Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Friday, December 09, 2005

WorldNetDaily retards can't figure out rape

It's official : the people at WorldNetDaily (sorry Harry Browne, it's not my fault if you associate with them) aren't mature enough to understand why rape is wrong. They have the intellectual level of a five year old. But then again, they are all right-wing Christians (once again, sorry Harry), so what do you expect ?

(...) [D]espite reading hundreds of missives featuring varying degrees of hysterics, it remains a mystery as to what grounds these rape mythomoralists have for objecting to rape in the first place.

(...)

The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – rape is a sin, a willful pollution of a temple that rightly belongs to God.

(...)

And while "might makes right" is the true essence of atheist amorality, it is not exactly the most convincing means of attempting to assert the moral evil of the rapist.


For one thing, any Christian who does not understand how rape is wrong outside of his religious doctrines is retarded. I see no way to put this more nicely, and I mean it in a technical sense - they have not grown the empathy to understand that other human beings suffer. Perhaps this is why they need Christianity so much... but now you can say accurately that the writers at WorldNetDaily are retards.

(Note that I don't think empathy is a proper justification for "rape being immoral or not", only that it should be enough for anyone to take a generally correct stance. It's simple brain development.)

Another little problem with this boasting, is that the Bible does not in fact speak up against rape from a moral perspective. In fact, it does not speak about anything from a moral perspective, because that would require to examine human values and human life. In the Christian worldview, nothing is to be examined morally, as God's understanding is said to be wholly beyond human understanding, and man's only role is to obey. There is no morality involved, only orders.

This aside, there's another little problem : the Bible does not speak up against rape as such. In its Ten Commandments (all versions), it says nothing at all about rape, and in many cases it speaks in favour of rape (as for all the instances when giving away your daughters for rape is accepted, or the Old Testament law that a rape victim must marry her attacker). In the Bible, a raped virgin is worthless. There is no reason to believe that the god of the Bible thinks rape is evil. So the Christian case crumbles on that level alone.

There was no utilitarian justification for Christian sects to consider rape as anything but a nuisance (insofar as families could complain), so they kept it hush-hush for centuries until public opinion turned and considered rape a heinous crime. Only now, in recent decades, are Christian sects finally owing up to their dark history.

Another problem is that secular values clearly indicate that coercing other people to have sex with you breaks the virtue of non-coercion, on which I have already written extensively. Also, rape is widely rejected in Western civilization because it is a clear case of harm being inflicted to an innocent person. Finally, its illegal status is also obvious, since rape as a crime breaks the right of action (in that the raped individual is being coerced into sexual intercourse).

So this little dance of ignorance from our friends at WorldNetDaily won't do. The only ones who believe that "might makes right" are God believers, who claim that God has absolute power over all human beings, and can wipe them all out, simply because it has the might. Now that's amorality for you. I have never heard of any atheist who believes this principle - in fact, most atheists tend to be relativists or utilitarians, which is stupid, but very different from "might makes right".

In fact, the only people I know who use power as a standard of morality are followers of collectivist belief systems, like Christianity. Historically, Christianity has always assumed a role of moral nad political dictatorship when it was in power. Christians still attempt to use the social power they have left in the United States to dictate the value-expression of other people.

Their whole moral mindset is that "might (God's might, that is) creates and dictates right", and the subversion of individual values in one's own mind, so how could Christianity possibly be conductive to free value-expression in society ?

My recommendations to the ignorant editors at WorldNetDaily ? 1. Read your Bible and 2. get yourselves fired so you can be replaced by people with at least average intelligence and basic maturity.

If you want to tell the lunatic author of this ludicrous anti-atheist article exactly how you feel about his bigotry, comment on his blog Vox Popoli.

Post a Comment


15 Comments:

At 12/09/2005 12:03 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Good post. I found that WingNutDaily article earlier yesterday and thne found the author's blog so I could insult him in his comments section.

 
At 12/09/2005 12:05 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Post the URL, by all means !

 
At 12/09/2005 12:21 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

voxday.blogspot.com

He thinks hes a libertarian Christian; a contradiction in ideologies if you ask me. Ive posted a few commenst there now, and I emailed him the permalink to this post you wrote.

 
At 12/09/2005 12:23 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Okay, I'll post his blog URL for other people to comment on.

 
At 12/09/2005 1:43 PM, Blogger Beowulf declaimed...

1. Rape is universally wrong regardless if your an atheist, theist, alien…, or whatever. Anyone who cannot recognize that rape is wrong is a psychopath and should be locked up (even rapist know it’s wrong when their committing the act).

I suspect that the writers at world net daily (I have not read the article) and other theists who assert “no values” outside of their belief system don’t really mean it. Clarify? Okay—I think that what most are attempting to say is not that everyone outside Christianity (since this is the subject at hand) is amoral; this is completely unintelligent. It would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives--indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame. I believe what most are saying (or trying to say) is—what is the justification of being moral? And from a theist’s prospective—if there is nothing above humans that transcend morality, then (ultimately) it makes no difference.

2. Of course, this leads to Euthyphro dilemma (or a type of “might makes right”)—which I have previously written is no dilemma at all.

3. As far as the bible and rape—I wish I had more time to address it, and hopefully, I can sometime in the future. We need to compare this passage with other passages in the Torah to get the whole picture. Without comparing Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to other passages dealing with similar issues, one’s interpretation can only be superficial and misconstrued (if that is the case); I could be wrong, but the comments you made about the bible seems to be a bad case of hermeneutics.

 
At 12/09/2005 1:47 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Of course, this leads to Euthyphro dilemma (or a type of “might makes right”)—which I have previously written is no dilemma at all."

Oh really - and you've solved it ? Wow. Why didn't you submit this to a philosophy journal ? I'm sure they would look over your disproof of logic with great eagerness.

Of course I've written about it too.


"I could be wrong, but the comments you made about the bible seems to be a bad case of hermeneutics."

Of course it is, you're a Christian and speak Christianese, not English. Remember the definition of "context" in Christianese : "add more and more elements until you agree with MY interpretation".

 
At 12/09/2005 1:50 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Our third option (which is not offered by Socrates) is that objective moral law exists internally to God. In other words, the goodness of God is grounded in the absolute character of God; it’s in his makeup."

It' a complete non sequitur, and does not even address the argument. I've already refuted this position in my article on materialist apologetics. Unfortunately for you, it's the only answer you could ever have, and it's a very bad one.

 
At 12/09/2005 2:10 PM, Blogger Beowulf declaimed...

François, I am not sure how it could be a non sequitur, but when I get a chance I will read your article. Solving Euthyphro’s dilemma is not original to me. As a result of being challenged on this before, I was only presenting what I have studied on the subject in the past. Moreover, there are plenty of theistic philosophers far more intelligent than I that can submit their work to journals. Just because I present something in a blog—it doesn’t follow that I claim to be a scholastic scholar!

BTW, “Christianese”—I have to give it to you; that one is pretty funny!

 
At 12/09/2005 2:58 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

In fact, the only rules against rape in the Old Testament make it clear that no value is placed on the well-being of the woman raped, but only on the bride-price that her father can expect to get from her when she is married.

Thus, according to the Bible, women are property.

 
At 12/09/2005 3:09 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Good one Zach!

I also wrote a blog entry about Vox's rape views at The Radical Libertarian.

See, Vox Day claims to be a Christian libertarian. But he expresses views that are about as anti-libertarian as you can get. I exposed him for what he really is in my blog post.

 
At 12/09/2005 3:17 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Brain Fry:

I read your post on the dilemma. You claim there is a "third" option or answer, but it is not really an answer at all. All you do with your third choice is push back the question.

You said that the third option is that morality is objectively grounded in the nature of God so that he cannot arbitrarily decree that killing babies is good.

But with this answer you only open yourself up to the same problem again: Is Gods "objective" moral nature something that he designed himself, or not?

Now, instead of asking where morality comes from, we ask where Gods allegedly objective moral nature comes from. Essentially its the same question! Did God arbitrarily dictate his own moral nature, or did it come from somewhere outside God?

I saw Paul Manata make the same mistake about logic in his debate with Derek Sansone. Derek asked Paul if logic came arbitrarily from God or if it came from somewhere else, and Paul replied that its "part of Gods nature." Derek didnt take the opening, but it was clear as day. He should have asked Manata where Gods "nature" came from.

The Euthyphro dilemma is not a false dichotomy. There are only two possible answers, and both lead to make your God an impossible and absurd concept.

 
At 12/09/2005 4:56 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Solving Euthyphro’s dilemma is not original to me."

I'm sure it isn't. But your "solution" is not original at all, since it's the only one theologians have against our materialist arguments. And it's a very bad one.


"Moreover, there are plenty of theistic philosophers far more intelligent than I that can submit their work to journals."

No there aren't. Christians always say there are people who have better objections than they have, but it's not true. JOHN FRAME used that objection for Rand's sake ! So stop using that lame excuse !


"Just because I present something in a blog—it doesn’t follow that I claim to be a scholastic scholar!"

Doesn't make any difference. BS + BS = BS.


"BTW, “Christianese”—I have to give it to you; that one is pretty funny!"

I think you are confused. It's not a joke.

 
At 12/09/2005 5:11 PM, Blogger Niels declaimed...

Or just take the ignostic position:

religious talk is meaningless blabber.

And: wow, that a stupid morons over at the FundieNetDaily.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47659

 
At 12/09/2005 8:43 PM, Blogger Hellbound Alleee declaimed...

The bible has a strange definition of rape as well. It's not rape if a father or a betrothed consents to the gang-rape of a girl. That doesn't mean the boyfriend can't chop her up alive into twelve pieces and send them express mail to incite a war.

What World Net Daily is saying is that the rules of scripture--in fact, scripture itself does not make any sense, and cannot make any sense at all, in any real way. World Net Daily is saying there is no real reason to follow the rules of the bible.

This I agree with: there are no reasons, for instance, to kill those who witness other religions, mouthy teens, raped women, and "witches." There are absolutely no reasons to follow these rules. And this is a basis for morality?

 
At 1/06/2006 11:44 AM, Blogger Mastiff declaimed...

You are misreading the Torah's law regarding rape. The woman is not forced to marry the rapist; rather, she has the option of forcing the rapist to marry her, and if she does so the rapist cannot initiate a divorce. (The woman may sue for divorce herself, of course.) The case law on this point is well-established.

Also, in the affair of Gibeah referenced by Hellhound above, most commentators hold that the woman in question was raped to death by the crowd. And there is no such thing as "consenting" to the rape of your daughter, wife, or betrothed. The man committed a grievous sin by sacrificing the woman to save his own neck, and the crowd remained culpable for the rape and murder itself.

Strictly speaking, you are not even allowed to give permission for someone else to hit you, much less rape someone else.

While it is one thing to develop an atheist logic for why rape is wrong, for which I commend you, there is a great deal of ignorance in this post and associated comments regarding Jewish law. (I can't answer for Christians, nor do I care to in the first place.) I understand the urge to hit back after a religious cretin makes these sorts of asinine statements, but that does not excuse an asinine response.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home