Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheists often make arguments against faith by pointing to "evil" in the world. But ironically what is used as a supposed Achilles heel against a creator is actually an Achilles heel against belief that there is no creator. The idea specifically that there is no universal moral basis or external basis from the intuition of mankind himself that we are held to.
So for instance let's take pedophilia. If someone is naturally attracted to a minor, who are you to suggest that they cannot act on that attraction if the attraction is mutual from that minor?
You are imposing your own system of values on them. Why should they be held to your system of values. Why are you intolerant of their system of beliefs? If you suggest that the majority of the population would agree with you, since when does the majority determine what's right?
Here are the thoughts of a group of psychiatrists and mental health "professionals" of a Maryland group called B4U-ACT
Quote:
“What purpose does calling someone a ‘pervert’ or ‘predator’ serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred? … How is this productive? It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts.”
[LEFT]
Here are the thoughts of a graduate student at the London School of Economics at the thought of removing the label on the next DSM (manual which lists disorders)
Quote:
“Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can better understand Minor Attracted Persons.”
I find your entire premise offensive.
Do you want an adult to have sex with one of your children? Why or why not? Is god any part of your answer?
It is a criminal offense for a reason, and pedophiles get punished in this country by the courts for breaking the law. God isn't doing the punishing.
In the bible, sex and rape of very young women is permissible and it is considered moral to marry very young, and have multiple wives. I like to think my morals are better than that.
My basis for as an atheist for a moral objection to pedophilia is quite simple. Minors are not old enough to understand the consequences of the action, and are easily influenced or coerced by an adult in a position of authority over them. Adults should know better, and a moral adult would never condone such an act.
Quote:
You are imposing your own system of values on them. Why should they be held to your system of values. Why are you intolerant of their system of beliefs? If you suggest that the majority of the population would agree with you, since when does the majority determine what's right?
Since when doesn't the majority determine what is right?
I find your sources biased and suspect, and it appears that you are trying to rationalize some bizarre urges of your own. Please get help.
It's the same moral argument that religious people have to pedophilia: it is harmful to expose children to an activity that can only be responsibly handled by adults, particularly given the inherent lack of power on the side of the child in the relationship.
My basis for as an atheist for a moral objection to pedophilia is quite simple. Minors are not old enough to understand the consequences of the action, and are easily influenced or coerced by an adult in a position of authority over them. Adults should know better, and a moral adult would never condone such an act.
And what arbitrary age can one understand the consequences of their action? There are minors who especially because of their exposure to television and pornography know fully well about sex. And with people like Planned Parenthood and UNESCO trying to teach kids as young as 6 years old how to masturbate, who are you to say they have no knowledge?
And again animals in the animal kingdom take advantage of other young animals all the time. What basis do you have for saying that two people can't
Now obviously I have a point of view that it's appalling to take advantage of young children. But if you believe right and wrong are arbitrary criteria determined by your own intuition, who are you to say that others should be held to the standard of your personal intuition? An intuition that is only derived from arbitrary chemical reactions in your brain.
Many parents are opposed to their children being sexually active but the children are sexually active anyways. Many times they are influenced by the bombardment of advertising for sex from media programming that is put together by adults that they know full well is consumed by mostly teenagers. (MTV/BET etc)
So if those children are free to make those decisions, decisions that are even pushed by certain organizations that are against traditional values, why should parents have say about other adults if they apparently have no say over the activity their children are already involved to the point where 1/4 teens have STDs
Why shouldn't those same adults who push their system of values on teenagers encouraging them to be sexually active be prohibited from engaging with that behavior on those same children that they've already mentally manipulated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
It's the same moral argument that religious people have to pedophilia: it is harmful to expose children to an activity that can only be responsibly handled by adults, particularly given the inherent lack of power on the side of the child in the relationship.
But again on what basis is this morality derived? Your personal feelings. And an activity that can only be responsibly handled by adults? They why does the majority of television content considered suitable for youth have either sexual innuendo or overt simulations of sex? Why is sexual activity not overall frowned upon and only suggested that contraceptives are used if there is any talk of frowning upon the activity?
Says the percentage of teenagers who are already sexually active. A number that is apparently so high that a whopping 1/4 teenagers have STDs
Who are you to say they don't have that decision if morals regarding sex are arbitrary and just personal opinion?
Are you a bigot?
I don't know if I am a bigot.
I don't believe in morals. I ignore them. Morals a are wishy washy opinions that are irrelevant.
I make decisions and create and enforce rules based on tangible outcomes: health, finances, safety, happiness, freedom, etc.
If there was no risk of STD or financially irresponsible pregnancies or "hurt feelings" (or other tangible things I can't think of at the moment) then I wouldn't care if teenagers had sex at 14. And, I guess that logic would apply to pedophilia even though I've been conditioned to imagine that is repulsive and disgusting.
As long as nobody is hurt, anything goes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
