The Atheist 'Pay 50 Shekels for a Rape, Get A Rape' Myth

The atheist argument against you op is spot on. If you couldn't be bothered to get a good translation of your gods book that is your issue.

Genuinely paul I could think of nothing more repugnant that meeting a creature like the one called god in your book

 

What, now they're arguing against their own argument?

We did part way through the thread. If atheists had bothered to do that instead of taking things out of context and researching it we could have all been spared a lot of time.

I think it will be a very unpleasant experience for you, unfortunately.

 

You have completely lost it Paul.
You aren't making a case for this specific solution to the issue god's edict was supposed to address.
What are you talking about?
You are making literaly no sense.

 

Why on earth would you think that? Do you not think he would judge me by how i lived my life and behaved to others rather than how I argued with a poorly translated book and apparently confused believer?

 

what an appalling thing to write, or even think.

is there nothing of your natural ethical self left, that you can't see how putrid this thinking is? do you not realise that such 'love' looks NOTHING like love as it can be?

 

We've been over this: golden rule, empathy, objective moral truths... The dead universe is irrelevant. You still haven't answered: do you understand that a choice made under duress does not automatically mean that the person wants that choice?

 

Try being a black woman in Muississippi in say, 1930 trying to convince some southern baptist that you are just as human, at least as smart and as moral and worth as much as he is.

Not that you can do that, but try imagine it. Then return to your conversation and see
if there is any comparison.

 

The rule is not clear whether it has to be consensual or not. All of the translations mean sex, but there is nothing specific about whether it's consensual or not. To me, that means it applies to both. Consensual sex and rape are both pre/extra-marital if the two individuals aren't married. Sounds like the rule applies to both. If you think it specifically means consensual sex while excluding rape, then please reference something that says as much. Even the corrected translation doesn't exclude rape, it just expands to include consensual sex.

Which means the rule applies to rape as well as consensual sex.

 

it this about the new "legitimate" rape claim by the religious right

 

oh now that was just one dope who said that.

 

Yes, you're hitchhiking on Christian values. The Communist dictatorships that killed 100,000,000 didn't believe in any of that, it was right makes right to them. Islam certainly doesn't believe in the Golden Rule for 'infidels'.

No it isn't, if we are cosmic accidents then there is no objective moral truths, man is the highest power, can do anything he wants, and man has no more instrinsic value than a dog.

No, you can want something but not like it.

 

If it is who I'm think of, he meant 'legitimate' as in a real rape, not consensual sex.

 

Ya, but that one dope was elected by who ? Obviously a bunch of other dopes...

 

well, yeah, but i do think it is an overstatement to say that is a "claim by the religious right'.
There are enough idiocies, no need to exggerate!

- - - Updated - - -

Huh, we thought you were the one confused about which is which.

 

Jesus Christ! Do you honestly not remember this exchange that happened less than two weeks ago?

Then you posted a video, claimed that dueling videos would make for a meaningful discussion, and then failed to even acknowledge the video I posted that clearly rebutted your claims that religious morality is the only form that can be objective.

I guess trying to debate with you is even more of a waste of time than previously thought, since your memory appears to reset every 12 days.

Please back that up with an actual argument. You're making a claim that isn't supported by logic. Even if what you say is true, it wouldn't make your god any more or less real. Reality does not change based on what you find to be more comforting.

And, objective moral truths, if they exist, would simply exist as a property of reality. Like how wetness is an emergent property of water, objective morality would be an emergent property of humanity. The morality you claim to exist because of your god cannot, by definition, be objective since it can change with his whim. If you want to claim that it cannot change with his whim, then it exist independent of him. You can't have it both ways.

That wasn't the question. Your earlier post equated the two, indicating that choosing the lesser of two evils automatically meant the person wanted whichever they chose. Why do you not understand the problem with this? From my perspective, it looks like your religion has crippled your critical thinking ability (and apparently your memory).