|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2009 : 22:58:56
|
Speaking of logical fallacies, (in this case the naturalist fallacy), I had to reply to this offal by "Trophy of Grace".
I suspect, and acted as if, she had read this article by Answers in Genesis since they're doing a review of a book A Natural History of Rape where they pretty much say the same thing about the same topic that this commentator does.
Even if that's not the case, the material I brought up is sufficient to shoot him/her down anyway, I hope.
Basically, if you've heard of the naturalistic fallacy you can guess what my reply will entail.
Unfortunately, my reply had to be divided into two parts, and I've no idea if either will make it, so I'll put it here for criticism and posterity.
Trophy of Grace said...
Any argument by atheists that have a moral problem with rape is irrelevant. Animals rape all the time, and as far an atheist believes, humans are just animals. The foundation of sexual evolution is built upon rape.
You've never heard that animals like certain primates actually mate for life and help raise the young? If rape was all that there was to "sexual evolution" there'd have been no way any society could develop, even in the animal kingdom.
Since you seem to have read only the Answers in Genesis view of things (since that's the kind of thing they say), try doing some actual research.
Go to Google and do a search for "A Natural History of Rape", the book that AIG (whose views you mimic) talks about and see what some actual scientists have to say about the topic, ok?
For instance:
Kenan Malik's review of 'A Natural History of Rape'
If men rape to increase their chance of fatherhood, women are traumatised by rape because it 'lowers their reproductive success'. Rape is painful, apparently, because it 'reduces a woman's ability to choose the timing and circumstances for reproduction, as well as her ability to choose the man who fathers her offspring'. And there I was thinking that the pain of rape had much to do with violence and forcible sex. Thornhill and Palmer, however, will have none of this. Rapists, they argue, do not as a rule use overmuch violence because they don't want to threaten their victim's chance of getting pregnant. Even more contentiously they believe that the trauma of rape decreases with more violent attacks, as injured women are more likely to be believed that they didn't 'ask for it'. The more battered a woman is, the less trauma she endures? It truly is an Alice-Through-The-Looking-Glass world that Thornhill and Palmer inhabit.
Even if you go to the authours of the book themselves,(Rape and Evolution: A Reply to Our Critics) guess what they say?
Media Accounts
You have probably heard in the media that our book says that rape is good because it is a part of the natural, biological world. If so, you may be surprised to find that we state the following on pages 5 and 6:
There is no connection here between what is biological or naturally
selected and what is morally right or wrong. To assume a connection is to commit what is called the naturalistic fallacy.
The naturalistic fallacy erroneously sees the facts of how nature is organized as moral truths. Modern thinkers emphasize that nature is as nature is period, and that right and wrong in the moral sense derive from humans#8217; pursuing their interests, not from the facts of nature.
You may have also heard that our book excuses rapists for their
hideous acts. You will recognize this as a version of the naturalistic fallacy. What we really say (p. 154) is this:
Contrary to the common view that an evolutionary explanation for human behavior removes individuals#8217; responsibility for their actions, . . .knowledge of the self as having evolved by Darwinian selection provides an individual with tremendous potential for free will. Moreover, refusal to refrain from damaging behavior in the face of scientific understanding could be seen as a ground for holding irresponsible individuals more culpable, not less so.
Did you get that? MORE CULPABLE, NOT LESS SO!
Now, what do you say?
So Rape isn't wrong from an atheist worldview.
If only "incivility" was allowed here, so I could truly say what I think of that statement of yours.
Even leaving all of that out, did you ever here of empathy (taking into account others feelings) or taking into account the damage done to other people and to society itself, the suffering they'd go through?
So the only reason then, why you don't go out and rape someone is because you have someone bigger than you watching over your shoulder, is that it?
You are the LAST person here to talk about "moral parasites"!
So why do they bring up?
Trying to show the ethical morass of believing in a deity that allows such things, that's what.
Remember Stephen J's comment:
Note, again, this is not just pointing a judgmental finger at God; it has to do with the internal logic and coherency of your position. If your position is self-contradictory, how likely is it to be true?
Trophy of Grace
Because atheists are moral parasites. Very lost, very confused.
I wouldn't talk if I was you. You obviously don't have a clue about atheism and morality, do you?
Your morality is no more developed than a child's: They only do things and don't do things based on someone watching over them. Things like the good of society, empathy for other's feelings, etc. don't enter into the picture at all. |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 19:02:26 [Permalink]
|
Most ideas of morality are, in my opinion, determined by society. But there are some things that will happen anyway. Murder will happen, rape will happen, urinating in public will happen, and trying to force one's religion on people through lies and intimidation will happen.
The sexual urge is a basic and essential as eating and self-defence, and every so often there will be someone who's sex drive is warped in such a way that they will rape. Others may find children to be a turn-on, still more may be asexual. When we're dealing with the incredibly complex biochemistry of a human, combined with social pressures and strictures, it's anybody's guess what will happen and where. To say that any of it is part of atheistic morality, or Darwinistic, or naturalistic, or religious, is a very immoral twisting of the facts. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2009 : 11:46:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
Most ideas of morality are, in my opinion, determined by society. But there are some things that will happen anyway. Murder will happen, rape will happen, urinating in public will happen, and trying to force one's religion on people through lies and intimidation will happen.
The sexual urge is a basic and essential as eating and self-defence, and every so often there will be someone who's sex drive is warped in such a way that they will rape. Others may find children to be a turn-on, still more may be asexual. When we're dealing with the incredibly complex biochemistry of a human, combined with social pressures and strictures, it's anybody's guess what will happen and where. To say that any of it is part of atheistic morality, or Darwinistic, or naturalistic, or religious, is a very immoral twisting of the facts.
|
I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but I believe that rape etc. are more about power and control than the sex drive. If it was just sex, a cheap hooker would be a lot less trouble. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 16:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but I believe that rape etc. are more about power and control than the sex drive. If it was just sex, a cheap hooker would be a lot less trouble.
|
Possibly, but don't fall for the old claim popular a few decades ago that it was ALL about power and control. If that was it why not just administer a beating? The fact that there is a sexual component means that the sex drive is involved somehow. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 20:24:55 [Permalink]
|
A beating wouldn't be nearly as humiliating and physically damaging, though.
And the sex drive is linked with dominance and group status. That's part of our animal brain... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheism/evolution says rape is moral??!!
