(April 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What I'm saying is that atheist can be moral. They just can't logically believe those morals which they hold are objective, imho.

No! That is not what you said. You said "correct or incorrect"!

That's what I meant.

If I say "Rape is immoral, and those who think rape is moral are incorrect," I'm saying that morality is objective.

I don't think it is logical for an atheist to believe morality is objective. This does not mean I don't think atheists can be moral.

(April 22, 2018 at 6:25 pm)henryp Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:02 pm)Hammy Wrote: No of course I noticed but that's just because most people in general are.

The atheists here are on average much better at it than the average population though. And this is still my favorite forum ever. And there are a few really smart people around here.

I was young when I got here though. My critical thinking has improved over the years. So it has become more and more obvious over time.

I'm a 'trumptard' who 'lacks intelligence',  and it's pretty obvious to me Khemikal's full of shit.  CL thinks God is real, and she has no trouble spotting it.  Do you think me and CL are just excellent critical thinkers, and that's why we can spot it when the majority of these above average thinkers can't?

I am extremely confused if you genunely think Trump is a good president, yes. A baked potato would be a better president.

No I don't think you and CL are excellent critical thinkers. I don't think it takes a genius to spot Khem's shit... I think that a lot of atheists just get over excited when he strawmans the theists as hard as he strawmans me. And many people probably haven't been on the wrong side of him yet. I went years of liking him obliviously until we actually had a disagreement and I quickly realized what it's like actually trying to have a discussion with him.

I guess, from the sidelines he doesn't look so bad. When you actually see how constantly he strawmans you, it's easy to spot.

Also, theism is so silly that a strawman of theism isn't much sillier than theism... so it's hard for him to make theists look any sillier even if they are constantly having to take his foot out of their mouth lol. They'll still notice though (apart from the really stupid ones like Drich).

I voted Tiberius for best debater. He's about 8 million levels above Khem in a debate.

Rape is immoral, and those who think that it is moral are incorrect.  What's the problem?

(April 22, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm)chimp3 Wrote: No! That is not what you said. You said "correct or incorrect"!

That's what I meant.

If I say "Rape is immoral, and those who think rape is moral are incorrect," I'm saying that morality is objective.

I don't think it is logical for an atheist to believe morality is objective. This does not mean I don't think atheists can be moral.

Who said anything about moral objectivity? Red herring is not my favorite fish!

(April 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What I'm saying is that atheist can be moral. They just can't logically believe those morals which they hold are objective, imho.

No! That is not what you said. You said "correct or incorrect"!

Well, I guess there is a sense in which if morality isn't objective it doesn't make much sense to say there is a "correct" or "incorrect" answer.

What would it mean to say it's all a matter of opinion, and there is no right or wrong, but there's still correct and incorrect answers? Wouldn't that be a contradiction? What's the difference between no right and wrong and no correct and incorrect?

Moral objectivity is something (at least) related to morality that, in her opinion, is not logically available to atheists.

(April 22, 2018 at 6:30 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm)chimp3 Wrote: No! That is not what you said. You said "correct or incorrect"!

The Bible states that if a man rapes a woman he should marry her to make things right.

Yes. At the time this was written (which was several thousands of years ago) marrying the person you raped was a step towards a moral awakening and moral responsibility. Because back then, women who were raped were considered impure and were pretty much either left for the wolves or killed.

The Old Testament needs to be taken in the context of what it meant for the people of the time. It represents a moral awakening. This does not mean rape is or ever was objectively good.

(April 22, 2018 at 6:41 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That's what I meant.

If I say "Rape is immoral, and those who think rape is moral are incorrect," I'm saying that morality is objective.

I don't think it is logical for an atheist to believe morality is objective. This does not mean I don't think atheists can be moral.

Who said anything about moral objectivity? Red herring is not my favorite fish!

Would you say it would make sense to say that morality is subjectively correct/incorrect? Surely incorrect/correct implies objective?

(April 22, 2018 at 6:41 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That's what I meant.

If I say "Rape is immoral, and those who think rape is moral are incorrect," I'm saying that morality is objective.

I don't think it is logical for an atheist to believe morality is objective. This does not mean I don't think atheists can be moral.

Who said anything about moral objectivity? Red herring is not my favorite fish!

Sorry. I was unsure of what this wager entailed.

(April 22, 2018 at 6:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes. At the time this was written (which was several thousands of years ago) marrying the person you raped was a step towards a moral awakening and moral responsibility. Because back then, women who were raped were considered impure and were pretty much either left for the wolves or killed.

Is there historical evidence backing that? That the only alternative back then to marrying a man you raped is being left to the wolves and killed?

Quote:The Old Testament needs to be taken in the context of what it meant for the people of the time. It represents a moral awakening. This does not mean rape is or ever was objectively good.

Well, whether things really were quite that bad then (perhaps the Old Testament is an example of the worst of the time?)... we may disagree on that.

But I agree, rape has never been objectively good. And rape is objectively wrong.