Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape

By on October 26, 2011 in News 28

What Does God Need With A Starship?

Michael Martin makes a few good points regarding the claim that without religion there is no basis for morality:

Is Theistic Morality Necessarily Objectivist?:

Let us assume for the moment that the Biblical position on rape is clear: God condemns rape. But why? One possibility is that He condemns rape because it is wrong. Why is it wrong? It might be supposed that God has various reasons for thinking rape is wrong: it violates the victim’s rights, it traumatizes the victim, it undermines the fabric of society, and so on. All of these are bad making properties. However, if these reasons provide objective grounds for God thinking that rape is wrong, then they provide objective grounds for others as well. Moreover, these reasons would hold even if God did not exist. For example, rape would still traumatize the victim and rape would still undermine the fabric of society even. Thus, on this assumption, In this case, atheists could provide objective ground for condemning rape–the same grounds used by God.

Let us suppose now that rape is wrong because God condemns it. In this case, God has no reasons for His condemnations. His condemnation makes rape wrong and it would not be wrong if God did not condemned it. Indeed, not raping someone would be wrong if God condemned not raping. However, this hardly provides objective grounds for condemning rape: Whether rape is right or wrong would be based on God’s arbitrary condemnation. On this interpretation, if atheists can provide no objective grounds for condemning rape, they are no worse off than theists. However, as we have seen, there is no reason to suppose that they cannot provide such grounds.

Read more here.

, , , , , ,

  • Anonymous

    I have a Libertarian view to put into the ring about rape. I don’t believe this, but most of the people who support Ron Paul do.

    Libertarianism: If its good for you, then fuck everybody else.

    Therefore, rape feels good for the rapist, and he’s already fucking the victim. Therefore, Ayn Rand would approve.

  • Claire Nicola

    On this note, a handful of theocrats are really into the idea of keeping women who are raped from getting abortions.  Oh, and also, it doesn’t matter if it puts her life in danger.  Thanks a lot, “god.”  

    They do indeed provide such grounds!  Read: The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.  Badass.

  • Alternate view

    Suppose your mother came to you today and disclosed a secret, that you were actually a child of rape and she decided to keep you.  Would you then honestly say that she was wrong in doing it?  What if she then said that all the years of your life tortured her and reminded her of the event, then shot you to death, would that be justified?  

  • Alternate view

    This seems more like a comment under a legitimate post rather than a major contribution.  More attempts at one sided sensationalism. Probably just to stir the pot and draw posters.

  • Allan

    Fuck Religion, fuck morality, fuck the world.  I am going to destroy this old world and create a new world upon it’s ashes.

  • paultard

    Umm no. Basic rule number 1 fore libertarians: Do whatever you want AS LONG AS YOU DONT HURT SOMEONE ELSE OR INFRINGE ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Rape violates that premise….Next!

  • Dunzain

    Yeah, we humans should move away and see if the chimps are in a better position to evolve to something better the humans. Give them 50,000 years or so and they may be turning to gold.  :)

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Suppose you are out on a desert island…. In space. There’s a purple gorilla hanging from a space tree, who asks you a question in Japanese. You don’t know Japanese, but you really do not want to offend the purple gorilla. You tell the gorilla “I’m sorry, I don’t understand Japanese.” This offends the gorilla, so in response he throws a space-coconut at you knocking you off the space island to drift off in space for eternity. Would that be justified?

  • Alternate view

    As long as he doesn’t rape me.

  • downtown dave

    Atheists are able to hold to the same grounds for condemning rape as Christians because God gave both a conscience.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • Anonymous

    I hope you don’t mind I used your logic on the basis of morality.  It applies!

    http://desultoryphilippic.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/barking-mad/

  • Anonymous

    That is the basis for the Wiccan Rede:  ’An ye harm none, do as ye will.

  • Anonymous

    You need to check your facts buddy.

  • Arden

    Seriously? What an infuriatingly stupid way to put it, and the last part is especially irrelevant. I assume if you were raped and became pregnant, you would continue the pregnancy and keep your rapist’s child, huh? Since you’re SUCH a morally perfect being and all. Because who cares about your life and your choices, who cares if that’s just adding to the trauma and impact your rapist has on your life now, only fertilized eggs or embryos or fetuses deserves rights. Rapist + rapist’s sperm > you, duh.

    Or if your life become endangered from said pregnancy, you’d be fine with just dying? Yeah I doubt it. People like you give me a fucking headache.

  • Anonymous

    And the Church of Satan says this and Crowley did. Pretty simplistic. 

  • Anonymous

    A person’s little barking dog’s rapes my ears everyday. I want to kill those dogs. But this rape of my ears doesn’t count.

  • Anonymous

    And that makes it wrong, how?  Agreeing that harm is bad, and refraining from harm, is a good philosophy to live by, whether you like the messenger or not.

    And, just to be clear, Crowley’s version, of the rede states:  Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love under Law, Love under Will.  Gerald Gardner used that as the basis of his law, which was perfected by Doreen Valiente.  Get your facts straight.

    I’m not as well versed in the Satanic Laws, but from what I have read, they are hedonistic at their core.  Wiccans and Satanists are vastly different.  It is pathetic on your part to try to conflate the two for your own purposes to try to make your flimsy point.

    If you have to lie to make your point, you have no point to make.

  • apostle

    The whole premise of this article is stupid, since the god in the bible condones rape in almost every form.

  • Anonymous

    I say what I feel like. Sometimes I leave it for a reader to come up with their own bullshit so I can see what they’ll say back because it amuses and sometimes illuminates.
    One point to make is that “harm” isn’t a clear cut concept and neither is being a self, being a person and living with others in a large, pluralistic, complex, modern society. So sure in principal we can say slogans like don’t hurt other people in your pursuit of happiness (enlightenment, whatEVER). But there will be cases where one individual will butt heads with another and one will loose.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Iam-Skycake/100001620503494 Iam Skycake

    More ridiculous religious commentary on Disinfo.  Let’s be clear about this – 1.  Rape isn’t forbidden in the 10 commandments.   2.  Rape is awarded many times in the bible and the raped woman is punished. 

    More about god’s love of rape in the ‘jesus christ’ bible. 

    http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm 

  • http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

    Actually, you may expect relatively normal behaviour and call authorities to help with that. Maybe the owner’s contract is even more specific about noise pollution.

  • Alternate view

    Does that include the unborn baby?

  • Anonymous

    Actually there’s nothing they can do about barking dogs if the dogs are in an area with some noise. So, for ex. where I lived when this happened there was traffic on a fairly busy through street. So the owners and their bitches were off the hook. You’d have to show the dogs aren’t barking at anything whatsoever. Wacky but true. 

  • Xenobia_mia

    destroy yourself first

  • Anonymous

    Then in cases like that, what would you suggest?  Continue to butt heads?  Or allow common sense to prevail and perhaps come to some kind of agreement.  Or, just leave the other person alone as long as they are not harming others.

  • Anonymous

    That is a tough one isn’t it. Society has to decide has to resolve it’s problems regarding the autonomy and will of the individual as she relates to others in it. No one size fits all answer. I want to say here to you that I want to believe in democracy, still. I have grave doubts about “the people”. The people in America. But public debate, engaged citizens must be involved in what laws are passed by the politicians and the judicial system and the cops, courts and lawyers play a huge role in resolving conflicts that arise in the masses collective pursuit of happiness. The people collectively say “this is common sense” but sometimes what is common isn’t clear to us. So ethical principals, legal president, etc. come into play. Debate.

  • Anti-Crowley

    You fail to explain how raping would be wrong without God other than to basically say “it just would be.”  Yet we see rape all of the time in the animal kingdom and don’t cry out about how evil it is.  If we were just another species and procreation was the name of the game, why would it be wrong?  You see, we think it is wrong because inwardly we all recognize the intrinsic value to human life regardless of societal norms.  This is to admit in absolute morality which is outside of mankind.  If all of mankind thought rape was okay, it would still be wrong.  This admittance to a transcendent moral law is only a non-tangible concept which means it comes from an intelligent, transcendent being.

  • Andrew

    So if God commanded you to rape someone, it would be immoral not to?