Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[PRmerger]

Yes, it’s kind of weird.
I cited materialist evolutionary biology (Thornhill). An atheist should have no problem with it.
The brain is designed by selection, according to them. Evolution causes us to do things.
Darwin:
natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

Rape is an evolutionary adaptation that emerged as a result of positive, beneficial mutations and preserved because it was good for the survival and reproductive success of the human species.

We still have rape. So, it obviously is still a good thing according to the atheistic viewpoint.

It would be interesting to see an atheist argue how the above is logically incorrect.

Without appealing to Moral Absolutes.

And without rejecting the atheistic worldview that “what is moral is that which evolutionary biology has determined to be moral.”

 

[tonyrey]

Nope - you got that backward. Scratch a Christian and you will find a skeptic. The news media is bombarding people daily with humanistic agenda. Atheists eat it up. A Christian has to stand firm and be skeptical of all the so called “news” and “truths” being put out daily by the propaganda media.

There’s no doubt about that in a secular society. Why else are there millions of unnecessary abortions on the pretext of convenience - as if an unborn child has no right to life?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There’s no doubt about that in a secular society. Why else are there millions of unnecessary abortions on the pretext of convenience - as if an unborn child has no right to life?

Because humanists want to control the population.

 

[tonyrey]

Because humanists want to control the population.

At any cost - which reveals their belief that human rights are merely a human convention that can be ignored when convenient. After all there is no** reason** why we exist: for them life is just an accident. In fact humanism is often an excuse for inhumanity!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Nope - you got that backward. Scratch a Christian and you will find a skeptic. The news media is bombarding people daily with humanistic agenda. Atheists eat it up. A Christian has to stand firm and be skeptical of all the so called “news” and “truths” being put out daily by the propaganda media.

I wonder when was the last time that a Christian objected to the Christian propaganda? Atheists stand firm and reject the Christian “sexual propaganda”. The homosexual marriage, the access to contraceptives, the acceptance of procreative rights are huge wins for humanity. It is very interesting that you decry the “humanists”. As if being an advocate to “humanity” would be something despicable.

But I have to correct myself and admit that I was somewhat wrong. There are many, many Christians who object the Christian sexual propaganda. As time goes on, there more and more.

 

[STT]

I wonder when was the last time that a Christian objected to the Christian propaganda? Atheists stand firm and reject the Christian “sexual propaganda”. The homosexual marriage, the access to contraceptives, the acceptance of procreative rights are huge wins for humanity. It is very interesting that you decry the “humanists”. As if being an advocate to “humanity” would be something despicable.

But I have to correct myself and admit that I was somewhat wrong. There are many, many Christians who object the Christian sexual propaganda. As time goes on, there more and more.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I wonder when was the last time that a Christian objected to the Christian propaganda? Atheists stand firm and reject the Christian “sexual propaganda”. The homosexual marriage, the access to contraceptives, the acceptance of procreative rights are huge wins for humanity. It is very interesting that you decry the “humanists”. As if being an advocate to “humanity” would be something despicable.

But I have to correct myself and admit that I was somewhat wrong. There are many, many Christians who object the Christian sexual propaganda. As time goes on, there more and more.

Don’t get me started on the homosexual agenda. That is against God and nature. The term “Humanist” means putting Man first, not God.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, it’s kind of weird.
I cited materialist evolutionary biology (Thornhill). An atheist should have no problem with it.
The brain is designed by selection, according to them. Evolution causes us to do things.
Darwin:
natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

Rape is an evolutionary adaptation that emerged as a result of positive, beneficial mutations and preserved because it was good for the survival and reproductive success of the human species.

We still have rape. So, it obviously is still a good thing according to the atheistic viewpoint.

A delightful reductio ad absurdum! If survival at any cost is “all that is good” we should adopt the law of the jungle as our guide to success and become totally unscrupulous in our dealings with others. In this respect atheism demonstrates it is at the other extreme from Christianity: Jesus chose to die to liberate us from the vicious spiral of evil whereas humanists encourage the survival of the fittest (including themselves of course!). It seems eugenics is alive and kicking in our “advanced” society…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Don’t get me started on the homosexual agenda. That is against God and nature. The term “Humanist” means putting Man first, not God.

What is wrong with that? God is notoriously hiding above the clouds. If he would show his face, people would put him first. . He can blame only himself. And don’t even think about referring to the bible, or the church, or the revelations, or the miracles. Those are only meaningful to those, who ALREADY believe in God.

 

[Bradski]

Rape is an evolutionary adaptation that emerged as a result of positive, beneficial mutations and preserved because it was good for the survival and reproductive success of the human species.

We still have rape. So, it obviously is still a good thing according to the atheistic viewpoint.

That’s better. I think I knew where you were heading, but I just wanted you to actually type it out so we could all see it.

Your first problem is that you are conflating a criminal offence with some aspect of evolutionary biology. I once saw a male koala (yeah, the cuddly docile ones) ‘rape’ a female. She definitely wasn’t interested, but he wasn’t going to take no for an answer. We had to shuffle the kids away to avoid any awkward questions. And you will note that I put the word ‘rape’ in quotes. Because the term doesn’t apply. The male was in no danger of getting charged with anything.

Maybe you are thinking of the (generally) male urge to mate a lot more often than the female of the species. It makes evolutionary sense to impregnate as many females as possible. We still have this urge, Reggie (which seems to cause a lot of problems with you Catholics). Or maybe you are thinking of sexual coercion which is prevalent in nature.

However…if you think that simply because something occurs in nature as a result of evolutionary pressure, then it is entirely acceptable in a civilised society, then you have very weird ideas about what evolution is and what morality consists of.

The fact that you can actually write that some people could consider rape to be a good things is exceptionally objectionable. It is, without doubt, one of the worst things anyone can do to a fellow human being and for you to use it as a cheap and risibly inept debating point is contemptuous.

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that you can actually write that some people could consider rape to be a good things is exceptionally objectionable

Annnnnd here it is folks. Example # 8522087 of the view “Moral Absolutes Exist!”

 

[PRmerger]

Annnnnd here it is folks. Example # 8522087 of the view “Moral Absolutes Exist!”

“Rape is an intrinsic evil” is the message that Bradski is proclaiming.

And how timely is this…which I just saw on Mark Shea’s Facebook page:

“Intrinsic evil is, by definition, an evil that cannot be justified under any conceivable circumstance. Blather about morally necessary intrinsic evil is like blather about square circles or white blacks. It is nonsense.”

 

[minkymurph]

I wonder when was the last time that a Christian objected to the Christian propaganda? Atheists stand firm and reject the Christian “sexual propaganda”. The homosexual marriage, the access to contraceptives, the acceptance of procreative rights are huge wins for humanity. It is very interesting that you decry the “humanists”. As if being an advocate to “humanity” would be something despicable.

But I have to correct myself and admit that I was somewhat wrong. There are many, many Christians who object the Christian sexual propaganda. As time goes on, there more and more.

I have to say VL that I always possess a bit of reluctance in responding to your posts. Reason being I am currently of the opinion you don’t genuinely believe anything you say in your posts. You post them purely on the basis of your signature - for your own amusement. Have you ever though of getting out more?

That said - it’s an internet forum and I am responding. But then, I know I need to get out more. I often engage in debate on internet forums to kill boredom.

Can you tell me what you mean by ‘Christian sexual propaganda?’ I cannot comment on this as I don’t know what it means.

I would decry humanists who are not humanists. That is, I don’t think you have a right to call yourself a humanist where you do nothing to help humanity.

Ed Byrne is humanist. He is an Irish comedian - an atheist raised Catholic. He founded a humanist charitable institution to help people without religion. I say fair play to the guy. - aside from the fact I think he is so funny. I say fair play to him because he is doing something and not just crying about God and religion in the media and through writing blogs. Anyone can cry about God and religion sitting in their own home typing on computer, not actually doing anything to benefit the human race yet calling themselves a humanist.

In my part of the world homosexual marriage and access to contraception was seen as a win for human rights - not atheism nor humanism - assuming the are different. If a court judgement went in favour of a religious group they would see it as a ‘sign from God.’
I and many others would see it as nothing more than a legal argument that was more persuasive than that presented by the opposing party. So, if a judicial decision goes against Christianity and in favour of atheism/humanism - do you see that as an endorsement of there is no God?

 

[Bradski]

I have read and listened to a few people (Sam Harris being the latest) who is frustrated by the use of the term ‘atheist’. It does carry a lot of baggage with it and as we have seen in this forum, every man and his dog has his or her interpretation of it (maybe that should be man or woman and his or her dog or *****).

Maybe I should change the description in the top right of my post to read ‘Secularist’ or ‘Humanist’ rather than atheist. But then again, how people define those two terms will vary.

We seem to have more pigeon holes than pigeons.

 

[reggieM]

We still have this urge, Reggie (which seems to cause a lot of problems with you Catholics).

I guess you felt the need for an insult there.

The fact that you can actually write that some people could consider rape to be a good things is exceptionally objectionable. It is, without doubt, one of the worst things anyone can do to a fellow human being and for you to use it as a cheap and risibly inept debating point is contemptuous.

I appreciate your outrage and that is the usual response that atheists offer when encountering the logic of their own worldview (and I cited evolutionary biologists who said exactly the same thing - that rape is an evolutionary adaptation for the benefit of the species).

But Bradski, you’ve probably heard this before, but this kind of outrage over cruelty is really borrowing on a Theistic worldview that condemns rape as a moral evil. The materialist view simply cannot support that kind of condemnation except to step outside of materialistic nihilism to do so.

 

[Bradski]

I have read and listened to a few people (Sam Harris being the latest) who is frustrated by the use of the term ‘atheist’. It does carry a lot of baggage with it and as we have seen in this forum, every man and his dog has his or her interpretation of it (maybe that should be man or woman and his or her dog or *****).

The asterisk were automatically added because the system treats the word for a female dog as an insult not to be entertained (I post on another forum where for reasons too tenuous to grasp, the same will happen to the word ‘blow’).

 

[PRmerger]

I guess you felt the need for an insult there.

Oh, I missed that little sentence about “urges” causing problem for Catholics.

This seems to suggest that atheists just feel free to give in to all their urges.

One has to wonder what the wives of all these atheists think about their men having no problem indulging their urges.

Or, for that matter, what these atheist males feel about their wives saying, “Honey, you know how you mocked Catholics for having problem with “urges”? Well, I know then that you won’t have a problem with me indulging in my urges with the pool boy.”

 

[Bradski]

I appreciate your outrage and that is the usual response that atheists offer when encountering the logic of their own worldview (and I cited evolutionary biologists who said exactly the same thing - that rape is an evolutionary adaptation for the benefit of the species).

But that doesn’t quite cover what you said or what I objected to. If you fail to understand evolutionary terminology, how evolution works and how any aspect of it cannot, by any stretch of anyone’s imagination, be compared to the sexual assault of a woman, then as much as I find it difficult to believe (despite what you think that Thornhill believes) I can accept that as a post from someone who doesn’t know any better.

However, you specifically said that rape, as far as atheists are concerned, is a good thing.

…it obviously is still a good thing according to the atheistic viewpoint.

That is a monstrously outrageous statement and you should be ashamed for having made it.

 

[reggieM]

That is a monstrously outrageous statement and you should be ashamed for having made it.

I’m glad you shared your opinion with us on this.
I guess there’s not much more to say.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I have to say VL that I always possess a bit of reluctance in responding to your posts. Reason being I am currently of the opinion you don’t genuinely believe anything you say in your posts. You post them purely on the basis of your signature - for your own amusement.

Sometimes I am being sarcastic. But it is true that many posts I find amusing. As a matter of fact, I find YOUR posts worthy to be considered, and I never use sarcasm when I reply to you. I only wish there would be “more of you”.

Have you ever though of getting out more?

Don’t worry about my spare time. I spent a lot of time during the last few years (way past after retirement age) of having interesting conversations with all sorts of Christians in general, and Catholics in particular. I rather doubt that there is a lot that I have not heard before. But I am an optimist, so I hope that there are new insights what will educate me.

That said - it’s an internet forum and I am responding. But then, I know I need to get out more. I often engage in debate on internet forums to kill boredom.

Well, I have never been bored during my life. The world is too interesting.

Can you tell me what you mean by ‘Christian sexual propaganda?’ I cannot comment on this as I don’t know what it means.
Nothing special. I was replying to Christine77, who made some remarks about the “propaganda media” in post #319. She wrote A Christian has to stand firm and be skeptical of all the so called “news” and “truths” being put out daily by the propaganda media.

Do not take the words “Christian sexual propaganda” seriously. They were intended to be sarcastic. I do not find that poster in the same league as you.

I would decry humanists who are not humanists. That is, I don’t think you have a right to call yourself a humanist where you do nothing to help humanity.

You mean those who hypocritically call themselves humanist, while not living up to their own qualifications? I am with you all the way. I despise every hypocrite of any shape and hue.

In my part of the world homosexual marriage and access to contraception was seen as a win for human rights - not atheism nor humanism - assuming the are different. If a court judgement went in favour of a religious group they would see it as a ‘sign from God.’

I and many others would see it as nothing more than a legal argument that was more persuasive than that presented by the opposing party. So, if a judicial decision goes against Christianity and in favour of atheism/humanism - do you see that as an endorsement of there is no God?

Of course not. In my opinion God is an equal opportunity “non-listener”. But when I see a whole lot of unnecessary and cruel suffering, I consider it as a very strong evidence (NOT proof!) against the “God is Love” slogan.