|If a man lies with a man
as one lies with a woman,
both of them have done what is detestable.
They must be stoned.
Well… If you think it helps.
Many of the hundreds of comments posted were thoughtful and insightful, but most were angry and indignant push backs from non-believers who felt I was accusing them of child-molestation. Many also charged that it was unfair and misleading of me to cite statements from atheistic philosophers of “ethics” that seemed to indicate that there was nothing inherently immoral about pedophilia. The most common complaints were (a) that I falsely implied that these philosophers approved of pedophilia and (b) I was guilty of presenting a sweeping generalization that atheists have no moral values.
Apparently I got it all wrong when I missed the subtext behind his post titled “Paedophilia is Next on the Slippery Slope“. Oh well that’s alright then! I must have completely misunderstood the part which implied that my moral code accepted child and animal abuse and was somehow inferior to those of the Torah on which we based the utter foundation of western society. Now if you would excuse me, I need to go tell my slaves to bring in that virgin I captured when I exterminated her village after which, I shall go stone some gays.
Atheists certainly have values and principles that guide their lives and decisions. The word(s) that one chooses to describe or conceptualize these values – morality, ethics, utilitarianism, humanism, etc. – is beside the point; the values are whatever they are, no matter what one calls them.
Basically what he created was a clumsy attempt at spin in order to imply that atheists are capable of justifying anything and all it needs is a justification.
I have never called into question the existence of atheistic values; it is the significance of atheistic values that is the crucial issue under discussion. In other words, it is an attack, if you will, on the concept of atheistic ethics and morality, not an attack on atheists themselves.
Of course not! I didn’t call you atheists “dog fucking child rapists”, I merely implied that you theoretically could make love to a dog and a child. Well by his logic he is a genocidal rapist and murderer who is quite prone to keeping women in a locked cage. I mean a potential genocidal rapist and murderer who is quite prone to keeping women in a locked cage.
I have never accused any of the so-called atheistic philosophers of “ethics” – be it Peter Singer, Joel Marks, Michael Ruse, Michael Tooley, (Sam Harris?) et al – of approving of pedophilia. I accused them of laying the philosophical groundwork that could pave the way for the acceptance and approval of pedophilia.
The central point of my presentation was that an honest, consistent, and candid articulation of an atheistic worldview must admit that “ethical” values (including those on pedophilia), have no significance at all outside of the heads of those who espouse them. They have no objective reality and any actual significance ascribed to these values is rooted squarely in the human imagination. They are desperate attempts to create the illusion that human actions and decisions have real purpose and meaning. In other words, they are as foolish and illusory as (what the atheist would consider to be) my imaginary notion that God spoke to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai.
The ideas that mankind espouses are much more than that because we can implement them. The idea is based on the fact that kids cannot understand what sex means and indeed do not show any inclination towards it bar as a sort of self discovery and vague interest. These are concepts that we as people have discussed in producing a kind of world which we would like to live in. We accept due to the medical knowledge of children and the effect of child abuse that paedophilia is harmful to children. We accept that children by their natural naivety and lack of understanding of what consent means and the repercussions of said consent cannot give it till they reach an age we set at 18 (the end of secondary education) for the most part where they will be legally considered an adult and may make decisions of a nature pertaining to who they sleep with. It’s arbitrary but no more arbitrary than say considering a girl ready to be married immediately after her first period.
Human beings have an innate sense of compassion, empathy and the ability to love. Human beings also have an innate sense of selfishness, the ability to hate, dominate, and the desire to act with brutality and cruelty. From the viewpoint of the intellectually honest atheist, none of these – in objective reality – are “better” or “worse” than the others. How an individual views these different emotions and drives and chooses to prioritize them are matters of personal preference. If one so desires, he can label these personal preferences with the words moral or immoral; theword that one chooses does not change the fact that they are nothing more than personal preference or perhaps societal conditioning.
|Ira. A famous child soldier.|
No. Compassion, empathy, love are all learnt expressions. A child brought up to be a cold hearted killer will probably turn out to be a cold hearted killer. The world is filled with children who never had the chance at compassion, empathy and love. There are children brought up with hate, fear and ignorance and many of these children will grow up to hate, fear and be ignorant.
Society is what drives and protects humanity and makes it move forward. The selfish, the haters, the violent and the cruel damage society as a whole. Thus we treat those attributes as undesirable. These are immoral to society because it harms humanity as a whole if we behaved like that since it reduces our ability to survive.
We gain our values from our parents. It is why jewish children are born to jewish parents and hindu children to hindu parents. It’s our parents that teach us the values they value based on their experiences. In time these children grow up building on these values or rearranging them to what they think is important but the core values rarely change. I may not value prayer as much as my mother does. The assumption Moshe makes is that atheists label their values arbitrarily rather than by experiences and what we learn out of them.
To put it a different way; in an atheistic world, the terms morality and personal preference are identical and interchangeable. Examples: (1) I believe it is immoral to put Down-syndrome babies to death so as not to waste medical resources that could be used more efficiently = Mypersonal preference is that Down-syndrome babies not be put to death…etc (2) I believe it isimmoral to sodomize young boys in a shower room = My personal preference is that young boys not be sodomized in a shower room. In many cases the term societal conditioning could also be substituted: I have been conditioned by my society to believe that young boys should not be sodomized in a shower room.
Hardly. One person’s personal preference can be categorically regarded as immoral simply by logic and debate. I believe it is immoral to kill children with Down’s Syndrome while being bang alongside proper screening of older mothers where Down’s is more common and offering the option of terminating pregnancies.
And my opinion of the sodomisation of young boys relies on one important question. How old are you and how old is the boy? Because see we live in a world of grey, not of black and white. What if you are under the age of consent and have consensual anal sex in a shower with another person (Gender isn’t important, Age is) who is also under the age of consent? You can’t charge them for paedophilia? What if one of them is 17 and the other is 18 (assuming age of consent is 18)? See… that’s the thing. It’s not a simple world we live in.
I assume this is the Penn State Sodomy issue that Moshe is trying to imply? The rules regarding consent and minors applies here. And yes, society dictates that we don’t sodomise underaged people be they boys or otherwise (good grief! Why do religious people think women and straight men don’t enjoy anal sex? If the gays like it does that mean straight people won’t give it a whirl?). In the same way society doesn’t like it when you rape women and puts you in jail rather than asks you to pay a fine and then punishes the woman by forcing her to marry her rapist.
Here, Ruse is clearly stating that morality is purely subjective. It’s not like he is the first thinker to come to this conclusion. To most believers it’s rather obvious. Bertrand Russell said the same thing: “I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it.” In Russell’s atheistic world all values are subjective and the only thing that could possibly be wrong with wanton cruelty (or pedophilia, for that matter) is that he doesn’t like it. Ruse understands the dilemma quite well. A subjective system of morality is nothing more than a rickety shack with no foundation; it will collapse in the first good wind:
Subjective morality can come to absolute truths. A child by it’s nature is naive, it is a survival mechanic. A human child is blessed with human inquisitiveness but not human judgement because judgement comes with experience. We can TEACH children things. It’s why we encourage schools and education, it’s why children tend to believe in a Santa Claus. Because we teach them maths and science and a relatively harmless little traditional religion called Santa Claus. However if you couple this naivety with an adult trying to take advantage of a child then you have a terrible situation because children cannot give consent. It is a crime of coercion and threat and force.
Therefore it is safe to say that this is rape or the sexual assault on an individual through the use of force or coercion against their will. This will not change. We have quite categorically realised that children cannot be trusted to make decisions regarding what cereal they should eat, and Moshe somehow thinks that any person who willingly listens to Willow Smith is capable of making rational decisions. Kids are great! Don’t get me wrong, I love kids. But they are stupid by the standards of adults and thus are incapable of giving consent. There is an adult case for this kind of action in the abuse of the mentally ill who may not be capable of giving consent for instance in the case of severe mental retardation where the individual cannot comprehend the value and meaning behind sexual consent.
I find this is a more rigorous form of morality than the rules dictated by bronze age Jews.
We are back where we started fromWe are, of course, right back where we started from. In an atheistic world there is nothing inherently wrong with pedophilia or anything else for that matter
Well that’s the thing. There is no outright condemnation of paedophilia in Abrahamic faith. It is actually a construct of our developing morality. And no, there is nothing inherently wrong about paedophilia. We as humans recognise the harm paedophilia does to children and we recognise the kind of mentality that it requires since we as human beings value our children in a different way to early jewish people. That jewish people themselves have outgrown the morality of their predecessors.
Put it this way. Abraham is a terrible father. I have no respect for such a character who would rather sacrifice their own kid. Do you know who I would put up as a good father figure for a kid?
|God has nothing on a man that dedicated to getting his
daughter back. And that’s the kind of father I want to be.
Not one who sells out his kid for fear of his own life.
We all know of course that human preferences are notoriously fickle. What is the deadly, logical outcome of Dr. Marks’ atheistic moral philosophy
“I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime…if a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? (Jeffery Dahmer)
What is the point, indeed? If we are not accountable to a higher power for our actions, it only becomes a question of “am I psychologically able to jettison the societal conditioning to which I have been subjected?” Please ask yourselves the following question: If I had the sexual desires of a pedophile, how would I view the actions of Jerry Sandusky? If there is one thing we have learned from the horribly bloody history of the 20th century, it is that there is nothing that human beings are not capable of doing.
And now he is implying that we are all going to turn into homosexual rapist murderers? Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer and by definition was crazy. Fobbing off his crimes on the Theory of Evolution is really low. For instance the fact of evolution doesn’t change, that we as a species have no divine spark or magic impetus and are merely a product of natural selection as seen in our DNA in the same way that we are attracted to the earth due to our mass. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Dahmer’s behaviour. This is just another straw man to make atheist seem like closetted homosexual psychopaths rather than normal people who just chose to not believe in a divine god called Yahweh.
And if there is one thing we have learnt about the 20th century is that theism breeds a special kind of hatred that is unmatched. Lest the good rabbi forgets… The Nazis didn’t kill the most people in WW2… (It was the Japanese and their belief in Shinto)
I repeat my original plea to atheists:
“The choices before us are clear: we will either seek a transcendent moral law to which we will all submit, or we will seek our own personal and societal indulgence. If we turn to God in our quest to create a moral and just world, we have a fighting chance; if not, we are doomed to spiral into the man-made hell of the human jungle.”
Atheism stands for nothing, signifies nothing, and affirms nothing except for one thing: All the moral aspirations of the advanced primate we call a human being are nothing more than a cosmic joke….and not a very funny one at that.
The God of rape, genocide and slavery is not the god for mankind. It is a god of fear and death. It is a twisted Santa Clause, a Bogeyman. It is nothing but a meme that feeds on your fear of the dark and creates ignorance so that you forever live in the dark. Moshe may want a single divine law but it’s not the divine law of the Hindus or Muslims or Christians that he wants. It’s his specific Judaic law. When any man claims that God’s Law exceeds the morality of Man you are almost guaranteed to see him somehow consider our current world as immoral rather than being one of the most moral societies that has ever existed.
Human actions and decisions have real meaning. Moshe lives in some fantasy world where he assumes the trappings of human jungle dropped like manna from heaven rather than created by the ideas, the actions and the decisions made by mankind. The decisions I make affect those around me and those who I matter to. Ultimately? In the grand scheme of things? It’s pointless since the entire univer
se will stop one day, but we are alive NOW. The universe is still working now and we have a planet under our feet and everything is relatively golden. And so the actions of mankind at least to other members of mankind matters and that makes these actions even though they are transient and small the most real of all.
|Forged in the fires of Mount Pharmacology|
I wear a ring, it means nothing to anyone else but it means the world to me. Even if you offered me money beyond compare I would feel uncomfortable parting with the ring. It’s not that it has vaguely established magical powers that make me the Dark Lord of Mordor, it’s just that it was worn by a friend who died. She died thinking she was unloved and alone when she was not and I wear it to remember her and to remember myself that even when I feel alone and small that there exists hope and love and all the good things in the world that we ourselves as human beings have to be in order to make the world better. To me this worthless piece of titanium and artificial diamonds that cost £15 in an Argos means more than anything else in the world, to you it’s just a ring. The value of the ring is relative and indeed transient. It’s original owner didn’t see it as anything but jewellery. To the average person it means nothing, but to me it means something because the actions of another human being make it mean something. And that’s what matters. We all have things that mean this much to us not because we are greedy but because the value of an object isn’t determined purely by monetary value. The feelings that I feel are not made better by the ring having magic powers or being tied to the mystical spirit of my dead friend. There is meaning in an atheist’s world, it’s just not a meaning attributed to mythical creatures. To me the ring is not a memory of her death but an affirmation of her life and the things she loved.
My faith in mankind and human beings changes the world every day so that we live in a place without fear. My friends, family and loved ones drive me to be the best that I can be as a human based on what I think is right. It is not blindly following a set of rules without thinking of the consequence. It is a cogent thought process born out of the idea that all humans are equal.
What does Moshe’s do?