Do any atheists believe the unborn have an inviolable right to life and sex is only for a husband and wife?

Question

Atheists bristle when we question their morality (notwithstanding that the most brutal mass murders in history were committed in the twentieth century by Communist regimes that rejected God as the "opiate of the people").

Here's a test case: As an atheist, can you defend the right of prenatal children to live, and would you restrict sex to marriage? In other words, does your humanist morality actually make any demands for self-sacrifice?

If so, why would you make these or any tough moral choices in a world you believe to be an existential accident?

No, Hitler hated Christianity. Whatever his propaganda, Hitler revealed his actual convictions in Hitler’s Table Talk: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. . . . Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. . . . Christianity is an invention of sick brains. . . . I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie." So add Hitler's murders to the Communist total for over 100 million dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism

The Spanish Inquisition? Maybe 4000 killed over 400 years. That would be 10 a year.

The opiate of the masses comment is from Karl Marx, Pangel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People

So far, I have to appreciate the honest atheists (aside from the historical evasions and expected insults) who prove my point on the morality of atheism. Without God, there are no moral rules, certainly none requiring self-sacrifice as in restricting sex to marriage or sparing the life of prenatal humans). That leaves only personal preferences, which to the extent that they restrict abortion or promiscuity, seem to be vestiges of Judeo-Christian morality.

Answer 1

GOD I love your question!

When I first tackled atheists, they confused the heck out of me with their position of lack of belief based on a lack of evidence to prove God’s existence. At first I felt they actually made sense. But then, like them, I used my critical thinking skills, :D.

In the absence of a moral authority, how is morality decided? Who decides it? What’s it based on?

If someone commit’s a heinous crime, we have laws on the books to punish that. But aren’t those laws first based on a morality established by a higher authority, namely God? If that morality wasn’t there, then which group of people would decide which acts are wrong and which aren’t? What would make their view of things better than yours or mine? Do we go to science? Philosophy? Yet, aren’t those based on human thinking as well, which is only good until something better comes along?

Well, sorry for so many questions, but these are the things that I thought about when pondering the “mechanics” of an atheistic world. By my critical calculating skills, it doesn’t work.

God bless.

Answer 2

Bruce, Great question ! Worth a star !

As a Jesusonian Christian, I now cannot answer. However, way back in my youth, I was a sincere atheist who was looking for the Absolute and the Infinite. Even then, I believed in right and wrong moral behavior, and was more pro-life than pro-death (murder) of unborn baby humans. On the sex issue, I was more liberal back then; but that was before AIDS and many other now more deadly STD's arrived. Now those who choose to be immoral in sex are paying a great cost; and this cost will certainly increase. Only the Godly will survive here in the future decades.

Peace and progress,
Brother Dave, a Jesusonian Christian Truthist
http://www.PureChristians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
Come and share !

Answer 3

*bristles*

1. Murderous regimes are so because they are totalitarian, not because of the religious affiliation of their leaders. However, religion often provides the ideological basis of totalitarian ideas: the antisemitism of mid 20th century Europe did not start with Hitler (and has nothing to do with Darwin except for the way science was misused to justify it) - it was a centuries old tradition with its origins in the split between Christianity and its Jewish parent. Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Daniel Goldhagen if you want to get away from the silly and banal arguments about whether Hitler was or wasn't a Catholic.

2. Your concept of a "prenatal child" redefines a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo and a fetus as something else. A potential child is not the same thing as an actual child. I am a potential corpse: I'd prefer not to be treated as one until I actually enter that state.

3. No, I would not restrict sex to marriage. There are certainly moral choices to be made around sexuality, but the presence or absence of a marriage certificate is not a reliable indicator of whether a sexual act is, or is not, abusive. While no one can be completely selfish sexually and remain moral, conspicuous sacrifices do not always have genuinely moral bases: they are often a cover for sexual inadequacy and unresolved internal conflicts. Preaching particular restrictions to others that have no basis in enhancing human happiness is a dead giveaway of this. This is true not only on an individual level, but on an institutional one, too.

4. Moral choices have always had their basis in how to enhance the happiness of societies (or more accurately, those groups with power in those societies). Framing such precepts as coming from a supernatural being was a traditional way of establishing their validity when religion and superstition were rife, but in fact moral axioms have always ultimately come from human interests and experiences, and their propogation has been a political, not spiritual, exercise. Your fears that without God, morality disappears are unfounded. In fact, a moral system based entirely on belief in a superparent (God or his claimed representatives) who punishes and rewards is childish, often abusive, theologically suspect, and in direct conflict with the actual moral experience of mature adults (at least of the atheist kind).

Humanism in my view is not the absence of morality: it is the foundation for a vastly superior morality to that of traditional authoritarian religious (and political) systems. And back to the first point, it is the blind and unquestioning acceptance of authority and the myths expounded by such "authorities" that form the basis of much of the worst of totalitarian evil and bigotry. These are the real moral questions, not whether particular ways consenting grown ups choose to bump bits have the impramateur of self appointed "authorities". Read some Hannah Arendt, such as "Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil".

Answer 4

As a Christian, I don't qualify to answer. But judging from the unanimous vote of the atheists here, the answer is no.

Either right and wrong is the universal law of God, or it is simply a self-report of people. If there were no God, we would only have the changing wishes of the talking animals who are the accidental products products of evolution.

CDF

Answer 5

properly, i'm no longer married, yet I do have a boyfriend. we don't swear *at* one yet another, yet have in one yet another's presence. i'm a hockey fan; I drop f-bombs. confident atheists have faith in getting married. There are each and every variety of legal and tax implications, you recognize. Marriage is, first and maximum powerful, a legal employer. Atheists get married in the previous a decide and doubtless their families and friends. So do believers. My boyfriend and that i stay aside, yet we appreciate doing issues mutually, consisting of a few trip. My only baby is a cat; i do no longer think of i visit have the skill to instill any morals in her. yet she is an exceptionally candy and affectionate kitty. no one "believes in" abortion; lots of human beings have faith that's a woman's innovations-blowing to come lower back to a decision whilst and if she turns right into a mom. lots of human beings even have faith in combating undesirable pregnancies in the 1st place. i'm satisfied that's a decision i've got in no way had to make. If I had a daughter, i could tell her that if she intends to work together in sexual intercourse she could desire to guard herself; if I had a son, i could tell him an identical ingredient.

Answer 6

First there are just as many brutal acts of mass murder from religious folks like yourself as there are from non-religious. dont ask loaded questions it makes you look like a prick
second marriage in and of itself was not accepted in the church in early times because it was solely for the purpose of sex which was considered dirty. it was not until a little bit later that it began to be accepted into the churches and became an important thing. Then the importance of marriage greatly declined in itself. Look at marriages today. the majority end in divorce. Marriage is taken too lightly to people today because it is so much easier to get out of them now.
Sex before marriage I have no problem with. I do not think it is morally wrong as long as it is two consenting adults and they take precautions if they do not want a child.
I do not support late term abortions. and I do not support Abortion as a form of birth control because someone didnt want to wear a condom. but I feel that it is not my choice as a man whether or not there should be an abortion. If I made the choice to have sex without protection and I got a girl pregnant then I must face the consequences. If she does not want the baby and chooses to abort it (which I would not try to persuade her either way because its her choice) then I will support her in it. If she chooses to have the child than that leaves me with 2 choices. Marry her and be with her or pay child support. Simple as that. We wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about the argument over abortion if some Christians would get off their horse about birth control. If a kid is taught nothing but abstinence that is not going to stop him from having sex but it is almost surely going to ensure that when he does he will not wear a condom and more likely than not he will end up getting the girl pregnant. Who is to blame for all the abortions? you can't honestly tell me you want to blame it on those that teach their children safe sex?

Answer 7

Bruce: great question!
here's my opinion: atheism is like protestantism it all depends on their own personal interpretation. utterly illogical say i

Danny H - my favourite R&S person *waves excitedly*

you may have many questions there but they are certainly all are valid questions. i too struggle to understand why atheists cant see the evidence of God's existence. most atheists according to the answers ive been given on R&S were themself once believers and claim "intellect and logical thinking" as the reason for them "seeing the light" so to speak. poor things...they choose not to believe in a Loving and Just God despite so much evidence because they trust only their own reseach (and the research of other atheists) whilst distainfully disregarding the intellect of believers.

God bless

Answer 8

Oh; a rant by a 'he who is without sin' hypocrite.

Listen kid, Communism is like a religion.
It had a doctrine; it was followed; The State was the 'god'.
Contrary to your ignorance the ONLY thing uniting atheists is the non-belief in an Invisible Sky Critter.
NO ONE has ever been murdered in the name of atheism - millions have been murdered in the name of all sorts of Invisible Sky Critters but mostly 'god' and 'allah'.
There's little difference between the pair of you.

As to the rest of your stuff - once people are born they have rights.

I'd never restrict sex to marriage - too many people would miss out and THAT would cause a sharp increase in Rapes and Assaults ... but your tiny 'he who is without sin' mind couldn't grasp that logic, could it?

I live very happily in a society and I obey the rules because it keeps me safe cos others obey them too.
I like living this ONE life of mine.

The problem with 'he who is without sin' people like you is that you come off as pretentious and sanctimonious and do more for atheism than you do for your particular death cult.

Oh; I come here for the comedy and fundies do comedy best.
Thank YOU! for contributing to my mirth.
.

Answer 9

I always thought the holocaust was brutal. Hitler was christian (whether you like it or not)...

As for dictating what people do in their personal lives no. If they are not hurting anyone, and it occurs between two consenting adults, I don't see why I should care or interfere.

As for abortion, I don't believe in late-term abortion, and I don't believe in using abortion as birth control. If you don't want children, practice safe sex, or abstinence.

But I am flexible, I find the laws in my country governing abortion to be quite adequate, and I am happy with the way it is done now.

Answer 10

you ought to brush up on your history a bit.....sure the communist regimes were known for brutal mass murders, so was the christian faith during the crusades, inquisition and holocaust.....as far as rights of those that're unborn, I stand by the pro-choice rules, it's the woman's body, let the individual woman decide if she wants to carry a child to term, and no matter what, you'll never be able to restrict sex to marriage, matter of fact the whole concept of marriage is rooted in religious practices, which makes it doubly irrelevant....