'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

originally posted by: JRCrowley
originally posted by: Metallicus

Without God, you have something called human empathy and compassion.

If you're not a sociopath, then yes, hopefully. But that's not the same thing as objective morality.

Idiot statements are idiotic.

Tautological statements are tautological

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Heavens, no. Personally, I believe that we should judge (or, if you prefer, evaluate) cultures, past and present, but we should do so with humility.

We can look at how they lived, and take inspiration as to what does and doesn't work but why should we judge them by our standards? Lets take the US in the 1900's, we very much had an isolationist attitude. There were things in the world that we didn't agree with, but seeing as how they happened outside our borders we turned a blind eye to it. Compare that to the world of today where we see what we don't agree with happening in the world and we step in to enforce our values. These two approaches to national affairs are complete opposites. Which is correct? Is either correct?

It's true for you? What does that mean?

That I am content to live life according to my own morals. If others wish to abide by the same rules, then great. I don't see where it's my prerogative to force them to however.

Cool. So long as we're clear on that.
Going back to the OP, do you then agree with Phil Robertson, that there is no reason for an atheist to decry any action as immoral?

There's plenty of reason. Do you want your children to live in a world where they can expect to be raped, or where they'll be assaulted by someone who wants to steal their shoes? How about a world where financial crimes run rampant or even where a person is denied access to an education or job based on the status of their parent? Atheists don't want to live in that world either, and to them it doesn't require a God to allow or forbid an action. Or, to borrow from Galileo, someone who happens to have known a thing or two about having the judgments of a church inflicted on him.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use"

And how many Buddhists do this?

I don't know. Being a vegetarian is very popular among their religion especially among those who believe in reincarnation but it's certainly not something that all people do. How many Christians practice turning the other cheek or love thy neighbor? How about practicing forgiveness? If a man sexually abused your daughter and you caught him in the act would you be able to forgive him, and spend your own money/effort to try and get him the mental help he needs? Or would you simply call the cops, or better yet attack him?

So...if you and I disagree on whether the world is round, does that mean it is clearly open to debate on whether it is round or not?

If you want to ignore facts and not believe the world is round, it's not my place to force you to accept reality. You can go ahead and believe it's flat, while those of us wish to make use of satellites and apply the mathematics involved in calculating orbits can do so.

Why is it a problem? Society itself is a human construct–where is the value in it? What if it should be destroyed? That's certainly true for some people. So why should we seek to preserve society?

Because a self destructive society can never advance, and may very well kill itself. Maybe a better answer, is that we should preserve society, because the majority of people believe there's something worth preserving.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I bet living in societies with law enforcement helps

I'm sure it does, that's the point afterall. Most Atheists however do not need law enforcement to know that theft, rape, and murder are wrong. That's taken care of in one of the earliest lessons taught any children, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If you need God to tell you that murder is bad, maybe that says more about your morals and what's truly in your heart than it does about the rest of us.

Er...Christians and Jews have put hundreds of years of thought and rationalization into what is forbidden by a higher power and why. Perhaps you're misidentifying a particular *coughAmericancough* breed of Christianity as representative of all of Christianity.

No, they have spent hundreds of years rationalizing scripture and contorting it to fit within the political framework of the day. As we just established a couple of posts ago, you and I took wildly different interpretations of the same passage about self defense. Every denomination of every church takes a different view on some part of the teachings of their belief, and each has rationalized different interpretations. Only one interpretation can be that of the one true faith.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Also...you sidestepped the part where I asked you if you agreed with Phil Robertson, in that there is no reason for an atheist to decry anything as immoral?

ETA: actually I think his point was that atheists don't really believe that...do you?

No, I don't agree with that. Atheists are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves, coming up with an individual morality, and living their lives within that framework. People, regardless of their differing moralities and beliefs are capable of coming up with laws that all must abide. Atheists don't need your God to tell them that murder is wrong, and you apparently do not need your God to decide that disobeying traffic signs like one way streets and speed limits is wrong, considering that Jesus never spoke about it.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
But that's not the same thing as objective morality.

Which doesn't exist so who cares about Objective Morality. If Objective Morality did exist it still wouldn't matter because we certainly don't know what it is and it sure as hell isn't found in the Bible.

At best, the closest we'll ever come to it is by our collective reasoning, intuition and constant evaluation of the choices we make and their outcome in which case we'll never know if we've figured it out or not so we might as well just accept that Morality is Subjective to some degree.

So, let me get this straight.

This inbred schlup is saying that in order to not go bonkers and be a total sociopathic menace to anything alive, you have to fear an imaginary friend, and adhere to it's 4,000 year old Jewish texts. Correct?

Well damn, I'm doing the sociopathy thing all wrong then. I have no desire to barbarically brutalize others with no invisible nag around. I don't have to do or not do something because I fear the invisible man in the sky, I act respectable & kindly to other members of the human specie because it's pretty sweet to do to others what I expect them to do for me. Sarcastic comments aside, of course. I can be quite sarcastic.

I do, however, see glaring flaws with people who think the only reason for not acting like wild animals is a crusty book many millennia out of date with society. That should be a flashing neon sign to be extremely wary of the people who can chuck personal responsibility out the window when they decide there's no reward for it, almost like they admit it was a wasted effort to keep the darkest corner of their soul under control for no other reason than "HEY! Theoretical afterlife reward!"

I think this is a great example of how Abramabic religions foster discrimination and bigotry, while hindering societal progress and ideas that further humanity. People can commit acts of kindness without the idea of a God(These Gods always act like humans btw. Jealous and petty), as well as horrible cruel deeds regardless of any belief or lack therof. Thats like saying the death penalty works to eradicate heinous crimes. If this Duck guy were born in the Middle East, Im quite sure he would instead be a Muslim and found his way into ISIS.

The Abrahamic religions wont stop the world from moving forward as a whole, but it sure slows it down painfully.

PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Pull the plug on this godforsaken show. Quit giving these crackpots a soapbox to stand on!

This is unacceptable! You are doing nothing more than dividing an already divided house! Please, let this be the final straw that causes these people to fall into obscurity.

originally posted by: Aazadan

We can look at how they lived, and take inspiration as to what does and doesn't work but why should we judge them by our standards? Lets take the US in the 1900's, we very much had an isolationist attitude. There were things in the world that we didn't agree with, but seeing as how they happened outside our borders we turned a blind eye to it. Compare that to the world of today where we see what we don't agree with happening in the world and we step in to enforce our values. These two approaches to national affairs are complete opposites. Which is correct? Is either correct?

I happen to think that, in the modern day, neither of them is strictly correct, but I believe that the actions taken by the United States in the 1900s (such as entering into World War One) were misguided and dangerous.

That I am content to live life according to my own morals. If others wish to abide by the same rules, then great. I don't see where it's my prerogative to force them to however.

But you're OK with other people forcing your morals on others?

There's plenty of reason. Do you want your children to live in a world where they can expect to be raped, or where they'll be assaulted by someone who wants to steal their shoes? How about a world where financial crimes run rampant or even where a person is denied access to an education or job based on the status of their parent? Atheists don't want to live in that world either, and to them it doesn't require a God to allow or forbid an action. Or, to borrow from Galileo, someone who happens to have known a thing or two about having the judgments of a church inflicted on him.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use"

So, we should say something is immoral because it inconveniences us?

How many Christians practice turning the other cheek or love thy neighbor? How about practicing forgiveness?

About 17
Christians struggle to follow their own guidelines–it's something that has been recognized since the inception of Christianity.

Because a self destructive society can never advance, and may very well kill itself. Maybe a better answer, is that we should preserve society, because the majority of people believe there's something worth preserving.

So, as long as a majority of people agree on something, it's good to go.

I'm sure it does, that's the point afterall. Most Atheists however do not need law enforcement to know that theft, rape, and murder are wrong.

Uhh...you've been telling me it's not wrong.

If you need God to tell you that murder is bad, maybe that says more about your morals and what's truly in your heart than it does about the rest of us.

Or maybe it just means that you're using rationality and logic. Nietzsche, folks, it's all in Nietzsche.

No, they have spent hundreds of years rationalizing scripture and contorting it to fit within the political framework of the day.

This is also true, to a degree.

As we just established a couple of posts ago, you and I took wildly different interpretations of the same passage about self defense.

Our interpretations were not wildly different, and I think one of us has reading comprehension issues (which, if you're like me, happens when you skim something quickly )

Only one interpretation can be that of the one true faith.

No...

originally posted by: [post=19173987]StalkerSolent
No, I don't agree with that. Atheists are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves, coming up with an individual morality, and living their lives within that framework.

Yes, this is true. This also means that the morality of the serial killer is just as valid as the morality of the erudite and compassionate atheist.

People, regardless of their differing moralities and beliefs are capable of coming up with laws that all must abide. Atheists don't need your God to tell them that murder is wrong,

You haven't been able to tell me why it's wrong, just that you don't like it and it's inconvenient.

and you apparently do not need your God to decide that disobeying traffic signs like one way streets and speed limits is wrong, considering that Jesus never spoke about it.

I thought that was in 2nd Revelations

originally posted by: mOjOm

Which doesn't exist so who cares about Objective Morality.

How do you know?

If Objective Morality did exist it still wouldn't matter because we certainly don't know what it is and it sure as hell isn't found in the Bible.

How do you know?

At best, the closest we'll ever come to it is by our collective reasoning, intuition and constant evaluation of the choices we make and their outcome in which case we'll never know if we've figured it out or not so we might as well just accept that Morality is Subjective to some degree.

One can agree that morality is subjective to some degree and still believe in an objective morality. For instance, I can believe that all human life is objectively valuable and that it is objectively bad if it is destroyed and still accept that there is some situations where it must be destroyed for a greater cause.

originally posted by: Nyiah
So, let me get this straight.

This inbred schlup is saying that in order to not go bonkers and be a total sociopathic menace to anything alive, you have to fear an imaginary friend, and adhere to it's 4,000 year old Jewish texts. Correct?

No.
That's not what he's saying, at least not if I read the link correctly. Feel free to reread it yourself, though, and please correct me if I am wrong
He's saying that even atheists think it's wrong to be a total sociopathic menace to anything alive, which is inconsistent with the belief of an atheist that there is no objective morality. Which, to the best of my knowledge, is necessarily true if you are a purely materialistic atheist.

That dude is gross, looks like ISIS. I could care less what that red neck scumbag thinks or says, but thanks for re assuring us what an ignorant hick he really is.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

How do you know?

I don't for sure. That is why I wrote the next part starting with, "If Objective Morality did exist...."

How do you know?

Because the morality in the Bible is totally inconsistent and even contradictory at some points. It also is very one sided when it comes to the sexes leaving women to blame for basically everything. Even her own rape or that others might lust over her without her doing anything to encourage it.

It doesn't condemn slavery and in fact actually is quite pro slavery. Basically, other than a few standard moral values which pretty much are always understood by most cultures it sux as an example of "Objective Morality".

One can agree that morality is subjective to some degree and still believe in an objective morality. For instance, I can believe that all human life is objectively valuable and that it is objectively bad if it is destroyed and still accept that there is some situations where it must be destroyed for a greater cause.

Actually, unless you can somehow show exactly how Morality is Objective I'd say you'd have to conclude that it is Subjective. Morality deals with meaning and what meaning comes from certain actions and so forth and it is us who actually give our actions meaning.

But you are still welcome to try and prove "Objective Morality" if you want but since it's been tried for centuries by various philosophers and great thinkers without it happening yet, I won't exactly hold my breath.

Besides that, it's not needed. There is no need of an Objective Morality for our collective or personal Morality to be valid and meaningful and important.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xaphan

And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’”

Well except for the law... You can't argue THAT doesn't exist. Also, if the law exists and morality doesn't come from god (as this atheist family would believe) then that means humans came up with the law. Ergo, humans can have morality without god.

You are correct! However, if we all have morals and therefore don't need religious laws, then why do we need any laws? The statements here are basically "this guy is nuts thinking we need God to know right from wrong". Sure...that is incorrect. But the fear of God by a religious person is the fear of the law by a non-religious person. I don't see much of a difference. We use fear to keep people following the RIGHT path in life. Fear of imprisonment. The bible uses fear to keep religious people following the RIGHT path in life. Fear of damnation.

His example may have been a bit extreme, but he has a point. Without laws, religious or not, some people would not have the morals needed to make a civilized society.

originally posted by: Foderalover
That dude is gross, looks like ISIS. I could care less what that red neck scumbag thinks or says, but thanks for re assuring us what an ignorant hick he really is.

So you ADMIT you're a bigot? Redneck scumbag...ignorant hick. Hummm...sure sounds like the reverse of throwing out the N word, doesn't it. Oh...but that is just fine cause he is white and you don't agree with him.

What a winner you are!

I just finished reading the last few pages of this thread and I'll tell you what. Many of you sound like a bunch of racist, bigoted KKK members standing around bad mouthing a black person for saying something stupid. But in this case, you chose someone white and religious.

Fact is...THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! Everyone tearing this old guy up is exactly equal to those KKK members I just mentioned. The only, slight difference is YOU disagree with this guy...so that makes him fair game. Apparently. Practice what you preach for a change. I'm outta here...the crap is getting too deep.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

His example may have been a bit extreme, but he has a point. Without laws, religious or not, some people would not have the morals needed to make a civilized society.

Stop moving the goal posts!

Phil Robertson never said that society needs laws! We all know that! After describing the rape, murder and genital mutilation of an atheist family, this is what Robertson said:

"But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun."

What was his point again?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

His example may have been a bit extreme, but he has a point. Without laws, religious or not, some people would not have the morals needed to make a civilized society.

Stop moving the goal posts!

Phil Robertson never said that society needs laws! We all know that! After describing the rape, murder and genital mutilation of an atheist family, this is what Robertson said:

"But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun."

What was his point again?

I'm not moving any goal posts. I'm pretty sure, as anyone would be that since he was talking about people doing "wrong", he was referring to God (or should I say the fear of God) as the reason people don't do "wrong". Granted...he is far too general, but he is talking about the rules of his religion and I compare them to the rules of our non-religious society.

I would call that a fair comparison. As would anyone else without an agenda. Pile on the old religious guy...right? Get over yourself and put your anti-religious hatred away before you expose yourself as the same type of bigot I mentioned earlier.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I would call that a fair comparison.

BS! If religious people only follow "God's" law out of fear of punishment, that's their problem. Non-religious and atheist people don't need no "God" to tell them what's right and wrong, and the "law" doesn't stop those who are going to rape and murder from raping and murdering, any more than your "God" does.

Get over yourself and put your anti-anti-religious hatred away before you expose yourself as the same type of bigot in the OP!

originally posted by: mOjOm

I don't for sure. That is why I wrote the next part starting with, "If Objective Morality did exist...."

Oh, good! Glad we cleared that up

Because the morality in the Bible is totally inconsistent and even contradictory at some points.

Er...sure. Or maybe it's a book that rewards study

It also is very one sided when it comes to the sexes leaving women to blame for basically everything. Even her own rape or that others might lust over her without her doing anything to encourage it.

Eh...no...

It doesn't condemn slavery and in fact actually is quite pro slavery.

Eh...no...

Basically, other than a few standard moral values which pretty much are always understood by most cultures it sux as an example of "Objective Morality".

Eh...no...it served as the foremost standard of an objective morality up until recently. The standards that grew out of Christian morality are still selectively adhered to by most of the West. Islam, of course, provides another standard of objective morality.

Actually, unless you can somehow show exactly how Morality is Objective I'd say you'd have to conclude that it is Subjective.

Why? Couldn't one just as plausibly the say the opposite: "unless you can somehow show exactly how Morality is Subjective I'd say you'd have to conclude that it is Objective."

Morality deals with meaning and what meaning comes from certain actions and so forth and it is us who actually give our actions meaning.

Mmm.

But you are still welcome to try and prove "Objective Morality" if you want but since it's been tried for centuries by various philosophers and great thinkers without it happening yet, I won't exactly hold my breath.

All the various philosophers and great thinkers still haven't been able to prove that objective reality exists, because they haven't been able to climb out of Hume's hole. So why should they be able to prove that objective morality exists?

Besides that, it's not needed. There is no need of an Objective Morality for our collective or personal Morality to be valid and meaningful and important.

Objectively, they can't really be truly valid and truly meaningful at the same time. If they're all valid, than completely opposite moralities are both equally valid, which means they are objectively meaningless.

On the other hand, if they are objectively meaningful, then completely opposite moralities cannot be equally valid because of the way logic works: if two propositions are mutually exclusive, than only one of them can be true.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

BS! If religious people only follow "God's" law out of fear of punishment, that's their problem. Non-religious and atheist people don't need no "God" to tell them what's right and wrong,

So then what does tell people what's right and wrong? A moralometer?

Get over yourself and put your anti-anti-religious hatred away before you expose yourself as the same type of bigot in the OP!

That horrible bigot in the OP, to expose a traditionally weak spot in atheistic thought.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

So then what does tell people what's right and wrong?

Empathy and compassion! Have you been napping this entire time?

Look, according to your Bible, Adam and Eve stole their sense of right from when they disobeyed "God" and ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil! God didn't give them the knowledge, they took it!