I said atheism "makes people more moral". It's clear you're not bright enough to understand the difference between showing evidence for atheists being at least as moral as theists, and making an assertion that atheism makes people more moral, which was the lie you made about what i had posted. However given how dishonestly you have misrepresented my posts, and how dishonestly you have conducted your own, with bare assertions dressed up as evidence, and subjective belief asserted as objective fact, and the woeful arguments you have offered thus far, I'm not sure it's worth my time explaining it to you. I'll give it one go...

!. Someone asserts that non-soccer players are less moral than soccer players.
2. Someone else refutes this with evidence and asserts the evidence shows non-soccer players are at least as moral as soccer players.
3 The first person then distorts this assertion as "not playing soccer makes you more moral" and assigns it to the second persons posts.

It's THAT simple.....

>>>I have not said atheism makes people more moral. Which is what you keep lying about and claiming I have said. All I have said, and am saying is that atheists in any objective comparison are least as moral as theists, and have cited evidence evidence to support this, and refuted your absurd and subjective claim that theism makes people more moral, and that atheists can't have any objective morality.

Atheists do good things and avoid doing bad things, you have even admitted this happens, how is that not objective evidence that atheists can be moral?

Valiya's picture
HI Sheldon

HI Sheldon

You said: “Except what you are claiming I said is in quotation marks, and not my claim, you do know what quotation marks mean don't you?”

I don’t know about you, but I usually quote someone in a debate to prove my argument. I don’t quote something if I don’t believe that quotation myself. You mentioned this quotation: “…the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes.” I would like to ask you if you agree with that quote or not? If you don’t, they why did you bring it up?

It was this quotation (the whole of it) from your thread that made me assume (and rightly so) that you claim that atheism makes you more moral.

But if you are willing to take back that quotation, then we can proceed with our discussion. Let me also get one more clarification from you: Do you assert that theism makes a person immoral?

Sheldon's picture
"…the more atheists or

"…the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes.”"

>>In the example given it was demonstrably true. What has this to with your blatant lie that I claimed atheism made people more moral? Or your lie that I said atheism was hollow, which you then denied and so I quoted you verbatim showing you lied.?

"It was this quotation (the whole of it) from your thread that made me assume (and rightly so) that you claim that atheism makes you more moral."

>>Then you simply can't understand English, shall I bullet point my soccer analogy for you again?

You still have not answered my questions

1) "how do you know that religious diktat is moral, when you have claimed repeatedly humans can't make objective moral assessments? Even if you could objectively show these archaic texts were from a deity, that deity might be evil to the core and you'd be unable to make an objective moral assessment of it by your own admission.

"Do you assert that theism makes a person immoral?"

No, I leave sweeping assertions to you. Theistic religious texts in both the bible and the Koran are demonstrably immoral by any objective standard though, and blind adherence to them at best may make a person an amoral automaton. The fact is many theists cherry pick through their religious tomes to weed out the bits where their perfect deity went wrong. That's not necessarily immoral, but it is risible.

Valiya's picture
Hi Sheldon

Hi Sheldon

Why are you beating around the bush? The question is fairly simple. Do you agree with the points in the quote you mentioned? If yes, then you contradict your soccer example. If no, then why did you quote it?

Sheldon's picture
When you stop telling blatant

When you stop telling blatant lies and give candid answers to my questions you may be in a position to accuse me of beating around the bush, until then that's breathtakingly hypocritical. However i answered your question about the quote, it's not my fault you're a semi literate buffoon. Here's my answer again...

Fri, 10/27/2017 - 13:44 (Reply to #134)Permalink
Sheldon >>In the example given it was demonstrably true.

I have not and do not claim that atheism "makes people more moral" as this is an absolute claim, and unlike you I avoid those.
---------------------------------------------
>>>Now....you seem to have ignored yet another question about your ludicrous claims you have access via a deity to objective morality. So here it is again for you...

Is it moral to marry then rape a 9 year old girl? Was it ever moral? Do you think a 9 year old child can give consent to a sexual relationship?

This was thought moral by the most revered man in Islam, he was considered something more than human, God's last and most important prophet. You'd think a moral deity and his most important prophet would know this was an appalling act of rape against a child. why didn't they know this, or did they just ignore it?

"Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He had ***sex with a 9-year-old girl*** and married his adopted son's wife (after arranging a quick divorce). On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army."

Is that your idea of objective morality?

Valiya's picture
Hi Sheldon

Hi Sheldon

You said: “However i answered your question about the quote, it's not my fault you're a semi literate buffoon. Here's my answer again...”

I don’t have a problem with people calling me names. But I think it would be better if we try and make it a little more civil, if possible. Just a suggestion. That way we would be able to better appreciate each other’s point of view. I believe we can disagree with mutual respect.

Coming to your point, I think you have not answered my question. Here they are once again. Do you agree with the points in that quotation? If yes, then does it not contradict your football example? If no, then why did you post it?

You said: “I have not and do not claim that atheism "makes people more moral" as this is an absolute claim, and unlike you I avoid those.”

Fine, I get that. But I am just wondering then why did you post that misleading quotation. I am pursing this question because you have been calling me names accusing me of misrepresenting you. And I am just trying to make you understand that I did not misrepresent you. Rather you misrepresented yourself by posting a quote which does not represent your premise.

You said: “Is it moral to marry then rape a 9 year old girl? Was it ever moral? Do you think a 9 year old child can give consent to a sexual relationship?”

Up until the end of 19th century, girls getting married at a very young age was the norm throughout the world. 14 was considered TOO LATE for a girl to get married in Europe. So, I don’t see anything immoral in a girl getting married as soon as she came of age 1400 years ago. If you say otherwise, you probably seem to have arrived at some kind of a universal standard for the age of marriage. If so, kindly tell me what that age is, and give your reasons.

You said: "Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night.”

Can you explain to me what is immoral in a polygamous relationship if the parties involved in it did not have a problem with the arrangement? Let’s say today in our modern world, two women decide to share a man, and it is a mutually consented arrangement, would you call it immoral? If yes, on what basis.

You said: “On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army."

If you can give me your proof for it, may be I will be able to explain it.

Sheldon's picture
"I think it would be better

"I think it would be better if we try and make it a little more civil, if possible. Just a suggestion."

Then stop lying, and misrepresenting what I have said, and stop calming objective morality when you refuse to answer any questions as to this "objectivity" you blindly assert.
---------------------------------
"I believe we can disagree with mutual respect."

Only if you stop lying about what I have said, and refusing to accept you have lied.
-----------------------------------
"Coming to your point, I think you have not answered my question. "

Another lie, I have answered several times, though from the start you have refused to give honest answers to mine. How is this lie being civil, you seem to miss the hypocrisy in your claims.
------------------------------------------------
" I am just trying to make you understand that I did not misrepresent you."

Oh really?

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 22:01
valiya s sajjad " When I said ‘hollow’ concept, I ***didn’t mean that you said it*** in so many words."

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 06:04 (Reply to #123)Permalink
valiya s sajjad "Therefore *****you are saying**** that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept"

TRY AGAIN...
-------------------------------------------------
"I don’t see anything immoral in a girl getting married as soon as she came of age 1400 years ago."

1) So to be clear you are claiming that it was once moral for a man in his 40's to marry and then rape a 9 year old girl?
2) To also be clear are you now claiming this is no longer moral?

So much for your grandiose claims for objective morality, how can something be objectively moral to a "perfect being" and then change to being objectively immoral?
----------------------------------------------------
"Can you explain to me what is immoral in a polygamous relationship if the parties involved in it did not have a problem with the arrangement?"

You've ignored the context again so I'll help you out...

1) Are you claiming it is moral to rape a 9 year old child as long as the parents consent?
2) Is it moral to rape children and slaves as long as Mohammed murdered the parents first, as the Koran states?
--------------------------------------------------
"You said: “On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army."

If you can give me your proof for it, may be I will be able to explain it."

I already did, it's in the Koran, and I gave you the quote.....

QURAN - 70:22-30: "Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); ***who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them:***

Note the part of the text in asterisks...Now enough evasion and lies from you, do you think it is moral to rape a 9 year old girl? Or to own slaves, or to rape them? as the Koran clearly says Mohammed did, and you have claimed your "superior objective" morality comes from?

Valiya's picture
HI Sheldon

HI Sheldon

You said: “Another lie, I have answered several times,…”

Here are the 3 questions. Can you please do me a favor? Just copy paste each question and you’re your answers for each one under them. Just so that there is no more confusion on the subject.

1. Do you believe in the points raised in the quotation you gave?
2. If you do, then does it not contradict your football example?
3. If you don’t agree with the points, then why did you post the quotation?

You said: “Thu, 10/26/2017 - 22:01
valiya s sajjad " When I said ‘hollow’ concept, I ***didn’t mean that you said it*** in so many words."
Thu, 10/26/2017 - 06:04 (Reply to #123)Permalink
valiya s sajjad "Therefore *****you are saying**** that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept"

Now, here you are trying to show that I have lied big time because in one place I literally say “you are saying” atheism is a hollow concept, and at another place i contradict myself by saying “I didn’t mean you said it in so many words.”

This is basic commonsense. Often times in a debate we paraphrase our opponents while refuting them. The word ‘hollow’ was my way of paraphrasing your argument that atheism is NOT a philosophy, worldview and other things. That’s the reason right beside the word ‘hollow’ I had mentioned within parenthesis the same words you had used. If you don’t understand this, I feel sorry for your cognitive abilities.

You said: “1) So to be clear you are claiming that it was once moral for a man in his 40's to marry and then rape a 9 year old girl?”

I reject your use of word ‘rape’ as it’s just your subjective interpretation. Secondly, I am saying that there is nothing immoral in getting a girl who has come of age to get married – now or back then. However, this only means that the age of marriage has no moral restrictions and that the appropriate age limit can be decided according to the situation. Just to put it perspective, let me give you an example. It may NOT be IMMORAL for a girl to get married at 18. However, she could be advised against it for reasons of higher education and things like that. So, something can be morally proper, but situationally unadvisable.

You said: “2) To also be clear are you now claiming this is no longer moral?”

Answered above.

You said: “Are you claiming it is moral to rape a 9 year old child as long as the parents consent?”

I gather you are calling a relationship with a 9 year old ‘rape’ because she is under the age of consent. So, therefore you seem to know what the appropriate age of consent is. Can you tell me what it is? In the US I believe age of consent differs from state to state starting from 12 all the way up to 16. Looks like they don’t have any standard even today. Do you have any standard? If yes, can you tell on what basis you came to that conclusion?

You said: “2) Is it moral to rape children and slaves as long as Mohammed murdered the parents first, as the Koran states?””

This is a strawman, because there was no rape of children or slaves. Can you show me proof of rape?

You stated as proof: “QURAN - 70:22-30: "Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); ***who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them:***

You stated this in reply to my demand of proof for your claim that the prophet had sex with slaves on the very days in which they watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of enemies. I don’t see any proof of that in this verse you quoted.

You said: “Note the part of the text in asterisks...Now enough evasion and lies from you, do you think it is moral to rape a 9 year old girl? Or to own slaves, or to rape them? as the Koran clearly says Mohammed did, and you have claimed your "superior objective" morality comes from?”

Yes, I agree that you have given proof of sexual relationship with slaves. But I don’t see any proof of rape, as you are repeatedly claiming. If you are asking about the morality of sex with slaves, tell me what can be morally wrong in a relationship with consent? If you say that there was no consent, then show me the proof for rape.

Sheldon's picture
valiya s sajjad Can you

valiya s sajjad Can you please do me a favor? Just copy paste each question and you’re your answers for each one under them. Just so that there is no more confusion on the subject.

1. Do you believe in the points raised in the quotation you gave?
2. If you do, then does it not contradict your football example?
3. If you don’t agree with the points, then why did you post the quotation?

Use the scroll button, I've answered you three separate times now.
----------------------------------------
You said: “Thu, 10/26/2017 - 22:01
valiya s sajjad " When I said ‘hollow’ concept, I ***didn’t mean that you said it*** in so many words."
Thu, 10/26/2017 - 06:04 (Reply to #123)Permalink
valiya s sajjad "Therefore *****you are saying**** that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept"

Now, here you are trying to show that I have lied big time because in one place I literally say “you are saying” atheism is a hollow concept, and at another place i contradict myself by saying “I didn’t mean you said it in so many words.” This is basic commonsense.

>>No this is you lying as anyone can see, it's absurd to try and bluff your way out now, you're simply lying again because despite your grandiose claims to objective morality you don't have morals enough to apologise for your lie. It took you 4 posts to even acknowledge I'd quoted your lie verbatim, so I doubt anyone's surprised.
-----------------------------------------------
"You said: “1) So to be clear you are claiming that it was once moral for a man in his 40's to marry and then rape a 9 year old girl?”

I reject your use of word ‘rape’"

>>I don't care, but we duly note you think a 9 year old child can give consent to sex with a 40 year mans. I think we're getting quite a good idea of that "objective morality" you have been trumpeting.
----------------------------------------------
"Secondly, I am saying that there is nothing immoral in getting a girl who has come of age to get married –"

You think a 9 year old girl has "come of age", and a 40 year old man should be allowed to marry and then rape her? Oh sorry, you don't consider the non-consensual sex with a 9 year old is rape, blimey your morals are like something from a dystopian horror movie. I'm not that surprised, but I am utterly appalled.
-------------------------------------------------
" However, this only means that the age of marriage has no moral restrictions and that the appropriate age limit can be decided according to the situation."

I'm sure we're all now curious as to just how young a child would have to be before your " objective morals" would make you object to her being married off to a 40 year old man and then raped? Jesus wept.....
------------------------------------------------
"I gather you are calling a relationship with a 9 year old ‘rape’ because she is under the age of consent."

I called it rape because in no decent moral society could a child of 9 be considered able to consent to sex. You've made it clear you disagree, and I shall let others judge whether justifying the rape of a 9 year old child by a 40 year old man represents moral rectitude, objective or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------
You said: “2) Is it moral to rape children and slaves as long as Mohammed murdered the parents first, as the Koran states?””

This is a strawman, because there was no rape of children or slaves. Can you show me proof of rape?

>>I already gave you the relevant passage from the Koran TWICE so why lie? Here it is a THIRD time...

QURAN - 70:22-30: "Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); ***who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them:***
---------------------------------------------------
"You said: “Note the part of the text in asterisks...Now enough evasion and lies from you, do you think it is moral to rape a 9 year old girl? Or to own slaves, or to rape them? as the Koran clearly says Mohammed did, and you have claimed your "superior objective" morality comes from?”

>>So you think slaves, just like 9 year old children, can consent to sex? You see no chance of coercion if someone owns another human being as a slave? Christ on a bike this is almost beyond belief. Do you have children? Any daughters? Would you seriously think it moral to marry a nine year old daughter (if you had one) to a man of forty?

>>So lets take a look at your answers so far

1. You think it's ok for a 40 year old man to have sex with a child of 9, and don't consider this rape.
2. You think it's ok to own slaves.
3. You think it's moral to have sex with those slaves.

>>You still haven;t said if you think these are still moral in your opinion?

>>As I said pages ago you have no grasp of morality at all, not even a tenuous understanding of what human morality is. This then is inevitable when someone refuses to use reason, instead subjugating their moral responsibility to other humans to teh blind adherence of an automaton to archaic religious dogma and doctrine. Which is why you are able to make grandiose claims for moral objectivity and assert atheists can have no morality, whilst claiming a 9 year old child can give consent to sex with a 40 year old man.

the mind boggles.....

Valiya's picture
HI sheldon

HI sheldon

You said: “Use the scroll button, I've answered you three separate times now.”

So that settles it… you have no answer.

You said: “It took you 4 posts to even acknowledge I'd quoted your lie verbatim, so I doubt anyone's surprised.”

In my very first post, I had mentioned within parenthesis your exact statement. Why would I do that if my intention was to misrepresent you? After all, if atheism is NOT a philosophy, not a worldview, not an ideology etc… then it’s just what I have called it… HOLLOW. There is no misrepresentation there.

You said: “>>I don't care, but we duly note you think a 9 year old child can give consent to sex with a 40 year mans.”

I am waiting to know what is the appropriate age of consent according to you? Perhaps then I can make a comparison and find out by what degree I fall short of your morality.

You said: “You think a 9 year old girl has "come of age",

Yes. Aisha (the prophet’s wife in question) herself thinks so. What more do you want?

You said: “…and a 40 year old man should be allowed to marry and then rape her?”

Repeating a strawman doesn’t improve your argument. Unless you can establish the appropriate age of consent, your charge of rape can’t be entertained… unless of course you take to your emotional rants as usual.

You said: “Oh sorry, you don't consider the non-consensual sex with a 9 year old is rape,”

Once again emotional outrage! Please establish your standard for the age of consent before you blow your top.

You said: “I'm sure we're all now curious as to just how young a child would have to be before your " objective morals" would make you object to her being married off to a 40 year old man and then raped? Jesus wept.....

Coming of age is the dividing line. If a girl has not attained puberty then she can’t be entered into a sexual union. That’s my standard. Now what is your standard… I am curious to know.

You said: “I called it rape because in no decent moral society could a child of 9 be considered able to consent to sex.”

What an objective standard. “Decent Moral Society” – please define decency, and by what yardsticks do you measure decency? And what is the age of consent in your decent society? 12, 13, 14 or how much?

You said: “You've made it clear you disagree, and I shall let others judge whether justifying the rape of a 9 year old child by a 40 year old man represents moral rectitude, objective or otherwise.”

Even if your screamed ‘rape’ 1000 times it doesn’t become that unless you show what your standard of consent is?

You stated: QURAN - 70:22-30: "Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); ***who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them:***

Are you saying “who restrain their carnal desire save with their wives and their slave girls...” is proof of rape. If you don’t restrain your desire with your wife would that become rape? Then how come it becomes rape in the case of slave girls? There are so many hadith that explains these relations… can you show one in which the slave was unwilling, screaming in agony or even so much as frowning in dislike… something at all that shows the slave was unwilling or non-consenting? I challenge you.

You said: “>>So you think slaves, just like 9 year old children, can consent to sex? You see no chance of coercion if someone owns another human being as a slave?”

You are speaking from your imageries of trans-Atlantic salves in chains. The picture is very different in Islam. Slaves owned properties, they entered into contracts with their owners to gain their freedom, slaves even became queens and kings. And you are talking of consent… your ignorance is laughable.

Sheldon's picture
"You said: “Use the scroll

"You said: “Use the scroll button, I've answered you three separate times now.”

So that settles it… you have no answer."

>>No it means I have answered you three times, and now true to form you're lying again. I shall let others read the discourse and see your rank duplicity for themselves.
----------------------------------------
" There is no misrepresentation there."

Liar...you can squirm all you want, it's plain to see you lied about what I had said.

You said: “Thu, 10/26/2017 - 22:01
valiya s sajjad " When I said ‘hollow’ concept, I ***didn’t mean that you said it*** in so many words."
Thu, 10/26/2017 - 06:04 (Reply to #123)Permalink
valiya s sajjad "Therefore *****you are saying**** that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept"
----------------------------------------------
"You said: “You think a 9 year old girl has "come of age",

Yes. Aisha (the prophet’s wife in question) herself thinks so. What more do you want?"

What I want is irrelevant, you have just destroyed any claim to any morality of any kind by claiming a 9 year old child can give consent to marriage and sex. All else is coloured bubbles. I really hope you have no authority of any kind over any children is all I can say.
------------------------------------------------------
"Coming of age is the dividing line. If a girl has not attained puberty then she can’t be entered into a sexual union. That’s my standard."

And I reiterate you don't have even a tenuous grasp of morality, you're views on sex and the age of consent are repugnant and deeply worrying.
----------------------------------------------------
"What an objective standard. “Decent Moral Society” – please define decency, and by what yardsticks do you measure decency? "

Well not condoning the rape of children would be a prerequisite requirement, but you have shown repeatedly that you have no grasp of decency or morality as you have claimed repeatedly you think it's fine to rape children. You have no shame.....
-------------------------------------------------
"Even if your screamed ‘rape’ 1000 times it doesn’t become that unless you show what your standard of consent is?"

I don't need to scream anything as others can read your astonishing claims for themselves, and your facile attempts to pretend I'm irrational or emotional here, while you advocate sex with children is moral, speaks for itself. My standard, for the record, would be to denounce any attempt at sex with a child of 9 as an insidious and perniciously immoral act. In the UK the age of consent is 16, and I'd accept that as a bare minimum. Though I'd also expect laws to protect teenagers from sexual predators like yourself who think that it's ok to exploit and coerce the very young for their own sordid gratification.
-----------------------------------------
"Are you saying “who restrain their carnal desire save with their wives and their slave girls...” is proof of rape. If you don’t restrain your desire with your wife would that become rape? Then how come it becomes rape in the case of slave girls?"

>>It doesn't surprise me at all that you don't now, but for the record it's rape when proper consent is not given, and this includes coercion or pressure of any kind regardless of whether it is between married couples. It goes without saying that sex with anyone under the age of 16 is non-consensual, and a slave by definition cannot give consent as they are property. I note yet again you don't denounce slavery as immoral, quelle surprise.
--------------------------------------------
"You are speaking from your imageries of trans-Atlantic salves in chains. The picture is very different in Islam. Slaves owned properties, they entered into contracts with their owners to gain their freedom, slaves even became queens and kings. And you are talking of consent… your ignorance is laughable."

What utter bilge, and ignorance is never laughable, yours certainly is no laughing matter, but your absurd attempts to claim rape including that of children, and slavery as moral speaks for itself, again I'm happy for others to decide what is and is not laughable. Though I think any claims to moral ascendancy by you would certainly fall into that category now. Seriously you have no clue what you've said here, but rest assured any attempt by you to discuss morality is pointless after what you've already said. No decent person won't be appalled at your attitude.

Valiya's picture
Hi Sheldon,

Hi Sheldon,

I find that progressively your posts contain more expletives than logical arguments. In this post there is only one point that merits any response. So here it is.

You said: “In the UK the age of consent is 16, and I'd accept that as a bare minimum.”

What you find acceptable is of no consequence here. Give me a logical reason as to why that has to be so. In India you would be called a pedophile because the age of consent in India is 18. IN many states in the US the age of consent ranges between 12 and 16. Would you call those states immoral?

Finally, let’s say a girl of 14 wants to have sex with her boyfriend. Would you say that the girl is being immoral? Would you stop her from indulging in it?

Sheldon's picture
I told you that anyone who

I told you that anyone who thinks it is moral for an adult of 40 years old to have sex with a nine year old child doesn't have even a tenuous grasp of morality. You even claimed it was moral to own slaves, and failed to see how owning another human being and having sex with them was coercive, again indicating you have no objective sense of morality at all. You even claimed murder was only morally wrong under the circumstances your deity outlines, so one assumes you think it is fine to kill those who don't share your beliefs "wherever you find them" as the Koran states?

Despite your entry into this discourse with grandiose claims for your exclusive claim to objective morality, all you have done is make derisory and insulting remarks about people who don't share your beliefs, with no cogent reasoning behind your sententious remarks. You have persistently misrepresented what I have said, and refused even to acknowledge this when a verbatim quote showed beyond doubt you had lied. You have refused throughout to explain how you can objectively assess your religions morals, if as you persistently claimed humans are incapable of objective moral assessments? It seems the paradox is either wasted on you, or you are dishonestly ignoring it.

All this however is entirely redundant after your endorsement of paedophilia as moral, and your claims that a child as young as nine years old is able to give consent to sex with an adult in their 40's, and that any child can be married off as long as you think they have "come of age". Then claiming that a nine year old girl can have come of age, and that as long as she thinks it's ok you asked "what more could you want"? If you can't see how disgusting and immoral that is then you're lost and need help to free you of this pernicious beliefs you have been indoctrinated with.

Anyone that detached from morality can have no useful discussion on morals. The beliefs you have expressed here are pernicious and repugnant. And you can whine all you like about me disrespecting you, that's fine, as I have no respect for anyone who tries to justify the rape of a child as moral.

Here are some of the repugnant claims you have made:

>>>You think a 9 year old girl has "come of age",

valiya s sajjad: "Yes. Aisha (the prophet’s wife in question) herself thinks so. What more do you want?" "Coming of age is the dividing line. If a girl has not attained puberty then she can’t be entered into a sexual union. That’s my standard."
---------------------------------------

valiya s sajjad: You said: “In the UK the age of consent is 16, and I'd accept that as a bare minimum.” What you find acceptable is of no consequence here. Give me a logical reason as to why that has to be so. In India you would be called a pedophile because the age of consent in India is 18.

So we can add the phrase bare minimum to the list of phrases you can't grasp the meaning of. I also quite specifically said **IN THE UK** no nice straw man argument there as I never remotely suggested anyone should have sex with someone under 18 in any other country, that's what bare minimum means, Though how this latest facile lie has any relevance when you have repeatedly claimed that you think it is moral for a 40 year old man to rape a nine year old child? Do you seriously think a 16 year old is less emotionally equipped to give proper consent to sex than a nine year old? You're just desperate to deflect from your repulsive claims now, and I doubt it is fooling anyone.

Valiya's picture
Hi Sheldon

Hi Sheldon

Once again… I am ignoring most of your posts as they are just tom-tomming your emotional biases without any valid basis. The few that I think merits response are below:

You said: “I told you that anyone who thinks it is moral for an adult of 40 years old to have sex with a nine year old child doesn't have even a tenuous grasp of morality.”

Unless you can give me a logical explanation for your standard of age of consent, I am afraid I can’t entertain this.

You said: “You even claimed it was moral to own slaves, and failed to see how owning another human being and having sex with them was coercive…”

Please shed you transatlantic slave prejudices and bring your proofs. Show me one instance where Islam sanctions rape of slaves. I told you how slaves in Islam had rights what many in our modern world still don’t have.

You said: “… so one assumes you think it is fine to kill those who don't share your beliefs "wherever you find them" as the Koran states?”

Why have you just cut & pasted an incomplete portion of the verse? Please post starting from 2:190 and all the way through, and you will understand the full meaning of that verse.

You said: “You have refused throughout to explain how you can objectively assess your religions morals,”

I agree that I have not presented my case fully yet. We were having that discussion at another place in this thread, and then there was this digression. I will present my case.

You said: “I also quite specifically said **IN THE UK** no nice straw man argument there as I never remotely suggested anyone should have sex with someone under 18 in any other country, that's what bare minimum means,”

My question is simple. Why should your “bear minimum” be more correct than another person’s bear minimum? In India the bear minimum is 18, according to which you will be deemed a pedophile. Many states in the US consider the age of consent to be 12 and in some 14? You judging them as immoral is not any different from India judging you as immoral.

Sapporo's picture
Quran (2:223)

Quran (2:223)
"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask Allah to bestow upon you pious offspring) before you for your ownselves. And fear Allah, and know that you are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give good tidings to the believers (O Muhammad)."

(Bukhari 34:432)
"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

Sheldon's picture
valiya s sajjad "Why are you

valiya s sajjad "Why are you beating around the bush?"

Talking of beating around the bush, you have failed to address your lie here as well.

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 22:01
valiya s sajjad " When I said ‘hollow’ concept, I ***didn’t mean that you said it*** in so many words."

Thu, 10/26/2017 - 06:04 (Reply to #123)Permalink
valiya s sajjad "Therefore *****you are saying**** that atheists do bad things because atheism is just a hollow concept"

>>>You really are a compulsive liar aren't you? I never said it, nor even implied it.

Sheldon's picture
"If you now claim that

"If you now claim that atheism cannot be credited for the good things that atheists do, then of what relevance is your claim of atheists’ morality in our discussion. The good things and bad things they do is totally divorced from the fact that they are atheists."

>>Hells bells, I could have explained this to a chimpanzee by now. Since atheism is just the absence or lack of a single belief, it does not offer motivate by itself for people to be moral or immoral.I really can't dumb this down for you anymore.

However evidence shows that in all objective comparisons atheists are at least as moral as theist, despite your claims they are not, and cannot be, moral, because they don't blindly adhere to archaic and superstitious iron age religious texts as you do.

Religious text in the bible and koran on the other hand offer ample motivations to be immoral, and blind adherence to them as you advocate makes you an automaton, there is nothing moral in that. You have even professed that murder is "only wrong in the instances god says it is".

Sheldon's picture
"atheism cannot be credited

"atheism cannot be credited for the good things that atheists do,"

Hallelujah, you've got something right. Stalin wasn't evil because he was an atheist, he was evil because he he was probably psychotic, paranoid and corrupted by having absolute power of life and death over hundreds of millions of people. He was trained as a priest and make of that what you will, and he is on record as claiming how impressed he always was with the Catholic Jesuit order, and that he based the structure of his secret police on the structure of that order.

Atheism can't be credited for the good things atheists do, but atheists can however be credited for the good things they do, and furthermore this good behaviour destroys your asinine and biased claims that atheists aren't moral by any objective standard.

Compare this to Hitler's genocidal Holocaust of the Jews, almost certainly motivated by centuries of christian antisemitism, endorsed by the RCC and protestant churches for hundreds of years. The only top Nazi ever excommunicated by the RCC was Joseph Goebbels and this was because he married a divorced protestant.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.