You Have no Reason not to Rape
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
As an atheist, if ANY FAITH said that to me , I'd want a search of their hard drives, cupboards, basement and under the floors.
You saying 'if you don't have a restrictor of a higher power on you, what's to stop you raping people?' Is at best a dehumanisation and derogatory argument and at worst a self report on the state of their morality.
I don't do bad shit because I have enough empathy to know a living thing can feel pain like I can coupled with an understanding of consequences. I'm not going to bitch about killing an animal for food same as killing a person in self defence as I know the consequences for inaction. Under that same reason, I'm NEVER raping someone because there is literally no reason in my head that can justify that action.
If the one that wants to rape is not bound by religion why would he not rape? You can internally rationalize almost any behavior.
I don't think the rapists during Nanking or Rhondda were ALL atheists...
You're right, some cultures don't have an issue with rape but they're usually the ones called barbarians. Hell the ones in refugee camps along their country's border TOLD Europe not to accept the illegals because they were the scum of their country. Scum is scum and going 'well clearly they don't believe the right things' is a cop out to the fundamental issue that there are evil people that don't care about others, only self gratification.
Being an atheist doesn't suddenly mean you removed restrictions like your a robot that got past the 3 laws, the left try to infer that to excuse themselves but they just made a new secular religion that praises the destruction of the West culturally.
I get what you are saying and it is in line with Christianity, we all have an innate drive to not be evil. I think Paul mentions that? I'm far from having a decent understanding of the Bible.
However, we're living in times were pedophilia is close to become accepted in society.
My argument is that if one wants to rape he will rape, there is no reason to not rape. In some cases, Christianity would not help either simply because they will ignore it, but in most cases fear of eternal damnation is a strong motivator to not rape.
Not sure if true or not but "internet lore" was saying that Tolkien took inspiration from South Africa when he created Orcs. There he witness natives just pull women and rape them on the street and then go about their day.
Having an internal moral compass that says rape is bad is good but it has no consequence if you don't follow it, eternal fire is an added level of security that is useful.
A more interesting case, for me, is the Catholic priests that raped little boys. How did they justify it to themselves as Christians? Or similarly, we see gang members that sometimes have crosses around their necks, do they consider themselves Christian?
Some priests are almost certainly sincerely believing Catholics. Others just wanted unsupervised access to children and abused the trust of the institution to get it.
It was not little girls that were molested. My theory is that Catholics allowed to many gays inside the church, they thought they helped them but in turn it corrupted the church. Not saying all of them but clearly a good percentage of them did not have a vocation towards Christ but did it out of necessity.
No they weren't, but they would be exponentially worse if they were atheists. The USSR and China are responsible for the highest kill counts in history by a gigantic margin. The French didn't even make it past orgies and guillotines before the whole thing fell apart.
I'm not sure what you're saying and it could break several different ways, but the notion of evil is fundamentally religious. Evil can only be defined in opposition to God.
I think this is where I have a divergence with other atheists or those that define atheism.
A lot would define atheism as not believing in a god or other planes of existence.
I take that point but run further with not worshipping ANY POWER as higher. That INCLUDES the state as what's the point of those saying that the religious are slaves to a higher power as they clasp shackles around their limbs for something like communism?
I don't see the difference in behaviour to those that worship a God to those that worship the state. Only the former tend to be more moral and less genocidey, usually..
I wouldn't say that, evil is the pursuit of short term self gratification at the expense of other living things regardless of consequences. The theme of many faiths seems to place humanity more in the role of caretakers (at least this seems the main theme of Christianity) so throwing that away for self gratification appears to be where most sin comes from.
Yeah I mean that's cool and everything, but it's just what you personally decided to do. Nobody else has any reason to believe in that since you're not a higher power than them.
I definitely agree what you said is evil, but would long-term self-gratification be any different?
Or what if it's the gratification of your own ingroup at the total expense of everyone else's group?
I'm sure you have feelings on those questions, but they are just that, feelings that partly come from the vestigial Christianity you've absorbed, hence from God.
Of course, I never instructed people to believe my definition as that would be as hypocritical as the communists. But due to that definition I have of atheism, I put the number of ACTUAL atheists EXTREMELY low in that there is more Jedi than atheists.
If I don't believe in God therefore view the bible as a creation of man to better understand and give order to society, how am I led by God? Hypothetically does that not mean we don't need religion as if I'm led by God without following religion then what's the point of an organised faith?
That's the problem of assuming all 'righteousness' is being laid out by a deity, it takes too much power away from the individual for self introspection on the nature of right and wrong and undermines organised faith if we can all be led this way.
The debate is more about if good and evil can exist without God and I agree with the shadow of intent, you can't have righteousness or good / wrong or evil without having a deity.
You are working on a definition that is only relevant to you. You can't even say why that is good, if you ask enough times why is being emphatic good, why is having a workable society good in the end you will not be able to answer, is arbitrary made because you want it to be.
Having a healthy society is not good or bad either. The pedophile tranny wants to destroy society, for him being anti-society, lying, manipulating and corrupting children is moral and good by their own definition.
Why is your definition better then his?
I was an agnostic up until recently. In fact I was an edgelord who disliked religion and all the cringe reddit tier stuff. Still not at the same level as bluestorm. I can't look at the world now and not acknowledge that there is God.
Well what I'm getting at is that your definition of atheism, being a personal definition, is about as relevant as your personal definition of Jedi.
You're not being led by God in the traditional Christian sense. You are, in part, a product and beneficiary of the morality God has imparted into the world, so He is indirectly influencing you. All the true goodness and moral fiber in your life comes from the divine, all the chaos, disorder, and misconceptions comes from corruption. Unfortunately we are often ignorant of which is which.
Maybe the theist is simply insulting the atheist? Doesn't mean HE would rape anyone but he thinks you would.
But really you're just experiencing the Cut Flowers phenomenon of social decay. The link to our moral foundation (religion) has been cut, but there's still water in the plant. Over time this will decay and the plant will dry up, as each successive generation loses the moral basis for the rules they teach to their children and people become more decadent. That's not to say rape will become commonplace in high-functioning societies - but the legal system and risk of punishment or social stigma will become the driving motivation for not raping - so it will be more likely to happen in certain contexts where people can get away with it, or where they think others will look the other way. (famous or powerful people) This is all true now, but fear of God is one more check on bad behavior. It also requires more power in the hands of the state, whereas a moral people are able to live under greater liberty.
Empathy - besides being a genetically inherited trait as someone else brought up - is a contextual emotion that can be modulated by social rules. Plenty of rapists will convince themselves that the other person enjoyed it. As communication has shrunk the world, it's said that our "circle of empathy" has grown to encompass all humanity and basic respect for all mankind, but I argue that that's performative. We generally only have real empathy for our tribe or family. Protecting "our own kind" is the purpose of the emotion. If the social pressure forcing us to feign empathy for strangers ever goes away, it might end up that people see nothing wrong with using rape as a punishment against other nations, criminals, or whores. That has been a thing in some cultures. (then there's the retarded abbos that rape their own siblings...)
Since we're talking about a societal issue, there's no point in Othering the savages and saying YOU wouldn't rape anyone. That's great but you can't claim that for all of your tribe, for all time. It's only by the grace of God or dumb luck that we don't live in those times yet.
Oh look, you've graduated from watching remedial retard study material to the AP retard classes.
You've already burnt your bridges here I imagine, so I doubt many are even going to give this shit a chance, but personally I gave this latest channel you've chosen to let speak for you a shot.
The whole thing ends without resolving anything, he never bothers to explain why causing harm to the victim is a compelling reason not to rape in the absence of god or societal rules, he just calls it "common decency" and doesn't explain it. Without an explanation you might as well be calling it "God's grace" and it's just a faith with different nomenclature.
One possible mechanic to explain it is rather simple but leads to some uncomfortable conclusions - humans have biologically inherent empathy, even outside of societal norms. It's uncomfortable because if empathy is not purely societally learned, then like all biologically inherent traits it will have a range of distributions. You then have to consider how much the distribution of empathy correlates with ethnicity, it could very well differ greatly like height and skin colour do, and perhaps some ethnicities have significantly less "common decency" than others.
Did you reply to the wrong comment or did I mindbreak you into plagiarizing unrelated rebuttals?
You even left empty gaps to quote things that could actually make your comment make sense as a reply to someone else.
Oh no, it's regressing again. I can't answer you for the Christians, I'm not one of them. I'd have thought that I'm arguing from the position of atheism should have been obvious by now.
So now that weird rhetorical hostage situation has been defused, you can go ahead and explain why you think atheists choose not to rape. The clickbait promise has me waiting with bated breath.
Yeah-no, that is an actual atheist position.
The Christian position is calling the urge to be good "God's Grace".
Calling it "common decency" and making no effort to explain it is the weird, superstitious cult position, where you offer no tangible evidence, only feelings.
The atheist, skeptical position is attempting to explain that observed reality with an actual rational explanation from some fundamental principle.
And I wasn't talking about the title there, I was talking about the clickbait reply. Where you don't explain yourself upfront and instead say "Do this and I'll tell you what I mean"
Just holding you to your word. I'm very comfortable with my own rationale for how morality can exist in the absence of a god, but I am curious as to why you're trying so hard not to engage with that reason or explain your own alternative.
I mean personally I don't. But given that you tried to reject it and still keep falling for the every superstition peddling snake oil salesman you watch on YouTube it seems pretty apparent that some people are just mentally incapable of living independently.
Imma break it down for you:
So to sum it up, let's take an atheist with moral convictions against rape. It physically repulses him, so he doesn't bend his "rules." But the same atheist is strongly tempted to lie for personal gain. He will rationalize that everyone is better off if he lies and goes his merry way, lying.
Something something Epstein, Weinstein, Polanski.
Something something Foucault, de Beauvoir, Sartre...
You are back.
That's a tired old argument that the only source of morality is the rules laid down by a supernatural creator. It's very creepy to think about because it implies that the only thing preventing the religious people from being murderous raping fiends is their fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Personally I'm with Hans Hermann-Hoppe and his theory of argumentation ethics. Which could be summarized that the act of arguing with someone presupposes that both participants in the argument own themselves. And if that assumption of self ownership exists it also implies that using force to deprive that person of their self-ownership (rape, murder, theft) would not be ethical.