A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia is next on the Slippery Slope . . .

[M.D. Rawlings]

Let us turn back before it's too late
By Rabbi Moshe Averick
08/31/2011
Jewish World Review


One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential "intellectual elite" of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

No doubt, this assertion will appear preposterous to some atheists, and will spark outrage. Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists' belief systems are inescapable. When asked by journalist William Crawley if he thought that pedophilia was "just wrong." Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University — a world-famous philosopher of "ethics" — responded as follows:

"I don't have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong…You're trying to put words in my mouth. "​

Singer went on to explain that he is a "consequentialist." For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain "consequentialism" in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it's ethical, if you don't like the consequences it's unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it's ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it's unethical. In an article entitled "Heavy Petting," Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children "ethics" at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my "plea" to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers.

LINK

The pseudo-intellectualism of the barbaric and depraved on display. . . .

 

[Dr.Drock]

The most rational thing to do is assume Singer speaks for all atheists.

 

[Sallow]

It ain't atheists taking multiple and child brides.

 

[martybegan]

Singer is more of a moral relativist than anything else. For Moral relativists something has to be more than "just wrong" for it to be immoral at a minimum, and illegal at a maximum.

 

[G.T.]

Morals don't come from Religion.

 

[martybegan]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Yes they do, it depends on the person. A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine. Where else would they get it from?

 

[G.T.]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Yes they do, it depends on the person. A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine. Where else would they get it from?

wtf? So you think if there was no Religion, that Catholics would.. what? All be evil anarchists?

 

[bodecea]

It ain't atheists taking multiple and child brides.

Nor molesting young altar boys or parochial students.

 

[martybegan]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Yes they do, it depends on the person. A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine. Where else would they get it from?

wtf? So you think if there was no Religion, that Catholics would.. what? All be evil anarchists?

No, there are other sets of morals. Your statment was morals don't come from religion. Some morals do, probably not yours though.

You made a blanket statment that isn't correct.

 

[bodecea]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Yes they do, it depends on the person. A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine. Where else would they get it from?

Catholics and Morals....at this time, not the best example.

 

[G.T.]

Yes they do, it depends on the person. A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine. Where else would they get it from?

wtf? So you think if there was no Religion, that Catholics would.. what? All be evil anarchists?

No, there are other sets of morals. Your statment was morals don't come from religion. Some morals do, probably not yours though.

You made a blanket statment that isn't correct.

I disagree. I think it's totally correct. In my opinion, the Religions were written BASED ON man-made, man-invented, morals. I'll let you know when I get proof otherwise.

 

[Avatar9]

There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

How old do you think Mary was? Aisha? Warren Jeff's lovers?
Religion has always pushed for the sexualization and marriage of the young because of the (A) obsession with virginity and innocence and (B) the belief that God demanded the bearing children as a woman's duty as soon as she was capable (be fruitful and multiply), which necessitated a young start.

The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was twelve years of age.[4]

Age of consent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists' belief systems are inescapable.

Yes, those stupid laws banning spousal rape and recognizing women as human beings... the end of human sacrifice... the rejection of god's teachings in favor of materialist heathen medicine...

 

[Sallow]

Morals don't come from Religion.

 

[Avatar9]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Yes they do

Then why do Christians refuse to kill unbelievers? If they took their morals from their religion, they'd have no choice- god demands it, which makes it moral and righteous.

A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine.

So if the pope said it was moral to rape children and immoral to have sex with anyone who's finished puberty, all the world's Catholics would become pedophiles?

I mean, I'll grant that many of their religious leaders are already there...

 

[martybegan]

wtf? So you think if there was no Religion, that Catholics would.. what? All be evil anarchists?

No, there are other sets of morals. Your statment was morals don't come from religion. Some morals do, probably not yours though.

You made a blanket statment that isn't correct.

I disagree. I think it's totally correct. In my opinion, the Religions were written BASED ON man-made, man-invented, morals. I'll let you know when I get proof otherwise.

Right around the same time you show me proof there is no god/higher being/higher power.

 

[G.T.]

No, there are other sets of morals. Your statment was morals don't come from religion. Some morals do, probably not yours though.

You made a blanket statment that isn't correct.

I disagree. I think it's totally correct. In my opinion, the Religions were written BASED ON man-made, man-invented, morals. I'll let you know when I get proof otherwise.

Right around the same time you show me proof there is no god/higher being/higher power.

The absence of proof that there is one is good enough for me to speculate that "we dont know," not..... "we do know, it's all in the Bible."

That go over your head, or what?

Morals come from Humanity.
The same humanity that wrote said fairly tales, thus asserted those morals.

 

[martybegan]

Morals don't come from Religion.

Yes they do

Then why do Christians refuse to kill unbelievers? If they took their morals from their religion, they'd have no choice- god demands it, which makes it moral and righteous.

A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine.

So if the pope said it was moral to rape children and immoral to have sex with anyone who's finished puberty, all the world's Catholics would become pedophiles?

I mean, I'll grant that many of their religious leaders are already there...

Where in the bible does it say to kill unbelievers?

In your second point, that would never happen, as any pope that did that would be tossed out by the college of cardinals. Doctrine does not change that rapidly and that radically, unless you are dealing with some nutball small waco style cult.

Notice I said a devout caltholic takes "cues" on morality from catholic doctrine, which is based on the bible. Free will still dictates whether the person follows it or not. Churches give a moral compass, it is up to people to follow it or not.

 

[martybegan]

I disagree. I think it's totally correct. In my opinion, the Religions were written BASED ON man-made, man-invented, morals. I'll let you know when I get proof otherwise.

Right around the same time you show me proof there is no god/higher being/higher power.

The absence of proof that there is one is good enough for me to speculate that "we dont know," not..... "we do know, it's all in the Bible."

That go over your head, or what?

Morals come from Humanity.
The same humanity that wrote said fairly tales, thus asserted those morals.

Nice dodge, but typical of your ilk. Its more of the "I don't believe in relgion, therefore I must be right" mentaility of certain types of atheists that make people not really able to stand people like you.

I am abivalent on religon at best, but I do not begrudge devout people of thier beliefs. Congrats, the "abscence of proof" is good enough for you. It still does not remove the fact that the worlds religions provide most of the moral compass for our societies, from chrisitanity to buddism.

Does shitting on people beliefs by calling them "fairy tales" make you feel like a smug superior asshat?

 

[G.T.]

Right around the same time you show me proof there is no god/higher being/higher power.

The absence of proof that there is one is good enough for me to speculate that "we dont know," not..... "we do know, it's all in the Bible."

That go over your head, or what?

Morals come from Humanity.
The same humanity that wrote said fairly tales, thus asserted those morals.

Nice dodge, but typical of your ilk. Its more of the "I don't believe in relgion, therefore I must be right" mentaility of certain types of atheists that make people not really able to stand people like you.

I am abivalent on religon at best, but I do not begrudge devout people of thier beliefs. Congrats, the "abscence of proof" is good enough for you. It still does not remove the fact that the worlds religions provide most of the moral compass for our societies, from chrisitanity to buddism.

Does shitting on people beliefs by calling them "fairy tales" make you feel like a smug superior asshat?

If you don't say "my ilk," I won't call you pussy, pussy. But if you diminish my individuality by saying "your ilk" again, I'm going to have to keep calling you pussy, pussy.

I don't give a a flying fuck if you can't stand my opinions. I didn't say "I must be right," but to the contrary, I stated my **opinion** that I DONT KNOW EITHER WAY, and you're the one "arguing it," aka saying "I must be right," yourself, pussy.

Lastly, again, I'll assert it one more time for you: I disagree. The world's moral compass does not come from Religions. It comes from people, and further, people wrote said Religions which offers you further evidence of my contention.

The very fact that the Bible says that all men sin, yet the same Bible wants me to take it on Man's word that Man (The writers) is cOnveying the word of god in said bible, is enough rich irony for me to call it a day, pussy. Trust the word of flawed, sinning men that they're writing the WORD OF GOD? Yea, I don't think so.

 

[martybegan]

The absence of proof that there is one is good enough for me to speculate that "we dont know," not..... "we do know, it's all in the Bible."

That go over your head, or what?

Morals come from Humanity.
The same humanity that wrote said fairly tales, thus asserted those morals.

Nice dodge, but typical of your ilk. Its more of the "I don't believe in relgion, therefore I must be right" mentaility of certain types of atheists that make people not really able to stand people like you.

I am abivalent on religon at best, but I do not begrudge devout people of thier beliefs. Congrats, the "abscence of proof" is good enough for you. It still does not remove the fact that the worlds religions provide most of the moral compass for our societies, from chrisitanity to buddism.

Does shitting on people beliefs by calling them "fairy tales" make you feel like a smug superior asshat?

If you don't say "my ilk," I won't call you pussy, pussy. But if you diminish my individuality by saying "your ilk" again, I'm going to have to keep calling you pussy, pussy.

I don't give a a flying fuck if you can't stand my opinions. I didn't say "I must be right," but to the contrary, I stated my **opinion** that I DONT KNOW EITHER WAY, and you're the one "arguing it," aka saying "I must be right," yourself, pussy.

Lastly, again, I'll assert it one more time for you: I disagree. The world's moral compass does not come from Religions. It comes from people, and further, people wrote said Religions which offers you further evidence of my contention.

The very fact that the Bible says that all men sin, yet the same Bible wants me to take it on Man's word that Man (The writers) is cpnveying the word of god in said bible, is enough rich irony for me to call it a day, pussy.

No problem, asshat.

There are people who believe like you do, hence "your ilk", there is nothing wrong with me stating that.

Fine, you think religons are created by man. Those religons, however are still used as a moral compass by the majority of the worlds population, regardless of the source, no matter how hard you try to beleive it isnt so.

And on the pussy thing: