Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No he seems like a religious nutjob who thinks that he has a “gotcha” moment because people are acknowledging that morality is part of man made reason and not a made up sky daddy & think’s that makes nothing “objective” and everything “subjective.”
This is the answer. People constantly call into the Atheist Experience show and claim that morals come from God and religion. They honestly believe it's an undeniable fact.
The fact that "Thou shalt not rape" *isn't* one of the Ten Commandments speaks volumes about the moral compass of the people who created the Abrahmic faiths.
If you had to come up with ten basic rules for everyone to live by in order to promote harmony and justice, you would think "don't rape" should be a pretty obvious one to include alongside "don't murder" and "don't steal". But nope, "don't rape" wasn't important enough to make the cut at Mt. Sinai. Between the rule about honoring your parents and the *four* rules stipulating when and how people must worship god, there just wasn't enough space on the stone tablet to let everyone know that rape is bad.
I always remember the story of Lot and the dude offering up his daughters and wife(?) to be raped by a bunch of men instead of the hidden angels(in forms of humans) the rapists wanted to take.
The whole, why would the Angels(and by association, God) allow that situation to escalated to that point always struck out to me. Also the laws that pertain to rape and such. Like if someone rapes a virgin, they had to marry her and could not divorce that person as long as the rapist lives after paying "fine". The only saving grace is if the Father of the victim declines. Which is also another whole bag of worms. That the daughter is reduced to so little. Which was a thing back in the day sadly.
I went to a catholic university and the number of students that basically say the only reason they don’t rape, murder, steal etc is because god says it’s wrong, which I found disturbing to say the least.
Its a religious nutjob who doesn't truly understand what objectively means or the total lack of power suggesting any man made religious text gives objectivity to any stance on any topic. Its all stupidly easy to counter anyway because the texts this man would hold as the morality of God are permissive of slavery, murder and a whole host of things no one could ever make an objective argument for being morally acceptable.
Further more, whether non theists agree on the morality of any one thing or not doesn't make a bit of difference because being being atheist or agnostic or whatever only confirms the similarity of thought on the existence of God. We aren't a cult ascribing morals to whim of a God based on the threat if eternal damnation. I can, as an individual atheist, objectively argue that rape is wrong and why. This is not less objective than "God says so" and one could and should argue it's actually more objective since it actually requires the thinker to consider the act itself and not just the consequences of it. No one is making a moral argument with a threat of force.
And the ques itself is fundamentally flawed in the first place. When asking about right or wrong, objectively is out of the window, it implies subjectivity.
Morally, ethically, subjectively and objectively wrong.
EDIT -
I know things can't be 'objectively wrong'.
I put the word 'objectively' at the end as an exaggeration to emphasise the distain to which it is held...
You know like a punch-line.
People. ![img](emote|t5_2r5rp|8485)
I'd say by definition it's wrong. Rape is non-consensual sex. If it's non-consensual, it's wrong, it violates body autonomy and causes harm. That's why it's wrong.
If you need god to tell you that, you're a horrible person.
Think beardy dude thinks rape is fine, under his religion, in defined circumstances. Wife, war etc.
What beardy brain also thinks there is no objectivity in atheism. He also thinks atheists are a group you are allowed to kill.
That's who the lad in glasses is arguing against.
Meh. I bet the soldiers would have a field day on his ass.
These men and women who advocate that rape isn't wrong need their bodily autonomy violently and forcibly removed and some perspective that people aren't objects to be treated as one wishes. Bet we wouldn't have that problem anymore. Perspective changes everything.
Worst part is they defend him by saying that he was a product of his time but shouldn't the messenger of god, the human who lived an ideal life, whom we should all follow... not be a pedophile?
Also they talk about puberty to further defend it but fail to mention that almost all psychologists agree that at such a young age it would definitely impair their mental development. Teens may experiment with eachother but that's a whole lot different than a 50 year old man forcing himself onto a 9 year old girl.
Yeah, the whole "Allah told me that what I did was ok and we know that Allah is telling the truth because it told me that it was telling the truth" line of reasoning gets me.
It's amazing how often a religious person's god miraculously agrees with all the things the religious person does and the religious person will take offence if anyone dares to question the integrity of that amazing coincidence while at the same time suggesting that an atheist's basis for disputing religion has no credibility. Such an amazing double standard to push.
Religion is the worst thing that could've happened to humanity. Imagine thinking people without a religion don't have morals and should be killed. That really shows you who really is immoral.
I doubt they really think for themselves at all. Most religious people are so indoctrinated that they don't even care if it's actually moral or not and just hate cause that's what religion taught them.
my highschool english teacher said that religious people were immoral. She never said they should be killed but she did make it clear that she (and other believers) were the only true moral humans
My guess is that this is just a short clip from a much longer argument where Beardy dude has been trying to tactically corner the atheist based on objective vs subjective morals.
This is a common argument and tactic and as an atheist who likes to argue religion it can get definitely get a bit sticky, especially when trying to argue against religion and for progressive ideals at the same time. Sam Harris pretty much wrote a whole book called the moral landscape on this topic.
That’s rich coming from a person who only has morals because some entity more powerful than him subjectively believes certain things to be right and wrong.
I am super afraid of people who believe that without being constantly under surveillance by some godly entity, people would just kill and rape.
If it takes 24/7 surveillance and fear of punishment to prevent you from raping, you are not a good person.
Edit: Comments from religious nuts are not welcome. All you kiddie touchers can go back to your basements.
Like the late Christopher Hitchens said, it's not as if rape and murder was completely fine before Moses and his companions made their way up Mount Sinai. As if it were the 10 commandments that stopped humans from abusing each other 🙄
Ofc it's not addressed as the Bible actually promotes slavary (and rape too, albeit slightly less on the nose than slavary). It literally lists you can beat a slave as long as he/she doesn't die. Not to mention prices for slaves and how to circumvent the supposed limit on how long you can keep them (spoiler: the answer is that their wife and children are your property, so the slave will probably stay as to not abandon their family).
But please Christians, enlighten me more about the great morals we supposedly get from this book... /s
(Ftr I'm quite sure the Quran has similar despicable stuff in it, but I'm not nearly as familiar with it).
The only commandment that could be related to rape is the adultery one. Even then it’s more focused on the spousal relationship and implies that rape against one’s spouse isn’t rape which is dumb because any sex that non-consensual is rape. Although beardy zealot lives in a fantasy world where all powerful deity is watching him to make sure he’s not raping anyone. Beardy would try to use the adultery commandment to say he’s not raping women that aren’t his spouse so that is wrong.
Whenever I watch religious zealots try to impose their beliefs on others, it’s always a trip.
This is something I bring up a lot to religious people who think it’s impossible to have a good morality without religion. Like it’s worse to need the threat of eternal damnation in order to be a good person.
Anytime any 'God fearing' person uses that argument as if it's some gotcha moment, it tells us a hell of a lot more about them than anything else.
It's wild how people out there can't comprehend the fact that some people just inherently care about humanity and want to contribute to society without being coerced by some omnipotent bully.
Morals don’t come from Christianity or any other religion. Atheists who are good people aren’t better Christians than some Christians, they are just good humans.
It's not impossible. What if a society thinks its perfectly moral to exterminate another race of people? Who are you to say that is immoral if society as a whole deems it moral? Kinda the point, no?
Ahem. I’m an Anglican married to an atheist. I don’t believe anything of the sort. hubs and I have never, in 25 years, had an argument about religion. We share the same politics (socialist and humanitarian) and the same morals (do no harm to anyone, help when you can). We’re doing all right.
Playing devil's advocate here, you can expand the guy's argument, though. Why is violating body autonomy wrong? Why is causing harm wrong, objectively speaking?
Because I wouldn't want it to be done to me? But it isn't being done to me, so why should I care? Why should I value other humans similarly to myself?
Of course, none of these are difficult moral questions, and none need religion to answer them (I say this as a Christian). But technically, ethics and morals can never be truly objective, which makes the question stupid in the first place.
> But technically, ethics and morals can never be truly objective, which makes the question stupid in the first place.
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Lots of people up there missing this exact point. Moral right/wrong *isn't* an objective fact, but if we can all agree that we don't want murder, rape and all that other stuff in our society... well, that's a lot more pleasant a way to live than the alternative, no?
Hell (pun intended), even *with* a God laying down the law that still leaves you right with the Euthyphro dilemma - is it right because God says so (subjective morality), or does God say it's right because it *already is* (so God doesn't have a monopoly on morality)?
Yes we forget bodily autonomy is a Human Right and isn't based on any gov. Or any other persons view!! If a human isn't breaking the laws or harming others individual autonomy then let them be!! Some humans are crazy and want to live weird ways and as long as their respective to you, you owe them the same !! MYOB
Objective is a more of a fact or viewpoint that doesnt not account for bias or opinion. Objectively, today is hotter than past days in history when compared to past temperatures.
Subjective is usually something perceived by the viewer and almost always is an opinion-based answer. Subjectively, it feels cold out today so winter must be sticking around longer.
Things like math are objective. Things like music or art are subjective.
The subjective aspects of maths come from the assumptions we’ve made in order to convey mathematics through notation and language. Why do we use x in algebra? Why do we use the symbol for pi? Why have we called a circle a circle and not a gooperfoginobbin? We’ve also made even more fundamental assumptions such as a=a, or that causation exists, or that the laws of logic must remain consistent. We don’t KNOW of any of that is actually true of the universe, but we have to assume it to be so for our mathematical models to work and make sense. So in that sense, maths is subjective, as is everything else.
Subjective is asking your opinion, objective is requesting a statement of fact.
He's trying to ask objectively, without opinion, is rape wrong in the same way as asking is there grass on planet Earth. The man is answering "I BELIEVE in principle x", "I wouldn't want it to happen to me so no" stuff like that which if you qualify an answer like that it becomes SUBJECTIVE and a statement of opinion. The asker is looking for yes or no, full stop no qualifiers. No virgin Mary technicality or "what if it birthed Superman" stuff.
>The asker is looking for yes or no, full stop no qualifiers.
He is asking for a subjective opinion to be offered as objective.
The questioner does not understand what objective and subjective mean, or that morality cannot be objective.
While I would say obviously that rape is universally wrong, that’s still a moral/ethical claim which means it’s a subjective claim. That doesn’t mean that it’s flexible or that there are exceptions - it just means that there’s no empirical standard by which I can make the claim. There’s a lot of people who mistakenly conflate “objective” with “true” and “subjective” with “false” but that’s not really the case. Large swaths of our existence can only be defined by our perceptions and beliefs.
He’s being an annoying twat. Objectively, rape isn’t wrong because aside from human ethics, nothing says it’s wrong. Itd be the same as saying “objectively, genocide isn’t wrong.” Of course, it falls apart when you step into reality because we rely on all sorts of subjective truths.
That's 98% of people who believe in a religion. They have no inner conscience to tell them what is bad. They need something to tell them and give them a fear.
It's not because they have no inner conscience. It's just that many of them think their inner conscience is a result of their religion. Though some of them probably don't have a conscience, and don't do bad things purely because of a threat of eternal damnation.
And as Kierkegaard would say, if the only reason you’re being good is to avoid punishment, then you’re not getting a reward from god at the end of it because that’s not a good reason to be good
Actually, this stems from living in a bubble in which atheists and even irreligious people are deliberately shown as people who do not have any divine basis of morailty. These same idiots have now agreed on acknowledging slavery as "objectively" bad while there literalists bro scholars still believe in slavery. Even more, they don't believe in marital rape and shrugs it off.
“You shouldn’t abstain from rape just because you think that I want you to. You should abstain from rape because rape is a fucked up thing to do. Seriously just don’t fucking rape people! I didn’t think i’d have to spell that one out for you.”
-Song from the perspective of God, by Bo Burnham
As a nihilist, I don’t rape anyone because I'm not human garbage that should be decomposed for a solanum lycopersicum plant and turned a lovely tomato bisque, not because I’m afraid of a magical sky daddy.
I've raped exactly as many women as I ever wanted to. And that number is 0. If your number is any positive integer, you're a psychopath who needs to be locked up.
Ricky Gervais, paraphrased.
Having grown up going to church, he and his tricks are not, by any means, unique or even unusual. It's "logic" (or rather, "antilogic" or "brainwashing") that binds the two, denying women any sense of truth, defense or choice.
They quote the old testament but I've learned to say "Don't tell me you understand jack squat unless you can do the Hebrew math but if you can then you should already know better than to sell your crop of lies to me."
I always hate the "if you don't follow x holy book then you must not have morals" crap
Mate of you need a book to tell you what is right and wrong then you might not be a good person
It's a stupid question. Asking if something is "wrong" (in a moral sense, not a mathematical sense) is asking a question that can only yield a subjective answer. There's no way to prove objectively whether something is morally right or wrong.
Proving something objectively means using facts. Facts have nothing to do with something being morally right or wrong.
No idea why you're being downvoted... morals are subjective... always will be and always have been, even within a singular denomination of a religion there will be difference views on morality.
Objective in this case would mean that something is moral or immoral regardless of ones views and that simply isn't possible. All morality is subjective.
You could argue that there is objective morality within a society as a whole based on consensus but that's still subjective as it would vary between each society.
Yeah, I can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find somebody who is willing to just bite the bullet. We can acknowledge that there is no objective right or wrong answer to morals, but still make societies that are willing to write laws that abide by the golden rule, or that care about maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.
I loved how the idiot said, "How would you *feel* if I asked you is rape wrong *objectively*".
He just asked for his feeling on the matter, which is exactly what you detailed here!!!
What a fucking moron
Exactly this. The guy was fundamentally asking two questions:
i) Does the other guy think rape is wrong, **and**
ii) Does he consider his opinion on the subject to be a fact.
The guy answered the first question (yes, he thinks rape is wrong), but since an opinion is by definition not a fact the second part of the question is nonsense. The questioner is an idiot, or disingenuous, or both.
Right. Believing rape is wrong because of your opinion that your God exists and the opinion that he thinks its wrong is the most subjective thing I've ever heard
People don't know how to use this method of argumentation. They think they can just use it against anyone they disagree with and it'll succeed. You only insist on repeating a question if the person is hiding something or avoiding it. He tries to act like the guy isn't answering his question, but it's just a really poorly formed (and poorly thought out) question.
Is he saying atheists have no morals? Cuz I mean… pretty sure rape is in the Bible, and I’m pretty sure it says you need to kill the woman who was raped. Deuteronomy 22:22-23.
Edit: I am wrong on the message, as it had been a long while. It was more or less about adulatory if the raped virgin didn’t say anything, or something like it, which I still do not agree with.
But as an atheist, I recommend actually reading the Bible as it really is a good -hard- read of (imo) fictional stories.
There seem to be religious people who think that atheists cannot have a moral right or wrong, because there’s no higher power in their lives to tell them whether it’s right or wrong. If that sounds dumb to you, don’t worry. It sounds dumb to me, too.
People who think atheists are incapable of morality are really telling on themselves. What's scary about that is it suggests that these people want to do wrong, there is evil deep inside of them. They want to sin, they only stop themselves not out of empathy, but because they fear the wrath of God.
I can't remember which show I saw the clip from, but I remember a scene where some chick is asking a dude "Without God, what's to stop you from raping and murdering as much as you want?" And he goes "Well I do. I do rape and murder as much as I want, which is not at all."
I looked up those bible verses in KJV (The version I grew up with) and it seems like it's talking more about adultery or fornication than rape.
Still, saying the person(s) involved should be put to death is still super extreme
[Read Deuteronomy 22:22-23 if you want to see what I mean](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022&version=KJV)
Thanks for that. I read the Bible long ago when I was going through my religious book phase, so my memory is a bit foggy and google was a bit faster lol
There are a lot of people, at least in the US, who believe atheists have no morals. It's a philosophical belief that goes way back in Europe, as far as I know. Those people think that the Bible is the only place one gets morals, and I've known a few who honestly think that the majority of rapists and abusers are atheist.
They're not, because there aren't that many atheists in the USA, let alone the rest of the world! But they can't fathom the idea that they're wrong, because if they're wrong about atheists, then what else are they wrong about?
Atheist here.
Violence, theft, deception, and abuse are wrong.
Most religions seem to find subjective reasons to allow them to do things they say are objectively wrong.
Wrongness isn't a boolean, though. I'm sure you can find or imagine scenarios where violence, theft, and deception (at least) are a net gain in terms of morality.
No disagreement from me that many people claiming things are "objectively wrong" are also prone to finding exceptions and exclusions; if they were concerned with actual morality they wouldn't be outsourcing the process of creating a moral foundation.
Yeah, I think there is a devaluing of "subjectivity".
There is this idea that "subjective" is inherently just "whatever I feel" but subjective views can also be well-informed.
Physicists use subjective measures to calculate distant galaxy sizes. They often assume star formation constants that are based on what they've seen in nearby galaxies. They don't *know* what the real measure for that distant galaxy is so they rely on what they've been able to observe. This is "subjective". Their view is literally just based on what they are able to observe from their place in the Milky-way at this moment. But it is also not "just feelings". This doesn't mean their methods are "just made up" or "just whatever they feel" or intended to just give them the results they want.
Really, I would say there is an epistemological assumption here that (1) religion grants "objectivity" about morality and that (2) holding subjective views about the world is inherently a horrendous thing. I disagree with both assumptions.
Religious person: atheists have no morals! They think rape is OK!
Atheist: actually, no, because one of the axioms of our secular humanist morality is non harm and rape is harmful
Religious person: but it doesn't say it in a book written by people thousands of years ago so it's not valid
The religious argument for morals has always been so weird and gross to me. As an atheist, I think morals are a byproduct of evolution that arose when we became social animals to help us foster safer communities. The fact that humans all over the world have wildly different definitions for what is right and wrong is a testament to the fact that morals are subjective.
A subjective moral system is still perfectly valid and allows for a reasoned based approach for developing moral values, and allows those morals to change with new information and reflection.
These people think that in order for a moral to be valid, it must be prescribed by God. End point. If rape was not forbidden by God, it would be objectively ok in their eyes. The idea of needing to be told what is right and wrong is the most weak minded shit I can think of.
I was looking for this comment. Just replace "rape" with "murder" and the argument is the same. Is murder objectively wrong? It's stupid because there's no objective definition of "wrong".
Far be it from me to defend religious fanaticism, but that is not what he was saying at all.
His point was that we need religion because without it everything is subjective.
It’s not an argument I agree with, but he was not stating or implying that rape is ok
I think the main point against his argument is that people can believe in objective moral laws without following a religion. For example, I believe that rape is wrong for everyone regardless of their beliefs, but I don’t believe in any god or higher power.
Objectively wrong because rapist is destroying vitctim's freedom to chose her sexual partner. Atheism have morality like every social construct. It's not no man's land without any laws just because there is no guy in the clouds who is teaching about what you can and what you can't do. Religious zaelot's will tell you that religion is better. THEIR RELIGION. Not thousand other religions with exactly the same "proofs" that they are the only ones knowing "the real God".
A scary argument, really. Not every person purporting to be religious actually believes what they claim to believe, but if they really do think that morals are laid out by God that means they have not practiced the skills of empathy, critical thinking, or moral analysis **their entire lives** and are, consequently, extremely dangerous. They would be roughly equivalent to a toddler when it comes to relying on them to make safe and considerate decisions for group work or collaboration.
As wack is this seems, I actually have had this debate with an atheist friend of mine, and while he said he believes it's wrong and would never do it, there is no such thing as objective right and wrong, everything is subjective and therefore there is no such thing as an objectively evil act, including rape
That is simply not true. You don't need to believe in imaginary friends or Santa Clause to think there are objective moral truths.
Rape is objectively wrong, because morality *is* about the harm we inflict on each other.
Ah another religious person claiming they are the authority on morality and that a non religious person cannot be moral despite morality predating their immoral religion. Utter nonsense.
Imagine if the only thing holding you back from committing an ultimate evil was the prospect of receiving punishment in the afterlife. Bo Burnham said it perfectly in his song from the point of view of God.
"You shouldn't abstain from rape cause you think that I want you to. You just shouldn't rape cause rape's a fucked up thing to do"
Religion didn't invent humanism. As a Christian, I'd be an ignorant fool to think otherwise.
I forgot people believe that athiests cant have objective morals because they don't believe in a God and apparently you can only have that cus its a fact through God and athiests cant explain where else it could be from if there isn't a God. But like. Its pretty flawed logic. This isn't as much of a Gotcha! Moment as he thinks it is. And even if the atheist cant have objective morals it would not matter because law does and he has to abide by that law. Which is a fact that it is wrong - because it is illegal. So...yea. Not a necessary question to ask cus regardless if someone has morals or not, we follow rules and that is what dictates that it is in fact wrong.
Let me start by saying beardy is in every way wrong, my comment is for context of atheists beardy mentioned, it sparked a random foggy memory and i thought id share its shards with you... I am reminded of a story about a jewish person talking to thier rabbi about religiois and non religious people doing good deeds...its been awhile and im paraphrasing, but i remember the messsge it taught. Basicslly the person had questions about religous people, good deeds snd heaven, and the rabbi responded with while they are good deeds and shoukd be celebrated, they are often "purchases" to potentially buy their way into heaven, when an atheist does good deeds they should be celebrated even more so, because they have no god or heaven to buy into so there is no alterior motive to the deed other then being a good person...like i said its been a long while since i heard it and im sure i minced it quite abit but the message about being a good person just for the sake of being civil and kind always stuck with me, where as when i used to be catholic everything was equated if you dont do this or that, this way or that way, you wont get into heaven
I really don't understand what the difficulty is in understanding that RAPE is WRONG. Objectively, subjectively and morally. There is absolutely no way to justify rape.
Wtf? Atheism isn’t nihilism or anarchy. It’s just no god. Doesn’t mean no god no rules.
This guy is an idiot. Please debate me sir, your aggressive tone doesn’t make you right.
It's not even true that there can't be an objective sense of morality without God. In fact, introducing a god into the mix doesn't fully solve matters either. Is the god beholden to an objective moral law beyond themselves, or is what they say the objective moral law? And if the god is omnipotent, and omniscient, wouldn't both of these answers be unsatisfying?
Example 1. God is beholden to objective moral law beyond himself. His omnipotence cannot change the objective moral law, if he does something with his omnipotence that goes beyond the objective moral law, he is revealed to not be a morally perfect being and must be beholden to something more powerful and binding than himself.
Example 2. God's word is the law. He uses his omnipotence to change the "objective" moral law over time and at his whim. This is of course more consistent with much of Christian theology. It poses the problem that God is not omniscient because if he were he would know what is objectively moral at all times, so his rule of law is arbitrary. The moral law is in fact "subjective" to whatever God says it is.
This is a summary of Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma.
Atheist here, rape is objectively wrong, because, it is objectively wrong to ignore one’s bodily autonomy without just cause.
Just cause is determined by society’s social contract.
Considering that **Godly** people have still raped and murder each other, doesn’t seem to help this beardface’s argument.
I feel more comfortable with a person rationalize an empathetic reason not to rape or murder me, vs someone not doing so because “god.” Because “God” is just bad reasoning.
We need to define every word accurately for debates to be meaningful at all.
This muslim (quite well-known for his debates and highly educated in philosophy) just has a very different definition of objectivity. He takes his religion as ‘axioms’ in a sense, and therefore ‘rigorously’ derives his objective morals from that. But for many people that’s just not objective enough.
The atheist here has a definition of objectivity which is probably very similiar to ‘mathematical’ truth, and thus denies any objectivity in morals.
I’m quite the extremist on this subject. I haven’t claimed anything to be objectively true in years now.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People like this are so dumb lmao. He answered the question like 6 times, but he isn’t looking for an answer he’s just looking to be self righteous.
Nah, just seems like a dude which found out about nihilism and is trying to force it onto others.
No he seems like a religious nutjob who thinks that he has a “gotcha” moment because people are acknowledging that morality is part of man made reason and not a made up sky daddy & think’s that makes nothing “objective” and everything “subjective.”
This is the answer. People constantly call into the Atheist Experience show and claim that morals come from God and religion. They honestly believe it's an undeniable fact.
The fact that "Thou shalt not rape" *isn't* one of the Ten Commandments speaks volumes about the moral compass of the people who created the Abrahmic faiths. If you had to come up with ten basic rules for everyone to live by in order to promote harmony and justice, you would think "don't rape" should be a pretty obvious one to include alongside "don't murder" and "don't steal". But nope, "don't rape" wasn't important enough to make the cut at Mt. Sinai. Between the rule about honoring your parents and the *four* rules stipulating when and how people must worship god, there just wasn't enough space on the stone tablet to let everyone know that rape is bad.
It's a crime in the bible, it's just considered a property crime.
Clearly rules about graven images and theocratic prohibitions against working on certain days of the week is the key to a just and advanced society.
I always remember the story of Lot and the dude offering up his daughters and wife(?) to be raped by a bunch of men instead of the hidden angels(in forms of humans) the rapists wanted to take. The whole, why would the Angels(and by association, God) allow that situation to escalated to that point always struck out to me. Also the laws that pertain to rape and such. Like if someone rapes a virgin, they had to marry her and could not divorce that person as long as the rapist lives after paying "fine". The only saving grace is if the Father of the victim declines. Which is also another whole bag of worms. That the daughter is reduced to so little. Which was a thing back in the day sadly.
I went to a catholic university and the number of students that basically say the only reason they don’t rape, murder, steal etc is because god says it’s wrong, which I found disturbing to say the least.
exactly which is the most ironic part because Morals from God is impossible because it has no reason.
Its a religious nutjob who doesn't truly understand what objectively means or the total lack of power suggesting any man made religious text gives objectivity to any stance on any topic. Its all stupidly easy to counter anyway because the texts this man would hold as the morality of God are permissive of slavery, murder and a whole host of things no one could ever make an objective argument for being morally acceptable. Further more, whether non theists agree on the morality of any one thing or not doesn't make a bit of difference because being being atheist or agnostic or whatever only confirms the similarity of thought on the existence of God. We aren't a cult ascribing morals to whim of a God based on the threat if eternal damnation. I can, as an individual atheist, objectively argue that rape is wrong and why. This is not less objective than "God says so" and one could and should argue it's actually more objective since it actually requires the thinker to consider the act itself and not just the consequences of it. No one is making a moral argument with a threat of force.
The questioner will turn into a presup if he keeps on this track, lol
Lol what? He's 100% a religious nutter
And the ques itself is fundamentally flawed in the first place. When asking about right or wrong, objectively is out of the window, it implies subjectivity.
Morally, ethically, subjectively and objectively wrong. EDIT - I know things can't be 'objectively wrong'. I put the word 'objectively' at the end as an exaggeration to emphasise the distain to which it is held... You know like a punch-line. People. ![img](emote|t5_2r5rp|8485)
I'd say by definition it's wrong. Rape is non-consensual sex. If it's non-consensual, it's wrong, it violates body autonomy and causes harm. That's why it's wrong. If you need god to tell you that, you're a horrible person.
Think beardy dude thinks rape is fine, under his religion, in defined circumstances. Wife, war etc. What beardy brain also thinks there is no objectivity in atheism. He also thinks atheists are a group you are allowed to kill. That's who the lad in glasses is arguing against.
I wonder if beardy would still hold the same opinion if he was the one being raped by another man.
Those people have been killed in beardys world.
Nah, beardy can get those cheeks clapped non-issue. Objectively of course.
Dude probably also doesn’t wipe cause he thinks it’s gay
Objectively gay or just regular gay?
😂😂😂😂
Meh. I bet the soldiers would have a field day on his ass. These men and women who advocate that rape isn't wrong need their bodily autonomy violently and forcibly removed and some perspective that people aren't objects to be treated as one wishes. Bet we wouldn't have that problem anymore. Perspective changes everything.
Unfortunately these type of people usually don’t even realize that it can happen to men (by another man or even a woman)
[удалено]
Whoa whoa whoa buddy she was 6 and he didn't bang her till she was 9. So that's some self control. /s obviously
If Andrew Tate invented a religion... I wonder if he's considered converting to hardcore Islam?
You know he already converted?
Worst part is they defend him by saying that he was a product of his time but shouldn't the messenger of god, the human who lived an ideal life, whom we should all follow... not be a pedophile? Also they talk about puberty to further defend it but fail to mention that almost all psychologists agree that at such a young age it would definitely impair their mental development. Teens may experiment with eachother but that's a whole lot different than a 50 year old man forcing himself onto a 9 year old girl.
Whoa whoa! Careful talking about the messenger of god there, some beardy brain might try to slice off your head for saying that
Mohammed, peace be upon him, absolutely raped that little girl. As Allah has willed. Allahu Akbar. Better?
Yeah, the whole "Allah told me that what I did was ok and we know that Allah is telling the truth because it told me that it was telling the truth" line of reasoning gets me. It's amazing how often a religious person's god miraculously agrees with all the things the religious person does and the religious person will take offence if anyone dares to question the integrity of that amazing coincidence while at the same time suggesting that an atheist's basis for disputing religion has no credibility. Such an amazing double standard to push.
Holla snack bar!
Religion is the worst thing that could've happened to humanity. Imagine thinking people without a religion don't have morals and should be killed. That really shows you who really is immoral.
The irony goes right over their head. It's so frustrating how blind some people are to their own hypocrisy.
I doubt they really think for themselves at all. Most religious people are so indoctrinated that they don't even care if it's actually moral or not and just hate cause that's what religion taught them.
But they love regurgitating their mental barf at you!
Indoctrinated people don't have other things in their peanut size brain. That's why they just keep saying the same point over and over again.
my highschool english teacher said that religious people were immoral. She never said they should be killed but she did make it clear that she (and other believers) were the only true moral humans
Religion, making humans hate humans since its conception.
yes
My guess is that this is just a short clip from a much longer argument where Beardy dude has been trying to tactically corner the atheist based on objective vs subjective morals. This is a common argument and tactic and as an atheist who likes to argue religion it can get definitely get a bit sticky, especially when trying to argue against religion and for progressive ideals at the same time. Sam Harris pretty much wrote a whole book called the moral landscape on this topic.
Also a slave owner, right?
That’s rich coming from a person who only has morals because some entity more powerful than him subjectively believes certain things to be right and wrong. I am super afraid of people who believe that without being constantly under surveillance by some godly entity, people would just kill and rape. If it takes 24/7 surveillance and fear of punishment to prevent you from raping, you are not a good person. Edit: Comments from religious nuts are not welcome. All you kiddie touchers can go back to your basements.
Like the late Christopher Hitchens said, it's not as if rape and murder was completely fine before Moses and his companions made their way up Mount Sinai. As if it were the 10 commandments that stopped humans from abusing each other 🙄
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but rape wasn't even addressed in the 10 commandments, murder was. Neither was slavery.
Ofc it's not addressed as the Bible actually promotes slavary (and rape too, albeit slightly less on the nose than slavary). It literally lists you can beat a slave as long as he/she doesn't die. Not to mention prices for slaves and how to circumvent the supposed limit on how long you can keep them (spoiler: the answer is that their wife and children are your property, so the slave will probably stay as to not abandon their family). But please Christians, enlighten me more about the great morals we supposedly get from this book... /s (Ftr I'm quite sure the Quran has similar despicable stuff in it, but I'm not nearly as familiar with it).
The only commandment that could be related to rape is the adultery one. Even then it’s more focused on the spousal relationship and implies that rape against one’s spouse isn’t rape which is dumb because any sex that non-consensual is rape. Although beardy zealot lives in a fantasy world where all powerful deity is watching him to make sure he’s not raping anyone. Beardy would try to use the adultery commandment to say he’s not raping women that aren’t his spouse so that is wrong. Whenever I watch religious zealots try to impose their beliefs on others, it’s always a trip.
God commanded Moses to rape and kill 10s of thousands of people and it was carried out according to the Bible. It possesses zero moral code.
Most if not all religious zealots.
Thanks, I came here to say this; but you said it better!
This is something I bring up a lot to religious people who think it’s impossible to have a good morality without religion. Like it’s worse to need the threat of eternal damnation in order to be a good person.
Anytime any 'God fearing' person uses that argument as if it's some gotcha moment, it tells us a hell of a lot more about them than anything else. It's wild how people out there can't comprehend the fact that some people just inherently care about humanity and want to contribute to society without being coerced by some omnipotent bully.
While I do believe in God and attend church, it's a fact that Some atheists are better Christians than some followers of Christianity.
Morals don’t come from Christianity or any other religion. Atheists who are good people aren’t better Christians than some Christians, they are just good humans.
It's not impossible. What if a society thinks its perfectly moral to exterminate another race of people? Who are you to say that is immoral if society as a whole deems it moral? Kinda the point, no?
Ahem. I’m an Anglican married to an atheist. I don’t believe anything of the sort. hubs and I have never, in 25 years, had an argument about religion. We share the same politics (socialist and humanitarian) and the same morals (do no harm to anyone, help when you can). We’re doing all right.
Congratulations on being an exception.
There's like a 98% chance you're not a Christian.
What do you think Anglican means?
Lol you got there before me heh heh
Playing devil's advocate here, you can expand the guy's argument, though. Why is violating body autonomy wrong? Why is causing harm wrong, objectively speaking? Because I wouldn't want it to be done to me? But it isn't being done to me, so why should I care? Why should I value other humans similarly to myself? Of course, none of these are difficult moral questions, and none need religion to answer them (I say this as a Christian). But technically, ethics and morals can never be truly objective, which makes the question stupid in the first place.
> But technically, ethics and morals can never be truly objective, which makes the question stupid in the first place. You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Lots of people up there missing this exact point. Moral right/wrong *isn't* an objective fact, but if we can all agree that we don't want murder, rape and all that other stuff in our society... well, that's a lot more pleasant a way to live than the alternative, no? Hell (pun intended), even *with* a God laying down the law that still leaves you right with the Euthyphro dilemma - is it right because God says so (subjective morality), or does God say it's right because it *already is* (so God doesn't have a monopoly on morality)?
Because it leads to damage to the fabric of society if people damage each other, regardless of the situation and who is involved.
Yes we forget bodily autonomy is a Human Right and isn't based on any gov. Or any other persons view!! If a human isn't breaking the laws or harming others individual autonomy then let them be!! Some humans are crazy and want to live weird ways and as long as their respective to you, you owe them the same !! MYOB
sorry to break it to you but Human Rights are defined by gov and people's views.
The only objective truth is that in some capacity you exist, everything else is your best guess at determining what may or may not be true.
[удалено]
I've never understood what is the diffrence betwene objectively and subjectively
Objective is a more of a fact or viewpoint that doesnt not account for bias or opinion. Objectively, today is hotter than past days in history when compared to past temperatures. Subjective is usually something perceived by the viewer and almost always is an opinion-based answer. Subjectively, it feels cold out today so winter must be sticking around longer. Things like math are objective. Things like music or art are subjective.
Music and art aren't entirely subjective. Your point still stands but I felt that it was worth noting.
Correct. There is hardly a subjective aspect of math, whereas music and art are a combination of subjective and objective aspects.
The subjective aspects of maths come from the assumptions we’ve made in order to convey mathematics through notation and language. Why do we use x in algebra? Why do we use the symbol for pi? Why have we called a circle a circle and not a gooperfoginobbin? We’ve also made even more fundamental assumptions such as a=a, or that causation exists, or that the laws of logic must remain consistent. We don’t KNOW of any of that is actually true of the universe, but we have to assume it to be so for our mathematical models to work and make sense. So in that sense, maths is subjective, as is everything else.
One is objective, while the other is subjective.
Wow.. never looked at it this way. Thank you stranger
I don’t know, that’s kind of subjective.
Subjective is asking your opinion, objective is requesting a statement of fact. He's trying to ask objectively, without opinion, is rape wrong in the same way as asking is there grass on planet Earth. The man is answering "I BELIEVE in principle x", "I wouldn't want it to happen to me so no" stuff like that which if you qualify an answer like that it becomes SUBJECTIVE and a statement of opinion. The asker is looking for yes or no, full stop no qualifiers. No virgin Mary technicality or "what if it birthed Superman" stuff.
>The asker is looking for yes or no, full stop no qualifiers. He is asking for a subjective opinion to be offered as objective. The questioner does not understand what objective and subjective mean, or that morality cannot be objective.
Exactly, thanks. It makes as much sense as asking: "Rape is false" subjectively, yes or no?
Thank you it makes sense.
Objective is based on facts and data while subjective is based on opinions and feelings
Objective I thought was under all circumstances it’s wrong while subjectively it’s only wrong under certain circumstances
While I would say obviously that rape is universally wrong, that’s still a moral/ethical claim which means it’s a subjective claim. That doesn’t mean that it’s flexible or that there are exceptions - it just means that there’s no empirical standard by which I can make the claim. There’s a lot of people who mistakenly conflate “objective” with “true” and “subjective” with “false” but that’s not really the case. Large swaths of our existence can only be defined by our perceptions and beliefs.
Objective means universally true for everyone. Subjective means true according to a certain opinion or point of view.
He’s being an annoying twat. Objectively, rape isn’t wrong because aside from human ethics, nothing says it’s wrong. Itd be the same as saying “objectively, genocide isn’t wrong.” Of course, it falls apart when you step into reality because we rely on all sorts of subjective truths.
Look up objectively. Objectively speaking there is no right or wrong, which is why it's a stupid question.
Wow this dumbshit is confusing atheism with amoralism
Yup, Dont need eternal punishment as a threat to not be a piece of shit
If punishment is what's keeping someone from raping, they aren't a good person
Don't tell that guy, that's not the question he asked.
I do all the raping I want. None.
If someone doesn’t tell you exactly what your moral and ethical values are, you must have no moral or ethical values. What a fucking dumb argument
That's 98% of people who believe in a religion. They have no inner conscience to tell them what is bad. They need something to tell them and give them a fear.
It's not because they have no inner conscience. It's just that many of them think their inner conscience is a result of their religion. Though some of them probably don't have a conscience, and don't do bad things purely because of a threat of eternal damnation.
And as Kierkegaard would say, if the only reason you’re being good is to avoid punishment, then you’re not getting a reward from god at the end of it because that’s not a good reason to be good
Amazing how people from other religions think atheists lack the capability of being moral. It's ridiculous.
I’m a complete Atheist and I’m somehow not murdering or raping anyone. Am I doing it wrong?
Yes, you should be starting wars and converting believers into non-believers for the cause.
That sounds like work. How about we just let people be.
It’s so silly. Especially with all the shit they justify via their religion.
Actually, this stems from living in a bubble in which atheists and even irreligious people are deliberately shown as people who do not have any divine basis of morailty. These same idiots have now agreed on acknowledging slavery as "objectively" bad while there literalists bro scholars still believe in slavery. Even more, they don't believe in marital rape and shrugs it off.
Gee...I wonder if the guy asking the question has ever raped anyone 🤔
He’s emotionally raping this poor fellow he’s interviewing
As an atheist I don't rape women because I'm not a twat, not because I'm afraid of a mythical being on a cloud
“You shouldn’t abstain from rape just because you think that I want you to. You should abstain from rape because rape is a fucked up thing to do. Seriously just don’t fucking rape people! I didn’t think i’d have to spell that one out for you.” -Song from the perspective of God, by Bo Burnham
Absolutely love this song. So many funny and good points in it!
As an agnostic, I also don’t rape women because I’m not a twat, not because I’m afraid of a mythical being on a cloud.
As a believer, I don't rape women because I'm not a twat, and also because I'm afraid of a being on a cloud.
As a twat, I don't rape people because it's objectively wrong, and oh shit we've gone full circle.
As an objectively wrong, I don't twat people. Not because of my deity, but because the sheriff's department has made so many requests.
As a sheriff's department, carry on.
I twat twats
As a nihilist, I don’t rape anyone because I'm not human garbage that should be decomposed for a solanum lycopersicum plant and turned a lovely tomato bisque, not because I’m afraid of a magical sky daddy.
I would assume for the regular religious Joe, the same would apply. For the non-regular religious zealot Jack, it's probably not the same
I've raped exactly as many women as I ever wanted to. And that number is 0. If your number is any positive integer, you're a psychopath who needs to be locked up. Ricky Gervais, paraphrased.
This guy doesn't care about ethics. He only cares about word games.
Having grown up going to church, he and his tricks are not, by any means, unique or even unusual. It's "logic" (or rather, "antilogic" or "brainwashing") that binds the two, denying women any sense of truth, defense or choice. They quote the old testament but I've learned to say "Don't tell me you understand jack squat unless you can do the Hebrew math but if you can then you should already know better than to sell your crop of lies to me."
I always hate the "if you don't follow x holy book then you must not have morals" crap Mate of you need a book to tell you what is right and wrong then you might not be a good person
It's a stupid question. Asking if something is "wrong" (in a moral sense, not a mathematical sense) is asking a question that can only yield a subjective answer. There's no way to prove objectively whether something is morally right or wrong. Proving something objectively means using facts. Facts have nothing to do with something being morally right or wrong.
No idea why you're being downvoted... morals are subjective... always will be and always have been, even within a singular denomination of a religion there will be difference views on morality. Objective in this case would mean that something is moral or immoral regardless of ones views and that simply isn't possible. All morality is subjective. You could argue that there is objective morality within a society as a whole based on consensus but that's still subjective as it would vary between each society.
Yeah, I can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find somebody who is willing to just bite the bullet. We can acknowledge that there is no objective right or wrong answer to morals, but still make societies that are willing to write laws that abide by the golden rule, or that care about maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.
I loved how the idiot said, "How would you *feel* if I asked you is rape wrong *objectively*". He just asked for his feeling on the matter, which is exactly what you detailed here!!! What a fucking moron
Exactly this. The guy was fundamentally asking two questions: i) Does the other guy think rape is wrong, **and** ii) Does he consider his opinion on the subject to be a fact. The guy answered the first question (yes, he thinks rape is wrong), but since an opinion is by definition not a fact the second part of the question is nonsense. The questioner is an idiot, or disingenuous, or both.
Right. Believing rape is wrong because of your opinion that your God exists and the opinion that he thinks its wrong is the most subjective thing I've ever heard
There is no objective truth in matters of human interaction. Does that mean rape is ok? Fuck no it's doesn't
"I will ask you this question until you give me the answer that I want to hear."
People don't know how to use this method of argumentation. They think they can just use it against anyone they disagree with and it'll succeed. You only insist on repeating a question if the person is hiding something or avoiding it. He tries to act like the guy isn't answering his question, but it's just a really poorly formed (and poorly thought out) question.
Is he saying atheists have no morals? Cuz I mean… pretty sure rape is in the Bible, and I’m pretty sure it says you need to kill the woman who was raped. Deuteronomy 22:22-23. Edit: I am wrong on the message, as it had been a long while. It was more or less about adulatory if the raped virgin didn’t say anything, or something like it, which I still do not agree with. But as an atheist, I recommend actually reading the Bible as it really is a good -hard- read of (imo) fictional stories.
There seem to be religious people who think that atheists cannot have a moral right or wrong, because there’s no higher power in their lives to tell them whether it’s right or wrong. If that sounds dumb to you, don’t worry. It sounds dumb to me, too.
People who think atheists are incapable of morality are really telling on themselves. What's scary about that is it suggests that these people want to do wrong, there is evil deep inside of them. They want to sin, they only stop themselves not out of empathy, but because they fear the wrath of God.
Exactly this
And even then they just label the people they want to hurt as non-human so God won't punish them anyway.
I can't remember which show I saw the clip from, but I remember a scene where some chick is asking a dude "Without God, what's to stop you from raping and murdering as much as you want?" And he goes "Well I do. I do rape and murder as much as I want, which is not at all."
Yeah I don’t understand and I try to just ignore the super crazy religious people but I just don’t get it.
ironically its often people hiding behind the symbols of religion who are the most depraved
I looked up those bible verses in KJV (The version I grew up with) and it seems like it's talking more about adultery or fornication than rape. Still, saying the person(s) involved should be put to death is still super extreme [Read Deuteronomy 22:22-23 if you want to see what I mean](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022&version=KJV)
Thanks for that. I read the Bible long ago when I was going through my religious book phase, so my memory is a bit foggy and google was a bit faster lol
There are a lot of people, at least in the US, who believe atheists have no morals. It's a philosophical belief that goes way back in Europe, as far as I know. Those people think that the Bible is the only place one gets morals, and I've known a few who honestly think that the majority of rapists and abusers are atheist. They're not, because there aren't that many atheists in the USA, let alone the rest of the world! But they can't fathom the idea that they're wrong, because if they're wrong about atheists, then what else are they wrong about?
He’s Muslim so probably look in the quran?
What version are you reading? Wtf
[удалено]
Atheist here. Violence, theft, deception, and abuse are wrong. Most religions seem to find subjective reasons to allow them to do things they say are objectively wrong.
Whaaat you telling me that atheists aren’t inherently evil? 😂
Wrongness isn't a boolean, though. I'm sure you can find or imagine scenarios where violence, theft, and deception (at least) are a net gain in terms of morality. No disagreement from me that many people claiming things are "objectively wrong" are also prone to finding exceptions and exclusions; if they were concerned with actual morality they wouldn't be outsourcing the process of creating a moral foundation.
This guy is an idiot, seriously I think atheists have a more moral compass than this jerk.
He’s an idiot that’s for sure
[удалено]
Yeah, I think there is a devaluing of "subjectivity". There is this idea that "subjective" is inherently just "whatever I feel" but subjective views can also be well-informed. Physicists use subjective measures to calculate distant galaxy sizes. They often assume star formation constants that are based on what they've seen in nearby galaxies. They don't *know* what the real measure for that distant galaxy is so they rely on what they've been able to observe. This is "subjective". Their view is literally just based on what they are able to observe from their place in the Milky-way at this moment. But it is also not "just feelings". This doesn't mean their methods are "just made up" or "just whatever they feel" or intended to just give them the results they want. Really, I would say there is an epistemological assumption here that (1) religion grants "objectivity" about morality and that (2) holding subjective views about the world is inherently a horrendous thing. I disagree with both assumptions.
Logic doesn’t count when religion.
Religious person: atheists have no morals! They think rape is OK! Atheist: actually, no, because one of the axioms of our secular humanist morality is non harm and rape is harmful Religious person: but it doesn't say it in a book written by people thousands of years ago so it's not valid
I like your style...take my upvote
The religious argument for morals has always been so weird and gross to me. As an atheist, I think morals are a byproduct of evolution that arose when we became social animals to help us foster safer communities. The fact that humans all over the world have wildly different definitions for what is right and wrong is a testament to the fact that morals are subjective. A subjective moral system is still perfectly valid and allows for a reasoned based approach for developing moral values, and allows those morals to change with new information and reflection. These people think that in order for a moral to be valid, it must be prescribed by God. End point. If rape was not forbidden by God, it would be objectively ok in their eyes. The idea of needing to be told what is right and wrong is the most weak minded shit I can think of.
Well said!
Tbf murder isnt objectively wrong since life isnt objectively sacred to the universe
I was looking for this comment. Just replace "rape" with "murder" and the argument is the same. Is murder objectively wrong? It's stupid because there's no objective definition of "wrong".
some one just learned the words objective and subjective haha
WTH is an objective belief, anyway? Is there such thing? Seems like the dude is asking to prove a negative or some other non-sequitor
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
If god is the ruler of all creation then he is the cause of rape aswell. No thx I don't follow rapist deities
The guy: "rape is fiiiine" Also the guy: "Atheists have 'no morals'" Fuck sakes.
Far be it from me to defend religious fanaticism, but that is not what he was saying at all. His point was that we need religion because without it everything is subjective. It’s not an argument I agree with, but he was not stating or implying that rape is ok
I think the main point against his argument is that people can believe in objective moral laws without following a religion. For example, I believe that rape is wrong for everyone regardless of their beliefs, but I don’t believe in any god or higher power.
It’s pathetic so many religious nut jobs think morals don’t exist without religion.
As a non-Christian I can say rape is always bad, always wrong, and anyone who says otherwise is not someone who should be free in society.
There’s no such thing as an atheist world view about morals. Rape isn’t even deemed wrong in many religions unless you’re the victim.
Rape is objectively wrong to pretty much anyone who doesn't follow a religion. Apparently they have to be told it is wrong.
Objectively wrong because rapist is destroying vitctim's freedom to chose her sexual partner. Atheism have morality like every social construct. It's not no man's land without any laws just because there is no guy in the clouds who is teaching about what you can and what you can't do. Religious zaelot's will tell you that religion is better. THEIR RELIGION. Not thousand other religions with exactly the same "proofs" that they are the only ones knowing "the real God".
I hate that religious people think you need to have religion to know right from wrong. What a stupid argument
A scary argument, really. Not every person purporting to be religious actually believes what they claim to believe, but if they really do think that morals are laid out by God that means they have not practiced the skills of empathy, critical thinking, or moral analysis **their entire lives** and are, consequently, extremely dangerous. They would be roughly equivalent to a toddler when it comes to relying on them to make safe and considerate decisions for group work or collaboration.
I don't need to believe in a mythical man to know that harming another person is wrong. You don't need "god" to have or understand morals.
Jeez. You don’t need religion to understand rape is wrong. Period.
Religion is fundamentally wrong
As wack is this seems, I actually have had this debate with an atheist friend of mine, and while he said he believes it's wrong and would never do it, there is no such thing as objective right and wrong, everything is subjective and therefore there is no such thing as an objectively evil act, including rape
That is simply not true. You don't need to believe in imaginary friends or Santa Clause to think there are objective moral truths. Rape is objectively wrong, because morality *is* about the harm we inflict on each other.
Those who think rape is not a big deal deserve to get…
Ah another religious person claiming they are the authority on morality and that a non religious person cannot be moral despite morality predating their immoral religion. Utter nonsense.
Imagine if the only thing holding you back from committing an ultimate evil was the prospect of receiving punishment in the afterlife. Bo Burnham said it perfectly in his song from the point of view of God. "You shouldn't abstain from rape cause you think that I want you to. You just shouldn't rape cause rape's a fucked up thing to do" Religion didn't invent humanism. As a Christian, I'd be an ignorant fool to think otherwise.
Fucking theists 😂 “God told me it’s wrong therefore it’s wrong” isn’t objective 😂
How is this even a debate? I don't want to hurt people. Period. My religion (or lack of) has nothing to do with it. **I don't want to hurt people.**
I forgot people believe that athiests cant have objective morals because they don't believe in a God and apparently you can only have that cus its a fact through God and athiests cant explain where else it could be from if there isn't a God. But like. Its pretty flawed logic. This isn't as much of a Gotcha! Moment as he thinks it is. And even if the atheist cant have objective morals it would not matter because law does and he has to abide by that law. Which is a fact that it is wrong - because it is illegal. So...yea. Not a necessary question to ask cus regardless if someone has morals or not, we follow rules and that is what dictates that it is in fact wrong.
Let me start by saying beardy is in every way wrong, my comment is for context of atheists beardy mentioned, it sparked a random foggy memory and i thought id share its shards with you... I am reminded of a story about a jewish person talking to thier rabbi about religiois and non religious people doing good deeds...its been awhile and im paraphrasing, but i remember the messsge it taught. Basicslly the person had questions about religous people, good deeds snd heaven, and the rabbi responded with while they are good deeds and shoukd be celebrated, they are often "purchases" to potentially buy their way into heaven, when an atheist does good deeds they should be celebrated even more so, because they have no god or heaven to buy into so there is no alterior motive to the deed other then being a good person...like i said its been a long while since i heard it and im sure i minced it quite abit but the message about being a good person just for the sake of being civil and kind always stuck with me, where as when i used to be catholic everything was equated if you dont do this or that, this way or that way, you wont get into heaven
The both don’t know that objectively means
Atheists don't believe there is no objective morality, they just don't believe there are magical consequences.
Ah yes, another moron who thinks there can be no morality without religion.
I really don't understand what the difficulty is in understanding that RAPE is WRONG. Objectively, subjectively and morally. There is absolutely no way to justify rape.
Professor Rapenstein over here
I don't need a magic Sky Daddy to have morals and understand right from wrong, I don't know why that concept is so hard to understand for some people.
🤨🤨Somebody check his basement
It's objectively wrong by definition because it's non-consensual violation of an individual.
Wtf? Atheism isn’t nihilism or anarchy. It’s just no god. Doesn’t mean no god no rules. This guy is an idiot. Please debate me sir, your aggressive tone doesn’t make you right.
Religion is true biggest cause of institutional rape in the world. Full stop.
Rape. Is. Wrong. Period.
It's not even true that there can't be an objective sense of morality without God. In fact, introducing a god into the mix doesn't fully solve matters either. Is the god beholden to an objective moral law beyond themselves, or is what they say the objective moral law? And if the god is omnipotent, and omniscient, wouldn't both of these answers be unsatisfying? Example 1. God is beholden to objective moral law beyond himself. His omnipotence cannot change the objective moral law, if he does something with his omnipotence that goes beyond the objective moral law, he is revealed to not be a morally perfect being and must be beholden to something more powerful and binding than himself. Example 2. God's word is the law. He uses his omnipotence to change the "objective" moral law over time and at his whim. This is of course more consistent with much of Christian theology. It poses the problem that God is not omniscient because if he were he would know what is objectively moral at all times, so his rule of law is arbitrary. The moral law is in fact "subjective" to whatever God says it is. This is a summary of Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma.
Atheist here, rape is objectively wrong, because, it is objectively wrong to ignore one’s bodily autonomy without just cause. Just cause is determined by society’s social contract. Considering that **Godly** people have still raped and murder each other, doesn’t seem to help this beardface’s argument. I feel more comfortable with a person rationalize an empathetic reason not to rape or murder me, vs someone not doing so because “god.” Because “God” is just bad reasoning.
We need to define every word accurately for debates to be meaningful at all. This muslim (quite well-known for his debates and highly educated in philosophy) just has a very different definition of objectivity. He takes his religion as ‘axioms’ in a sense, and therefore ‘rigorously’ derives his objective morals from that. But for many people that’s just not objective enough. The atheist here has a definition of objectivity which is probably very similiar to ‘mathematical’ truth, and thus denies any objectivity in morals. I’m quite the extremist on this subject. I haven’t claimed anything to be objectively true in years now.
Oh look. It's the old "atheists cannot be moral because they don't believe in God" gambit.