The Religion Discussion

[crock101]

Come on , a respectable age to have sex with a child!

[Habit7]

PS. Muhammed married a 9 year old and waited until she was at the much more respectable age of 12 before having sex with her..

Actually

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

But as an atheist, where do you get the moral authority (other than your personal preference) to tell a man living in another country at another time, that his marriage is inappropriate?

[crock101]

As an atheist no, as a human being I do say that raping children is wrong , this should never have to be a talking point.
Under no circumstance is it ok, to be honest I did not expect to get any opposition on this subject.
The word marriage gets used but we all know that the "wife" had no say in the matter .
As to moral authority, I can say that most rational people in the civilized world have far superior morals to people who take moral instruction from ancient texts that instruct death for the most trivial things.
Apostasy,adultery,blasphemy,working on the Sabbath.....these are not moral,they are just primitive

[Slartibartfast]

PS. Muhammed married a 9 year old and waited until she was at the much more respectable age of 12 before having sex with her..

Actually

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

But as an atheist, where do you get the moral authority (other than your personal preference) to tell a man living in another country at another time, that his marriage is inappropriate?

Ooooooooo my bad. Once again I stand corrected.

1. It's troubling that you need something to actually tell you sex with a 9 year old is wrong and
2. Sex with a child can harm the child both physically and mentally. That is why it is wrong. That is why sex should only be between two consenting adults.
3. I dont believe I can talk to dead people so I can only point out that he was wrong.

[Habit7]

As an atheist no, as a human being I do say that raping children is wrong , this should never have to be a talking point.
Under no circumstance is it ok, to be honest I did not expect to get any opposition on this subject.
The word marriage gets used but we all know that the "wife" had no say in the matter .
As to moral authority, I can say that most rational people in the civilized world have far superior morals to people who take moral instruction from ancient texts that instruct death for the most trivial things.
Apostasy,adultery,blasphemy,working on the Sabbath.....these are not moral,they are just primitive

That is just your opinion. You live in a 21st century Western Judeo-Christian society that has shaped your morals and values and what you perceive to be "human".

Muhammad has another opinion. As an atheist, his opinion is no lesser or greater than yours.

[Habit7]

1. It's troubling that you need something to actually tell you sex with a 9 year old is wrong and
2. Sex with a child can harm the child both physically and mentally. That is why it is wrong. That is why sex should only be between two consenting adults.
3. I dont believe I can talk to dead people so I can only point out that he was wrong.

1. I have a clear timeless basis for why pedophilia is wrong, I am questioning your basis.
2. Consensual sex between adults can cause harm as well. This is very subjective.
3. Why are your contemporary subjective morals applicable to Muhammad for you to condemn his 7th century actions?

[Slartibartfast]

1. Please share that basis with us and state what makes it timeless

2. Now you are either talking about kinks or mistakes. Some people like to perform risky maneuvers. That is their preference. As long as they are not doing so against their will and they fully understand the potential hazards then there is nothing wrong. Nothing subjective there. Hence the words consenting adults.

3. Because the thinking behind my morals are objective. The underlying principle is only applied subjectively as all morals must be. Now, why was it ok for him to enslave and rape this child? As a child rapist and pedophile his morals on child rape is biased and therefore cannot be trusted.

[Habit7]

1. The bible

2. You are still being arbitrary and subjective. Who is an adult? Who is a child? What is consent?
Btw it was Christianity that invented childhood http://theweek.com/articles/551027/how- ... d-children

3. If the thinking behind you morals are objective, who or what is the object that even Muhammad knew?

[crock101]

I'm still in shock that there are people here defending pedophilia,what next, slavery.

[Slartibartfast]

1. Lol. The bible is subjectively applied where convenient. Just like any holy book. You and blues can't evem agree on what it says grammatically speaking.

2. Morality is subjective applied because all of life is subjective. I have however shown multiple times the objective underlying principle.

3. My point is Muhammed was not aware of the objective underlying principle. Hence the reason why he saw nothing wrong with raping children. My other point is that he should therefore not be thought of as a good moral example.

Sidenote. Didnt want to steer the argument off track with what is a child question. The main reasoning behind it to not take advantage of a person to a point thay could harm them. Most people above the age of 18 are mentally mature enough and fully physically mature. The age of 18 is still a bit arbitrary, I agree, but it is a good guidline.

[Slartibartfast]

Habit, do you think child rape is morally wrong? Explain why.

[crock101]

Throughout history religion has claimed it has a monopoly on morals ,which when you really take a look at closely, is simply untrue.
It was used by anti-abolitionists to justify keeping the slave trade
By the racists to maintain segregation in 1950's
Now by homophobes to keep people from having basic human rights
If the books weren't racist and homophobic to begin with ,the racists and homophobes would only have their own bigotry to hold their inherently evil rhetoric together,but alas this is not the case.
Remember their have been evil atheists in the world ,but none of their deeds can be attributed solely to their atheism.after all the only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in anything without supporting evidence,that's it.
While the religious have volumes of poorly written poetry to nitpick through to find whatever is needed to justify their own particular flavor of bigotry.
And if that weren't bad enough ,otherwise good people will stand with the bigots solely because they both suffer from the same psychological disorder.then all of a sudden, it's not them who are hating their victims but in fact it is God and how can they be expected to go against God.

[Habit7]

I'm still in shock that there are people here defending pedophilia,what next, slavery.

Nobody is defending pedophilia, I am asking how does your opinion morally applies to Muhammad? You are avoiding the question.

[Habit7]

1. Lol. The bible is subjectively applied where convenient. Just like any holy book. You and blues can't evem agree on what it says grammatically speaking.

2. Morality is subjective applied because all of life is subjective. I have however shown multiple times the objective underlying principle.

3. My point is Muhammed was not aware of the objective underlying principle. Hence the reason why he saw nothing wrong with raping children. My other point is that he should therefore not be thought of as a good moral example.

I really don't want to get sidetracked so let's keep it on what basis you can say Muhammad or anyone is morally wrong.

1. The Bible can be subjectively applied but that doesn't take away from the objective moral truth. The Bible is very clear on its sexual ethic and it has informed our culture that pedophila is wrong. Nothing in atheism leads us to this.

2. Based on what you said above, there is no reason for you to condemn Muhammad, which is my point.

3. Only with a divine moral law giver can you universally condemn anyone. You deny the existence of a universal law giver so all you can do is apply your subjective opinion on others.


By no means I am saying that atheists have no morals. But more times than not atheists borrow the morals of Judeo-Christians while denying their God and saying rubbish like God is not necessary.

Thus an atheist would make erroneous historical claims and not understand that the abolitionist movement was deeply religious while those who opposed them held on to secular evolutionary theory as a defense, the civil rights movement in the US was also deeply religious lead by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the same way you can judge homosexuals of deserving civil rights, to be consistent you have to extend them to pedophiles as well.

Peace.

[crock101]

Consenting adults engaging in a sexual act is not the same thing as an adult raping a child .the mere fact that you and people like you don't seem to understand that ,is the root of the problem.

[crock101]

Yes it is true that that abolitionists were religious but you conveniently omitted the fact that so were the anti-abolitionists who even referred scripture to argue their points.....Google is my friend.

[Slartibartfast]

1. Please quote the relevant scripture where the bible says pedophelia is wrong. You simply making a statement is not proof of anything.

2. Based on your statement you did not read the second sentence. There is an objective underlying principle.... objective <---- key word right thurrr.

3. Again, just because you say these things doesn't make it so. You have no proof for the existence of a divine moral law giver and then tell me something is impossible without this figment of your imagination.... Lmao. Not to mention you did not address anything I actually said. Classic Habit.

Judeo-Christians borrowed their morals from other sources as well. Why are they cited as the originator. Conficius wrote the golden rule 500 years before God impregnated Mary. I'm following the teachings of Confucius. Should I worship him?

Please excuse me for not getting side tracked by irrelevant anecdotes. Good and bad have been committed in the name of an independent of religion. Morality and religion are independent. I have however shown the principle on which all morality can be based. You make wild unwarranted assertions but you are yet to prove me wrong.

[shottaboilife]

Referring to the initial post in this thread God [universal spirit,the living universe] or whatever you would like to address it as has not one ... To do with religion imho

[Habit7]

1. http://www.gotquestions.org/pedophilia.html

2. If I didn't read your second sentence it is because you didn't answer my previous. If there is an objective principle it must come from an objective source. Who or what is the object?

3. The proof of an divine moral law giver is in the fact of universal moral laws that can be applied to anyone regardless of time or situation. You have no means of condemning Muhammad without it.

Patting yourself on the back about me not addressing your questions will only score points in the jury of your mind. I am addressing that you have no basis to condemn Muhammad other than your own personal opinion. Pointing to Confucius doesn't solve your problem, you are just pointing to someone else who has to ground their morality in a divine moral giver as well. Claiming that there is some objective moral principle is nebulous and just kicking the can down the road.

[Habit7]

Consenting adults engaging in a sexual act is not the same thing as an adult raping a child .the mere fact that you and people like you don't seem to understand that ,is the root of the problem.

The poverty of your argument is that you have to engage in straw men. So sad.

Yes it is true that that abolitionists were religious but you conveniently omitted the fact that so were the anti-abolitionists who even referred scripture to argue their points.....Google is my friend.

Well Google who won as well.

And by you logic your atheism is no different that that of tyrants communism such as the Kim family, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc?

[Slartibartfast]

1. From the very first sentence

There is no direct mention of pedophilia in the Bible.

this means that any morality regarding it is subjective. Better yet, it's one of the first sources that I came across when I Googled "pedophelia in the Bible". This means that you somehow already knew pedophelia was wrong without seeing it in the Bible. You then just used Google to get anything to support your view. .. hmmm... It's like you get your morality from somewhere else.

2. Why must an objective principle come from an objective source. Again, just because you say it doesn't make it true. What part of the underlying principle "do as little harm as possible" is subjective? I created that principle by myself btw. Surely one fallible human such as myself must be easy to disprove. I'm not even asking you to actually prove your statement as that would be too hard for you.

3. And what are these laws? Who were they written by? Can you provide a factual source for this statement? Can you prove this divine law make exists? Remember just because you say it does not make it so. Show Mr some proof.

[York]

Crock,
Are homosexual men guilty of rape according to your standards? Their bodies are not at all developed for ...well you know.

Do you hold to the atheist creed that it's ok to harm yourselves but not others? That's why prostitutes are not criminal but men trying to hire them are...in atheist countries.

[Habit7]

1. From the very first sentence

There is no direct mention of pedophilia in the Bible.

this means that any morality regarding it is subjective. Better yet, it's one of the first sources that I came across when I Googled "pedophelia in the Bible". This means that you somehow already knew pedophelia was wrong without seeing it in the Bible. You then just used Google to get anything to support your view. .. hmmm... It's like you get your morality from somewhere else.

2. Why must an objective principle come from an objective source. Again, just because you say it doesn't make it true. What part of the underlying principle "do as little harm as possible" is subjective? I created that principle by myself btw. Surely one fallible human such as myself must be easy to disprove. I'm not even asking you to actually prove your statement as that would be too hard for you.

3. And what are these laws? Who were they written by? Can you provide a factual source for this statement? Can you prove this divine law make exists? Remember just because you say it does not make it so. Show Mr some proof.

This not the first time I pointed you to that website for your Bible questions so I don't get your google hypothesis viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=8314635#p8314635 . I think again you don't understand how this bible thing goes. The bible doesn't have to directly address something. The central doctrine of the Trinity is never spelt out in the Bible, thus is the Trinity. Biblical interpretation is an effort in deductive reasoning, this plays out in the fact that no orthodox Christian denomination approves of pedophila. So your point that pedophila being subjective in the Bible is moot.

2. Objective morals must have an objective source because objective means based on fact. Whatever fortune cookie saying you apply to life is not applicable to all. And if it is, what governing truth is applicable to them and you and who is there to enforce it?

What part of the underlying principle "do as little harm as possible" is subjective? I created that principle by myself btw.

If you cant see the blatant contradiction it those two statements, then you are wasting my time.

3. Why are you asking me this? You agree that pedophila is universally wrong. I am saying that the God of Bible says it is wrong. You are saying some nebulous principle says it is wrong, Muhammad disagrees.

Only with a universal moral law giver can universal moral law exists. You are appealing to universal moral laws but denying the giver. Nothing in atheism directs one to believe that pedophila is wrong, thankfully you see it wrong. Richard Dawkins disagrees though http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard ... ting_harm/

So without a God dwelling apart from us giving us moral laws, your opinion is not different to Muhammad which is no different to Richard Dawkins.

[crock101]

Did I not say consenting adults.how can it be rape when there was consent from a person clearly able to give consent.Why would anyone think that a man paying a prostitute for her services is raping her ,she agreed to perform a service in exchange for money.
It's odd that people are still claiming that they get their morals from these books, just take one example of how untrue this is.
If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night,she is to be stoned to death by the men of her village on her father's door step. Deuteronomy 22-21
Now I expect that nobody, not even the people who say that the bible is that word of God and must be followed, agree with this.but wait that would mean that all of us have better morals that than the God of of the bible on this subject,but how can that be,how can God be wrong about anything, I mean, he is supposed to be God.
Just consider what is being asked of us, just for a moment, if this verse was to be taken seriously most of our mothers would have been stoned to death along time ago and to the few naive enough to think that she was a virgin on her wedding night , well good luck with that delusion.what about those who's mother had children and never got married , God must really be pissed with them.

[crock101]

York.
Yes, gay men having anal sex would seem to be not natural to you.
In the same way that anyone who smokes seems unnatural to me , after all the the human lung clearly, as you would put it ,not "designed" to inhale smoke.
I won't even get into the dangers of second smoke.
But I will never advocate denying either group the same rights as everyone else.my personal feelings should never trump the rights of others.
As long as they are not causing harm to others, what consenting adults get up to on their own time is their business .

[Slartibartfast]

1.

I think again you don't understand how this bible thing goes. The bible doesn't have to directly address something

This right here is why the bible is subjective. It is subjectively interpreted to mean whatever you need it to mean to back up your beliefs. That is how the bible has been used to back up so many contradicting beliefs over the past 2000 years. Just on this thread alone you and Blues can't agree on the meaning. The only difference is that you hide behind the bible as some "moral authority" so you don't have to take responsibility for what you believe or think about why you believe it.

2. Life is not objective, therefore morality cannot be objective. However, there must be something that can be used to tie all of morality together. That would have to be unaffected by the subjectivity of life. That means it would need to be objective. I gave you a simple statement. To prove me wrong you have to peove it is either
A. Not applicable or
B. Subjective.
Congratulations on doing nothing to address my point. Instead you assume I am contradicting myself because according to you nothing objective can come from a subjective object and all people are subjective. You apply this argument as though it is true but neglect to offer any proof whatsoever. That means, like always, your assertions are without backing.

3. I'm trying to find out where your moral authority comes from. What do you think about pedophiles before the bible was written. Do they get a free pass into heaven because morality wasn't invented in the bible as yet?

I'm ignoring the last two paragraphs because they are just your opinion. If you want me to address them please provide the facts or proof to back it up. Again... just because you say it does not make it true.

That last paragraph just false and shows your poor comprehension. My opinion is based on the objective underlying moral principle (that you call subjective with no proof whatsoever).

[MD Marketers]

the bible is flawed, not preserved, tampered with...

The Koran is a story book inspired by the bible.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

The Qur'an seems to be without flaws though. The Hadith are literally riddled with flaws however.
Any Hadeeth following Muslim has no right to use the argument that the "bible is flawed" when he himself follows flaw riddled Hadeeth.

MD, yuh in need of guidance...

Then guide me:
Are the sahih hadeeth you follow flawless unlike the bible you condemn?
Yes or No?
If "No" then why would you criticize the bible for it's flaws?

Awaiting your "guidance"

Seek guidance from God, be sincere, yes sincere....if HE wills the needed guidance will be sent through the creation. Maybe me or someone else.

This is a logic based discussion for all intents and purpose. Anything outside of that I will consider illogical.
You somehow found flaw with my logic based on the guidance that "God" has given you apparently & when asked to reveal this better logic/guidance that he has given you, you are somehow unable to reproduce it in a logical manner?
A convenient case of amnesiure perhaps.
May I point out this is the most used cop out for Religious people world wide.

Let me rephrase my question:
Show me the logic you were once guided with so that I may better understand this logic concerning flawed Hadeth followers vs flawed Bible followers please?

[crock101]

Can we at least have a starting point where we can all agree on and move forward from there.something that should be obvious to everyone.

Raping a child is wrong and a sexual predator who commits such an act is a criminal and should be treated as such.a "good" person would not commit such an act.Under no circumstance could this be called good ,logical or righteous,regardless of time and location.

This is my stance ,anyone who agrees with me can state it openly.

Whoever would disagree with me on this subject has a lot of hoops to jump through to make his point palatable to non-pedophiles in the forum

[Habit7]

If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night,she is to be stoned to death by the men of her village on her father's door step. Deuteronomy 22-21
Now I expect that nobody, not even the people who say that the bible is that word of God and must be followed, agree with <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">this.

You and your boy Slarti suffering from a profound ignorance of the scriptures you claim are rubbish. The moral principle here is adultery, which I hope you agree is morally wrong. The penalty of stoning is a civil law requirement that was meant only for the nation of Israel at that time and has no binding requirement on anyone today. That is why biblical ignorant atheists run to passages in the Old Testament and cry foul at its morality without pointing to a contemporary example practiced by Christians. Christian morality agrees with the moral against adultery but not with that penalty, hence you live in a society that is against adultery but doesn't offer capital punishment for adulterers. Although as an atheist you would have no reason to oppose it just as Kim Jong Un and his atheist govt constantly uses capital punishment for even minor offenses.

Also Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is in a specific case of an engaged couple and there being infidelity. If the man accused the girl of prior infidelity after being presented as chased fiancée and he is wrong after a trial, then he is executed. If she after representing herself as chased is lying, she is executed. We see this playing out with Mary and Joseph in the New Testament where Joseph's fiancée is pregnant and while he can have her tried for adultery, the Bible calls him righteous and he attempts to annul the engagement and let her have her baby without the law over her (Matthew 1:19).

I would advise you what I advised Slarti, read and understand counterpoints before you come out swinging, I still don't think he heeded my advice. Many of your posts I ignored because they were so simplistic to refute. So ground your atheism in fact, not rage.

[Habit7]

1. Does the Bible address issues that are subjective? Yes. Is the Bible subjective about sexual ethic and specifically pedophila? No. If I disagree with blues on the Bible great, I am in good company since he not a Christian. You and Richard Dawkins disagree on the morality of pedophila, doesn't that mean atheism is subjective on pedophila?

2.

2. Life is not objective, therefore morality cannot be objective...... That means, like always, your assertions are without backing.

Huh? Can you back up that assertion? What is life and by whose standards is it not objective? Why does morality needs to be "tied together"? You are one making assertions that sound like they are from a fortune cookie.

You keep saying I am not answering your question so let me spell it out again. The word objective means based on fact. For you to claim that there are objective moral principles then they must come from a factual source. There cannot come from a subjective source otherwise it won't be objective.

3. My moral authority comes from God, the supreme being by which we determine right and wrong. The bible specifically states that pedophila is wrong but even without the bible men have a God enlightened conscience by which God will hold you to account to just as much as if you knew the specifics of the bible (Romans 2:15). Thus Muhammad was guilty of pedophila because of God's law evident to him in the Judeo-Christian society he opposed and his own conscience.

Again as an atheist you have nothing to accuse Muhammad of violating other than your own opinion, this is the crux of this discussion and you're refusing to address it as we keep going on and on in your rabbit holes.

Both Muhammad and Richard Dawkins reject whatever underlying objective moral principle you are appealing to, as a result you cannot wag your bony finger in moral disapproval at Muhammad.