U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-31-2013, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,715 posts, read 11,616,369 times
Reputation: 4141

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DauntlessDan View Post
In the bible, sex and rape of very young women is permissible

Really? I would love to know where you read this. Can you cite the book/chapter?
Numbers 31, God commands Moses to kill all the Midianites except the virgin girls. Which means every male and every female over marriage age, which at the time was 12-13. I'll give you two guesses why they allowed that gracious exception.

On a less sinister note, the very erotic Song of Solomon identifies secondary sex characteristics with marriageability; this is echoed in some of the weirder parts of the prophetic books like Ezekiel 23.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2013, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Southern NC
1,920 posts, read 4,350,041 times
Reputation: 2517
Haven't even bothered reading other posts, but the moral objection is that children aren't consenting adults.
Easy answer to a weird question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2013, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,715 posts, read 11,616,369 times
Reputation: 4141
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC~Mom View Post
Haven't even bothered reading other posts, but the moral objection is that children aren't consenting adults.
Easy answer to a weird question.
People may have differing views on the morality of pedophilia, but they would be entirely logically separate from the atheism or theism of the proponents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2013, 07:21 PM
 
259 posts, read 204,723 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC~Mom View Post
Haven't even bothered reading other posts, but the moral objection is that children aren't consenting adults.
Easy answer to a weird question.
The main point is that since when is consent necessary in nature for sexual relations?

What moral basis are humans held to a higher standard to animals if they are animals themselves? (with their thoughts driven by arbitrary chemical reactions at that)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2013, 07:24 PM
 
259 posts, read 204,723 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
OP, What is the difference between pedophilia and anything else atheists, individually or corporately, may disapprove of? Are you suggesting that atheists may never express moral disapproval at all? If you are not, why would pedophilia pose any special difficulty?
They have the right to disapprove of pedophilia. But there is no moral basis other than their own feelings.

So if someone else has a different set of feelings, how can they object to that person's behavior without being hypocritical or myopic towards that other individual's feelings?

How do they establish that humans should behave at a higher standard than animals? Why does the law of the jungle not apply?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2013, 07:30 PM
 
259 posts, read 204,723 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
As an atheist, I have never made an argument against faith based on "evil", simply because I don't subscribe to the idea of "evil".

Where I think your premise fails is when you assume that there cannot be a universal moral basis without a "creator".

May I ask what leads you to that conclusion?


As for your example: Pedophilia is wrong for a very simple reason, a minor is not developed enough to fully comprehend the results of their actions. Meaning; even if the attraction is mutual, one party is in too superior of a position of power, as one party does not have the ability to grasp the potential consequences of the attraction.

That being said, your example assumes the cognitive ability to be mutually, sexually attracted to a pedophile, which indicated that you're ignoring a wast group of victims, those too young to be sexually attracted to another person and mature enough to understand what sex really is.


A better example of how one can reach a universal moral "code" without the presence of a creator is murder.

The premise would be that Murder is wrong.

One can get to that universal moral rule very easily by applying self preservation. If murder was acceptable, that would mean that someone murdering me would be acceptable, that would not be preferable to my own survival and sustenance. One can therefor make the argument that since murder being acceptable would be of grave danger to my continued living, it is wrong.

On a larger scale, the argument would obviously be that murder being wrong is a necessity for the continuity of the human species.

From that point, you can make a rational argument for a moral code without a creator; If it's detrimental to me, it will largely be detrimental to all. That's an oversimplification, but it is sound, in my opinion.
It sounds great to you but let's put it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You say

A)attraction must be mutual
B)one party doesn't have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions

Yet we see animals in nature break this "universal code of ethics" all the time in nature.

Not only amongst themselves but we have seen pit bulls for instance that have literally rape infant
human children.

There is no obligation for the weak to help the strong. The objective of the strong is only to reproduce and spread their own seed. The weak are mere competition.

The same goes with murder which is why we see animals in the animal kingdom literally murder other animals who may be a threat to their own power and ability to reproduce like infanticide among lions.

Yet this is considered unacceptable by humans. But by what arbitrary classification if there is no universal code that says humans should be held to higher standard than animals.

Ethics are only concerned with how things OUGHT to be not how they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2013, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Rivendell
1,387 posts, read 2,167,439 times
Reputation: 1650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
Mods should move this to the A&A forum.

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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
As someone has already pointed out, pedophiles are defined by their interest in prepubescent children. That is certainly not old enough to understand consequences.
Do you have a source for your ridiculous comments about 6 year olds being taught to masturbate, or did you just pull that statement out of an orifice?



There you go again making assumptions about things you clearly know nothing about. Where do you get the silly idea that right and wrong are arbitrary criteria determined by my own intuition?
Is that where you get your morals from?

My sense of right and wrong comes from the same place as everyone else, including yourself.
They are a product of the society I was raised in.
If I had been born and raised in the AME, I would be nothing more than chattel, and the property of a husband or slave master who could have sex with me at any age. At the time, that seemed moral to them.
I have reposted some questions and statements that you have ignored. You are also doing an amazing job of ignoring most questions asked by other posters.
I would really like to know where your morals come from, and if you think accusing an entire group of people (atheists) of not objecting to pedophilia is a proper moral stance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 01:51 AM
 
Location: Illinois
4,754 posts, read 4,331,690 times
Reputation: 12914
Alright ATTC, make your point.

Are you trying to say that morality can only come from G-d(s) and holy books? Are you trying to say that atheists have no moral framework, or no right to once since they are atheists? Are you trying to argue that pedophilia is inherently natural because animals sometimes do it? Are you - and other people on this thread, which I cannot freaking believe - really trying to argue that there is or should be such a thing as legal consensual sex between a prepubescent minor and an adult?

Because the concept of this whole thing is repugnant. I cannot even believe this thread is still open.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 04:16 AM
 
Location: Australia
1,058 posts, read 1,450,793 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC View Post
They have the right to disapprove of pedophilia. But there is no moral basis other than their own feelings.

So if someone else has a different set of feelings, how can they object to that person's behavior without being hypocritical or myopic towards that other individual's feelings?

How do they establish that humans should behave at a higher standard than animals? Why does the law of the jungle not apply?
What gives pedophiles the RIGHT to RAPE INNOCENT CHILDREN without objection from others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 04:17 AM
 
Location: Australia
1,058 posts, read 1,450,793 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie3 View Post
Alright ATTC, make your point.

Are you trying to say that morality can only come from G-d(s) and holy books? Are you trying to say that atheists have no moral framework, or no right to once since they are atheists? Are you trying to argue that pedophilia is inherently natural because animals sometimes do it? Are you - and other people on this thread, which I cannot freaking believe - really trying to argue that there is or should be such a thing as legal consensual sex between a prepubescent minor and an adult?

Because the concept of this whole thing is repugnant. I cannot even believe this thread is still open.
Apparently atheists can't behave without the threat of "Hell" to keep them in their place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:07 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top