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

[Dr.Drock]

And yet you conveniently leave out all the other parts about how slaves are to be treated, as well as what Jesus says about slaves. You also neglect to mention that that's how things were done back then. Oh, and ware does it say rape them ? You also only read the first sentence or two before you posted.

Good point, it's hard to pick out which contradiction is what the Bible actually means.

The Bible talks about the horrors of adultery, but then says a rape victim has to marry her rapist.

Some of the Bible's teachings we're morally outgrown as a species, some we're still far from living up to.

And to debate it with you would be useless because you made your mind up long ago, and most likely will never change it. I do agree with the morally out grown part, and really, what was rape to anyone in those days when Sons, goats, and land were the measure of wealth ? The thing is, the majority of Christian churches dont endorse such things. You can look to Warren Jeffs to see what happens to those that do.

Well of course my mind will never change as to what the Bible says, but I agree with you and think that it's a good thing that christianity rejects pretty much all the immoral aspects of the Old Testament.

The last thing that needs to take place in my mind is the end of homophobia amongst the religious and christianity in america is quickly moving in that direction and to refocus on the idea of preventing divorce. Whether that means making more sure that people are ready to get married, or make people work harder to keep it together when things go south, all the above.

 

[daws101]

Atheism doesn't lead to pedophilia.

Atheism leads sleeping in on Sundays.

I've all said, why ruin a perfectly good sunday by going to church.

 

[konradv]

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. . . .

People physically attack pedophiles. Equating that with "intellectual elites" is a blood libel, IMO.

 

[G.T.]

And yet you conveniently leave out all the other parts about how slaves are to be treated, as well as what Jesus says about slaves. You also neglect to mention that that's how things were done back then. Oh, and ware does it say rape them ? You also only read the first sentence or two before you posted.

Good point, it's hard to pick out which contradiction is what the Bible actually means.

The Bible talks about the horrors of adultery, but then says a rape victim has to marry her rapist.

Some of the Bible's teachings we're morally outgrown as a species, some we're still far from living up to.

And to debate it with you would be useless because you made your mind up long ago, and most likely will never change it. I do agree with the morally out grown part, and really, what was rape to anyone in those days when Sons, goats, and land were the measure of wealth ? The thing is, the majority of Christian churches dont endorse such things. You can look to Warren Jeffs to see what happens to those that do.

but if the bible is the word of god, whats that got to do with what was okay at the time...

the norms when it was written should have been proclaimed to be wrong if wrong is wrong and the bible is the word of god.

 

[rightwinger]

So it seems religion is the only thing that stops pedophilia

 

[bodecea]

So it seems religion is the only thing that stops pedophilia

Tell that to the Catholic altar boys.

 

[daws101]

So it seems religion is the only thing that stops pedophilia

shouldn't that berivately encourages pedophilia while publicly discouraging it.

 

[NGSamson]

Good point, it's hard to pick out which contradiction is what the Bible actually means.

The Bible talks about the horrors of adultery, but then says a rape victim has to marry her rapist.

Some of the Bible's teachings we're morally outgrown as a species, some we're still far from living up to.

And to debate it with you would be useless because you made your mind up long ago, and most likely will never change it. I do agree with the morally out grown part, and really, what was rape to anyone in those days when Sons, goats, and land were the measure of wealth ? The thing is, the majority of Christian churches dont endorse such things. You can look to Warren Jeffs to see what happens to those that do.

Well of course my mind will never change as to what the Bible says, but I agree with you and think that it's a good thing that christianity rejects pretty much all the immoral aspects of the Old Testament.

The last thing that needs to take place in my mind is the end of homophobia amongst the religious and christianity in america is quickly moving in that direction and to refocus on the idea of preventing divorce. Whether that means making more sure that people are ready to get married, or make people work harder to keep it together when things go south, all the above.

Homosexuality is an issue for Americans, It is already taken care of for Christians. To us, the life style is not exceptionable. I work with and I am pretty much business partners with an extremely gay man.While getting drunk, we have hashed this out many times, he knows ware I stand and I know ware he stands. He is a decent guy, and trustworthy. He does not expect me to accept his life style as proper, and does not expect me to try and convert him. If he asked I would, but he is happy ware he is at.I respect the man, not the position. Don't know if that makes any sense but I tried.

 

[daws101]

And to debate it with you would be useless because you made your mind up long ago, and most likely will never change it. I do agree with the morally out grown part, and really, what was rape to anyone in those days when Sons, goats, and land were the measure of wealth ? The thing is, the majority of Christian churches dont endorse such things. You can look to Warren Jeffs to see what happens to those that do.

Well of course my mind will never change as to what the Bible says, but I agree with you and think that it's a good thing that christianity rejects pretty much all the immoral aspects of the Old Testament.

The last thing that needs to take place in my mind is the end of homophobia amongst the religious and christianity in america is quickly moving in that direction and to refocus on the idea of preventing divorce. Whether that means making more sure that people are ready to get married, or make people work harder to keep it together when things go south, all the above.

Homosexuality is an issue for Americans, It is already taken care of for Christians. To us, the life style is not exceptionable. I work with and I am pretty much business partners with an extremely gay man.While getting drunk, we have hashed this out many times, he knows ware I stand and I know ware he stands. He is a decent guy, and trustworthy. He does not expect me to accept his life style as proper, and does not expect me to try and convert him. If he asked I would, but he is happy ware he is at.I respect the man, not the position. Don't know if that makes any sense but I tried.

it's and issue for SOME Americans.
what is extremely gay?
isn't getting drunk frowned on by Christians?
if I recall correctly Jesus never had much to say about homosexuality.
after all he did hang out with 12 guys.....

 

[Avatar9]

Well of course my mind will never change as to what the Bible says, but I agree with you and think that it's a good thing that christianity rejects pretty much all the immoral aspects of the Old Testament.

The last thing that needs to take place in my mind is the end of homophobia amongst the religious and christianity in america is quickly moving in that direction and to refocus on the idea of preventing divorce. Whether that means making more sure that people are ready to get married, or make people work harder to keep it together when things go south, all the above.

Homosexuality is an issue for Americans, It is already taken care of for Christians. To us, the life style is not exceptionable. I work with and I am pretty much business partners with an extremely gay man.While getting drunk, we have hashed this out many times, he knows ware I stand and I know ware he stands. He is a decent guy, and trustworthy. He does not expect me to accept his life style as proper, and does not expect me to try and convert him. If he asked I would, but he is happy ware he is at.I respect the man, not the position. Don't know if that makes any sense but I tried.

it's and issue for SOME Americans.
what is extremely gay?
isn't getting drunk frowned on by Christians?
if I recall correctly Jesus never had much to say about homosexuality.
after all he did hang out with 12 guys.....

One of whom he loved

And what, exactly, is a straight or gay lifestyle? Because I know people, gay and straight, who live very different lifestyles. Is the gay lifestyle sitting in the library with a book and a sweater around your shoulders, listening to classical music? Is the straight lifestyle football, nascar, beer, and sleeping with as many chicks as you can?

 

[NGSamson]

Good point, it's hard to pick out which contradiction is what the Bible actually means.

The Bible talks about the horrors of adultery, but then says a rape victim has to marry her rapist.

Some of the Bible's teachings we're morally outgrown as a species, some we're still far from living up to.

And to debate it with you would be useless because you made your mind up long ago, and most likely will never change it. I do agree with the morally out grown part, and really, what was rape to anyone in those days when Sons, goats, and land were the measure of wealth ? The thing is, the majority of Christian churches dont endorse such things. You can look to Warren Jeffs to see what happens to those that do.

but if the bible is the word of god, whats that got to do with what was okay at the time...

the norms when it was written should have been proclaimed to be wrong if wrong is wrong and the bible is the word of god.

If you would read it you would know. You can search all the theological threads and it will have been hashed out a billion times already. You are not going to change your mind, and you can only get the same brownie points so many times before they dont mean anything. It is not your way and that's fine, but to ask some one to give you an explanation you are never going to except is just stupid. Move on and be comfortable with what you believe.

 

[daws101]

Homosexuality is an issue for Americans, It is already taken care of for Christians. To us, the life style is not exceptionable. I work with and I am pretty much business partners with an extremely gay man.While getting drunk, we have hashed this out many times, he knows ware I stand and I know ware he stands. He is a decent guy, and trustworthy. He does not expect me to accept his life style as proper, and does not expect me to try and convert him. If he asked I would, but he is happy ware he is at.I respect the man, not the position. Don't know if that makes any sense but I tried.

it's and issue for SOME Americans.
what is extremely gay?
isn't getting drunk frowned on by Christians?
if I recall correctly Jesus never had much to say about homosexuality.
after all he did hang out with 12 guys.....

One of whom he loved

And what, exactly, is a straight or gay lifestyle? Because I know people, gay and straight, who live very different lifestyles. Is the gay lifestyle sitting in the library with a book and a sweater around your shoulders, listening to classical music? Is the straight lifestyle football, nascar, beer, and sleeping with as many chicks as you can?

I've often wondered that myself.
after 30 years in showbiz...I've seen lots of lifestyles....good ?bad? it's all perspective.

 

[lehr]

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. . . .

GEE - I REMEMBER JEWS CALLING ME - NAZI - FASCIST - KID KILLERS DURING THE NAM WAR WHEN I WORE MY UNIFORM ! = i did not see any jews out there when hanoi was murdering millions in s.e. asia - and now we get reports that the children of our south vietnamese friends were given to (special)communists in hanoi who liked children ---- hey jew - we are at war with islam because we licked jews behind since the 40s = I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM ANY RABBI - WHERE WAS GOD WHEN NAZIS WERE MURDERING JEWS BY THE MILLIONS ? WHERE WAS GOD IN 1975 WHEN HANOI WAS MURDERING OUR FRIENDS BY THE MILLIONS IN S.E. ASIA
!

 

[catzmeow]

And yet you conveniently leave out all the other parts about how slaves are to be treated, as well as what Jesus says about slaves. You also neglect to mention that that's how things were done back then. Oh, and ware does it say rape them ? You also only read the first sentence or two before you posted.

So, you're saying that the Bible doesn't endorse rape in those passages?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The author's point is fucking stupid.

Child molestation is amoral because of the ill-effects it has on the child. Not because your Religion says so.

LOL! You don't grasp the author's point either. Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with religion, it goes to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of materialism and the irrationality of moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutism. The familial concerns of stability and parental authority as well as the political concerns of ideological liberty and free association are pertinent to the dispute as well, though the relevance of the latter, no doubt, utterly elude you.

So molestation is amoral merely because of its ill-effects? Well, many of your fellow materialists do not agree with you: Why Are We Surprised With the Push for 'Pedophile Rights'

There are no absolute moral values. Nobody can provide an objective and scientific means to determine the moral value of an act.

So you materialists keep saying as if your assertion were not inherently self-contradictory, irrational—as if that were not objectively self-evident, as if you were not describing instead the limitations of scientific inquiry. The assertion that truth is relative is no more subject to scientific falsification than the assertion that truth is absolute. Indeed, the apriority of a metaphysical naturalism is not subject to scientific falsification either.

LOL!

Your ill-considered logic refutes itself.

By nature, ethics is a rational enterprise and is ultimately subject to the rules of logic, not to the rules of scientific methodology, though the outcomes of experience and the discoveries of science can certainly be applied to the rational calculi of ethics. You merely confound cause with effect.

Classical liberalism, like Judeo-Christianity, holds that the fundamental rights of humanity are self-evident. The Founders were not appealing to any scientific study, but to the rational imperatives of natural law. We are not merely creatures of induction, but experience reality through the deductive processes of human consciousness.

The absolute assertion that there are no absolutes . . . except the absolute that there are no absolutes (LOL!) is a reductio ad absurdum; it fails the smell test of the rational forms and logical categories of the human mind.

First you say that humans may "refine" their ethics and then contradictorily insist that the value assessments of good or bad are artificial. Artificial? Then what is the independent, controlled, objective standard against which ethics are refined within the materialist paradigm? LOL! One contradiction after another. That's what happens when you begin with an irrational premise.

But then atheists are notoriously bad logicians as they stupidly deny, based on nothing more substantial than blind faith, the only potential alternative that is logically consistent from premise to conclustion.

No, it's people. God said genocide was okay (see: conquest on Canaan) and killing those who don't believe in your religion was a moral commandment. People, collectively and as individuals, decided otherwise and tend to throw that part of the bible out because their own morals and ethics disallow such things. People might seek to attribute this to some deity or another in order to claim some authority (especially when speaking for or attempting to inflict their morality upon others), but saying the dog farted doesn't change the fact that it was you.

Judeo-Christianity does not teach that genocide is okay. Your reading of scripture is historically and theologically illiterate. Throw away? You just made that up. There's no need to throw away the annihilation of those who were bent on Israel's utter destruction in an historical setting where there were no prisons and no possible means of assimilation. With regard to survival, do you not comprehend the practical implications under primitive conditions? And they weren't the people of just any cultures, but the people of cultures that practiced ritual pedophilia and infanticide, by the way.

 

[NGSamson]

And yet you conveniently leave out all the other parts about how slaves are to be treated, as well as what Jesus says about slaves. You also neglect to mention that that's how things were done back then. Oh, and ware does it say rape them ? You also only read the first sentence or two before you posted.

So, you're saying that the Bible doesn't endorse rape in those passages?

Nope. It may to you, but personally, I dont know any one who stole there woman while they were picking grapes. You are not trying to get tho the bottom of anything, you are trying to make a point as you see it. All the power to you.

 

[catzmeow]

it goes to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of materialism and the irrationality of moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutism.

Yet another moron who equates lack of belief in deities with moral relativism and materialism. One can be irreligious and yet not a moral relativist or materialist. My ethics are somewhere between deontology and utilitarianism. Your simplistic mistake is that you believe that atheism equals moral relativism. That's simply not true.

 

[catzmeow]

Nope. It may to you, but personally, I dont know any one who stole there woman while they were picking grapes. You are not trying to get tho the bottom of anything, you are trying to make a point as you see it. All the power to you.

I'm addressing your point which is that "everyone has always known that rape is wrong." It's historically inaccurate. In the old testament, it was god-approved to kill an enemy and take his virgin daughter, and make her your wife or concubine against her consent. That's rape.

So, no. Not everyone has always known that rape is wrong. That's a modern construct.

 

[G.T.]

The author's point is fucking stupid.

Child molestation is amoral because of the ill-effects it has on the child. Not because your Religion says so.

LOL! You don't grasp the author's point either. Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with religion, it goes to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of materialism and the irrationality of moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutism. The familial concerns of stability and parental authority as well as the political concerns of ideological liberty and free association are pertinent to the dispute as well, though the latter, no doubt, utterly elude you.

So molestation is amoral merely because of its ill-effects? Well, many of your fellow materialists do not agree with you: Why Are We Surprised With the Push for 'Pedophile Rights'

There are no absolute moral values. Nobody can provide an objective and scientific means to determine the moral value of an act.

So you materialists keep saying as if your assertion were not inherently self-contradictory, irrational—as if that were not objectively self-evident, as if you were not describing instead the limitations of scientific inquiry. The assertion that truth is relative is no more subject to scientific falsification than the assertion that truth is absolute. Indeed, the apriority of a metaphysical naturalism is not subject to scientific falsification either.

LOL!

Your ill-considered logic refutes itself.

By nature, ethics is a rational enterprise and is ultimately subject to the rules of logic, not to the rules of scientific methodology, though the outcomes of experience and the discoveries of science can certainly be applied to the rational calculi of ethics. You merely confound cause with effect.

Classical liberalism, like Judeo-Christianity, holds that the fundamental rights of humanity are self-evident. The Founders were not appealing to any scientific study, but to the rational imperatives of natural law. We are not merely creatures of induction, but experience reality through the deductive processes of human consciousness.

The absolute assertion that there are no absolutes . . . except the absolute that there are no absolutes (LOL!) is a reductio ad absurdum; it fails the smell test of the rational forms and logical categories of the human mind.

First you say that humans may "refine" their ethics and then contradictorily insist that the value assessments of good or bad are artificial. Artificial? Then what is the independent, controlled, objective standard against which ethics are refined within the materialist paradigm? LOL! One contradiction after another. That's what happens when you begin with an irrational premise.

But then atheists are notoriously bad logicians as they stupidly deny, based on nothing more substantial than blind faith, the only potential alternative that is logically consistent from premise to conclustion.

No, it's people. God said genocide was okay (see: conquest on Canaan) and killing those who don't believe in your religion was a moral commandment. People, collectively and as individuals, decided otherwise and tend to throw that part of the bible out because their own morals and ethics disallow such things. People might seek to attribute this to some deity or another in order to claim some authority (especially when speaking for or attempting to inflict their morality upon others), but saying the dog farted doesn't change the fact that it was you.

Judeo-Christianity does not teach that genocide is okay. Your reading of scripture is historically and theologically illiterate. Throw away? You just made that up. There's no need to throw away the annihilation of those who were bent on Israel's utter destruction in an historical setting where there were no prisons and no possible means of assimilation. With regard to survival, do you not comprehend the practical implications under primitive conditions? And they weren't the people of just any cultures, but the people of cultures that practiced ritual pedophilia and infanticide, by the way.

You're really, REALLY reachin,' bro.

 

[NGSamson]

Nope. It may to you, but personally, I dont know any one who stole there woman while they were picking grapes. You are not trying to get tho the bottom of anything, you are trying to make a point as you see it. All the power to you.

I'm addressing your point which is that "everyone has always known that rape is wrong." It's historically inaccurate. In the old testament, it was god-approved to kill an enemy and take his virgin daughter, and make her your wife or concubine against her consent. That's rape.

So, no. Not everyone has always known that rape is wrong. That's a modern construct.

In your mind it is. And yes, they always have known rape was and is wrong, just like killing and stealing was and is wrong, but in some cases it was and is considered necessary. You have proven nothing other then you have a good source to google Bible verses to support your point. Not much more.