Why was this atheist wrong?

[IndependantAce]

Marquis de Sade, a famous atheist, believe that rape, torture and murder was acceptable since man is just an animal, and there is no God or higher source of truth other than the law of the jungle.

Why was he wrong? If men are just animals and animals do these things why shouldn't humans; and if life is "meaningless" beyond what the individual makes of it, then how could he be "wrong"?

Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

Sade’s philosophy flowed from his radical egotism, which led him to propound militant antitheism.1God’s nonexistence reduces the universe to a purely materialist Nature, a self-running mechanism; “the perpetual motion of matter explains everything.”2People are determinist machines, which annuls moral responsibility. You cannot help it, then, if you are sexually perverse or depraved.3There is no afterlife, so your conduct does not matter.4Merely the child of local custom, morality is relative to culture and geography, and therefore fictive.5Nature is our only ethical guide; humans are no more significant to Nature than insects. And since Nature uses matter from dead life forms to create new ones, crime, destruction, and death are necessary and pleasing to her. Therefore murder is good, and the mass murderer is the highest human type.6

Born isolated, the individual is solely important, with obligations to nobody and only selfish motivations. Each individual is pitted against all others. His only maxim is to “Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense.”7Man tends naturally to dominate others and inflict pain, which he enjoys.8Ordinary people are utilitarian objects, the playthings of the wealthy, powerful and godlike libertines, who are utterly unloving.9Beauty and innocence inspire only diabolical cruelty. Since materialism makes pleasure proportional to stimulus, the greater your cruelty, the greater your pleasure.10Maximum selfishness and cruelty are therefore the proper course.

If there is no God, no hell, no right and wrong, no moral responsibility, no meaning or significance beyond your pleasure, then existence is meaningless. Nothing you do matters, others do not matter, and what you do with them—and to them—does not matter. Nihilism liberates. For the Sadean egotist, then, everything is permitted. Sade incessantly rationalized the most depraved and libertine sexuality, and every crime including cannibalism and murder.

- See more at: Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

 

[Blackrook]

He's not wrong, and ultimately, every atheist believes in this philosophy.

 

[IndependantAce]

He's not wrong, and ultimately, every atheist believes in this philosophy.

I think if atheists took their worldview to it's most logical conclusion then they would have to believe it to be consistent.

They frequently espouse the same viewpoints as this man did (who "sexual sadism" was named after):but never go quite as far.

"Life is meaningless except to do whatever you want; unborn babies have no right to life; humans are no different from animals, etc".

Basically the patron saint of nihilistic atheism was a serial killer / pedophile / rapist; why would anyone want to model their worldview off of someone like that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Marquis de Sade, a famous atheist, believe that rape, torture and murder was acceptable since man is just an animal, and there is no God or higher source of truth other than the law of the jungle.

Why was he wrong? If men are just animals and animals do these things why shouldn't humans; and if life is "meaningless" beyond what the individual makes of it, then how could he be "wrong"?

Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

Sade’s philosophy flowed from his radical egotism, which led him to propound militant antitheism.1God’s nonexistence reduces the universe to a purely materialist Nature, a self-running mechanism; “the perpetual motion of matter explains everything.”2People are determinist machines, which annuls moral responsibility. You cannot help it, then, if you are sexually perverse or depraved.3There is no afterlife, so your conduct does not matter.4Merely the child of local custom, morality is relative to culture and geography, and therefore fictive.5Nature is our only ethical guide; humans are no more significant to Nature than insects. And since Nature uses matter from dead life forms to create new ones, crime, destruction, and death are necessary and pleasing to her. Therefore murder is good, and the mass murderer is the highest human type.6

Born isolated, the individual is solely important, with obligations to nobody and only selfish motivations. Each individual is pitted against all others. His only maxim is to “Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense.”7Man tends naturally to dominate others and inflict pain, which he enjoys.8Ordinary people are utilitarian objects, the playthings of the wealthy, powerful and godlike libertines, who are utterly unloving.9Beauty and innocence inspire only diabolical cruelty. Since materialism makes pleasure proportional to stimulus, the greater your cruelty, the greater your pleasure.10Maximum selfishness and cruelty are therefore the proper course.

If there is no God, no hell, no right and wrong, no moral responsibility, no meaning or significance beyond your pleasure, then existence is meaningless. Nothing you do matters, others do not matter, and what you do with them—and to them—does not matter. Nihilism liberates. For the Sadean egotist, then, everything is permitted. Sade incessantly rationalized the most depraved and libertine sexuality, and every crime including cannibalism and murder.

- See more at: Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

The law of human nature he was onesided on
is the idea of CONSENT. even when people AGREE to S&M they choose freely,
they have agreements on limits and safe words. So even the most bizarre practices
respect the consent of participants.

He did state what HE consented to. If he agreed to be raped and whatnot,
then he does have the right to engage in that with voluntary partners
(as long as they are mentally sound; if any such participant is below
the age of consent or is mentally or otherwise unable to express consent or dissent,
then this could be abuse where someone is being coerced against their will / informed consent)

He does not have the right to violate the consent of others
where it violates the very freedom he is inciting to exercise his own free will.
So does the other person under the same natural laws.

These laws govern human beings, and we are not just like animals
but have a conscience, and carry influences from one generation to the next.
So we have a higher responsibility that other animals don't have.

NOTE: The natural laws of human nature are summarized in the
First Amendment and collectively represented by the three branches of govt.
Humans are mind/body/spirit, ie experience life as individuals living in
the physical world, as collective society on an abstract level the spiritual level represents, and
in relations with each other that the mind governs through conscience and perception
of individual will and collective will that the conscience joins as one.
The three branches of govt represent these as executive or free exercise/free
will on the physical level to carry out our beliefs and will (free exercise of religion or beliefs),
the legislative level of social contracts that govern relations between people
(freedom of the press to write out our laws, contracts; record history, and express
communications and education to establish agreements in relationships);
the judicial level of speaking our opinions and interpretations of law, truth and justice
(freedom of speech); and these powers together are checked and balanced
within the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
(right of due process, equal representation and protection of laws for peace and security).

If you abuse your rights or freedoms to deny the same of others,
then by nature the oppressed or abused persons will seek to protest
or petition by "freedom of speech or press" to stop the abuse.
Suppressing or denying this right to defend their equal rights and freedoms is still abuse.

What I would have told MDS is that he has the right to rape someone who
wants to be raped (and it can't be from mental impairment or inability to express dissent, or that
is abusing someone who is mentally ill or otherwise disabled) or to be raped if he consents to that;
but cannot assume this is the desire or nature for other people.

If he thinks this way, perhaps today there could be tests run to determine
if he was sociopathic and had brain patterns that required this level of stimulation
in order to respond at a level that other people do without needed to inflict high levels of stress or abuse.
Some brain patterns or personality types don't feel emotions unless they are torturing
someone else or being tortured. So this could be proven medically to be a special condition,
and not something "universal to all humanity."

 

[sealybobo]

Marquis de Sade, a famous atheist, believe that rape, torture and murder was acceptable since man is just an animal, and there is no God or higher source of truth other than the law of the jungle.

Why was he wrong? If men are just animals and animals do these things why shouldn't humans; and if life is "meaningless" beyond what the individual makes of it, then how could he be "wrong"?

Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

Sade’s philosophy flowed from his radical egotism, which led him to propound militant antitheism.1God’s nonexistence reduces the universe to a purely materialist Nature, a self-running mechanism; “the perpetual motion of matter explains everything.”2People are determinist machines, which annuls moral responsibility. You cannot help it, then, if you are sexually perverse or depraved.3There is no afterlife, so your conduct does not matter.4Merely the child of local custom, morality is relative to culture and geography, and therefore fictive.5Nature is our only ethical guide; humans are no more significant to Nature than insects. And since Nature uses matter from dead life forms to create new ones, crime, destruction, and death are necessary and pleasing to her. Therefore murder is good, and the mass murderer is the highest human type.6

Born isolated, the individual is solely important, with obligations to nobody and only selfish motivations. Each individual is pitted against all others. His only maxim is to “Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense.”7Man tends naturally to dominate others and inflict pain, which he enjoys.8Ordinary people are utilitarian objects, the playthings of the wealthy, powerful and godlike libertines, who are utterly unloving.9Beauty and innocence inspire only diabolical cruelty. Since materialism makes pleasure proportional to stimulus, the greater your cruelty, the greater your pleasure.10Maximum selfishness and cruelty are therefore the proper course.

If there is no God, no hell, no right and wrong, no moral responsibility, no meaning or significance beyond your pleasure, then existence is meaningless. Nothing you do matters, others do not matter, and what you do with them—and to them—does not matter. Nihilism liberates. For the Sadean egotist, then, everything is permitted. Sade incessantly rationalized the most depraved and libertine sexuality, and every crime including cannibalism and murder.

- See more at: Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

Coming from one atheist, the only thing that creep was right about is that there is no God. Every other sick thought in his head is on him.

If you and him need a God to not murder and rape, do what Journey sang. Don't stop believing, hold on to that feeling.

 

[Agit8r]

Straw man

 

[emilynghiem]

Marquis de Sade, a famous atheist, believe that rape, torture and murder was acceptable since man is just an animal, and there is no God or higher source of truth other than the law of the jungle.

Why was he wrong? If men are just animals and animals do these things why shouldn't humans; and if life is "meaningless" beyond what the individual makes of it, then how could he be "wrong"?

Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

Sade’s philosophy flowed from his radical egotism, which led him to propound militant antitheism.1God’s nonexistence reduces the universe to a purely materialist Nature, a self-running mechanism; “the perpetual motion of matter explains everything.”2People are determinist machines, which annuls moral responsibility. You cannot help it, then, if you are sexually perverse or depraved.3There is no afterlife, so your conduct does not matter.4Merely the child of local custom, morality is relative to culture and geography, and therefore fictive.5Nature is our only ethical guide; humans are no more significant to Nature than insects. And since Nature uses matter from dead life forms to create new ones, crime, destruction, and death are necessary and pleasing to her. Therefore murder is good, and the mass murderer is the highest human type.6

Born isolated, the individual is solely important, with obligations to nobody and only selfish motivations. Each individual is pitted against all others. His only maxim is to “Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense.”7Man tends naturally to dominate others and inflict pain, which he enjoys.8Ordinary people are utilitarian objects, the playthings of the wealthy, powerful and godlike libertines, who are utterly unloving.9Beauty and innocence inspire only diabolical cruelty. Since materialism makes pleasure proportional to stimulus, the greater your cruelty, the greater your pleasure.10Maximum selfishness and cruelty are therefore the proper course.

If there is no God, no hell, no right and wrong, no moral responsibility, no meaning or significance beyond your pleasure, then existence is meaningless. Nothing you do matters, others do not matter, and what you do with them—and to them—does not matter. Nihilism liberates. For the Sadean egotist, then, everything is permitted. Sade incessantly rationalized the most depraved and libertine sexuality, and every crime including cannibalism and murder.

- See more at: Dostoevsky vs. the Marquis de Sade

Coming from one atheist, the only thing that creep was right about is that there is no God. Every other sick thought in his head is on him.

If you and him need a God to not murder and rape, do what Journey sang. Don't stop believing, hold on to that feeling.

Dear sealybobo
1. if you mean there is no personal deity, that's a matter of faith
you can say there is no such deity that is either proveable or disproveably
because by definition of such an infinite being this by nature would be beyond
human comprehension understanding and perception, and thus proof as we experience it

2. if you mean by no God there is no Universal/Natural Law in life to follow or violate
then I would say this is wrong, because there are universal laws that govern humanity.
Again, you can say this is beyond proof or disproof,
but I find people will AGREE such laws exist even if they remain FAITH BASED.
We may not agree how to express them one way
(some prefer science some prefer religious or spiritual terms)
but every human being I've ever met followed these laws of
wanting free will/freedom and peace/security, in order to have justice.

Everybody wants what they want. So there is a natural law governing
human nature by conscience. We just don't agree how to express these laws,
and get into conflicts over them, but we exercise and act on these laws every day.
They are written into our nature. We demonstrate them all the time.

When the MDS expressed his beliefs, using freedom of speech and press,
he is still exercising these laws: that people have our free will and desire
to act on and express our beliefs; we have the right to consent and dissent
and will object or petition to resolve conflicts if someone or something opposes
what we want. These are all natural laws we are born into. And even the
MDS demonstrates this when he expresses his beliefs and DEFENDS them.

All faith based. Cannot be proven or disproven, but we can agree that we are using them.