Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:01:46 â„– 13984456 [Quote]
>>13984363 where are the "What if" arguments nigga
>>13984374 ??? what does that have to do with "not being able to prove rape is bad outside the bible"?? like christianity, they believe that both the intention and the action are important
https://lifeworthliving.yale.edu/resources/the-bhagavad-gita-on-intentions https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2016:7&version=NIV Chuck 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:02:24 â„– 13984461 [Quote]
>13984429 NLT is different i think, i use it because it translates everything to modern coherent english however, i wanna get a bible that is directly translated from ancient hebrew one day
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:02:58 â„– 13984468 [Quote]
I'm not reading allat
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:04:32 â„– 13984478 [Quote]
>>13984363 also athiests do have reasons to explain why. humans developed compassion because compassion is a necessary skill to live together, and living together is the optimal way to live because the value of the support outweighs the sacrifice of needing to feed another. and since rape deeply damages the psyche of another, the subconscious compassion of a human sends the signal that the action is wrong.
Chudbob 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:04:54 â„– 13984480 [Quote]
>>13984456 suppose you do something, completely innoffensive to someone, and they take it to heart, like, they HATE you now. Whos to say whos invalid here
will you reincarnate as a peice of dung because someone got REALLY mad at you?
Hinduism has no CONCRETE ROCK SOLID set of rules like the bible has, hence why i said it has holes in it
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:05:36 â„– 13984489 [Quote]
>>13984478 humans developed physcopathy aswell
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:06:40 â„– 13984498 [Quote]
>>13984489 thats a mutation caused by environmental factors + genetics, not the rule.
Punkjak 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:07:30 â„– 13984508 [Quote]
>>13984498 So if everyone was a physcopath than being an empathetic person would be considered crazy,
its not good enough
Marge 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:07:56 â„– 13984511 [Quote]
>>13984480 being hateful is a vice and so it is negative karma
Platejak 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:09:25 â„– 13984525 [Quote]
>>13984508 still, the question asked why "we know in our hearts that bad things are bad", and i answered with compassion that was evolved over thousands of years
it answers the question
Rupturejak 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:09:33 â„– 13984526 [Quote]
>>13984263 ok, I will admit that morality is not absolute. I don't know if your still in this thread but have a good day
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:11:32 â„– 13984555 [Quote]
>>13984288 thank you for answering the question
i still dont understand it, but atleast its an answer
Norwegian 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:15:25 â„– 13984592 [Quote]
also: why is the argument shifting from>all morality comes from the bible (which has been disproven multiple times) >you can not have objective morality with atheism (which is a hotly debated topic that philosophers have been thinking of for thousands of years)
SLF 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:16:12 â„– 13984601 [Quote]
>>13984525 evolution also created said rapists and tyrannical leaders that inact suffering upon individuals
>but god created rapists too! he created the ability to sin which we chose out of our own volition, we are by nature bad, not good.
faith in christ is when bad things happen and we still love him.
all goodness comes from god not from man or a majority agreement or the law, but from god
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:17:23 â„– 13984615 [Quote]
>>13984592 >Why are you arguing to prove your point? R u silly?
Goopjak 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:18:41 â„– 13984631 [Quote]
>>13984615 the 2 arguments are different?
that reppey was a way to say the moving the goalposts fallacy was in play here
Fartycuck 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:21:46 â„– 13984659 [Quote]
>>13984601 isnt this just the same thing
those rapists and tyrannical leaders were afflicted with having mental illnesses, like being a psychopath, sociopath, and other shit
thats genetics and environmental factors
and it STILL doesnt disprove the point that humans feel bad about rape because they evolved compassion over many years because they had to live in societies together and compassion is a skill needed to live in those said societies
Massjak 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:23:25 â„– 13984669 [Quote]
>>13984647 Actually its because we are more predisposed to fulfilling promises and forming high-trust communities. The White man by nature does not deceive, and rape is an act of deception.
Raisinskin 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:23:56 â„– 13984674 [Quote]
>>13984659 >were afflicted with having mental illnesses Says who? If suppressing compassion personally benefits you why shouldn't you do it, wouldn't acting compassionate when its against your best interest be mentally ill instead
Unknown 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:27:23 â„– 13984699 [Quote]
>>13984659 the point being debunked here is that
>Atheists cant explain why humans KNOW bad things are bad and i debunk this point by explaining how bad things that involve the harm of another person will trigger the subconscious need for humans to feel compassion and empathy (something i forgot to bring up), and compassion and empathy were both evolved by living in societies and living in societies optimal way of living blah blah blah.
you attempted to debunk this debunk by saying that evolution also created psychopaths, who cant feel empathy or compassion
i debunked this debunk by saying that they are exceptions created from bad genetics and environmental factors, and the vast majority of humans "KNOW" that bad things are bad
you then attempted to debunk this debunk by saying that evolution also created rapists and tyrannical rulers, which was already debunked in the first point. unless you are trying to say that rapists feel bad for raping, which can be explained by of course their subconscious empathy, which is overpowered by their need to rape (Which can be caused by a lot of things).
Gigafly 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:30:58 â„– 13984732 [Quote]
>>13984674 compassion and empathy are key to living in societies. the personal gain in the short term were never worth the consequences in the long run
if you, a member of a tribe, killed every other member in the tribe to get the foodstocks (which can be attributed to not b eing shackled by compassion and empathy), you will not be able to breed and will be forced to find another tribe to get into
if you let one woman live you would have someone to breed with, but the tribe would reproduce at a much slower rate and have less hands to work with, which would only leave food supply for you and your raped girl, and then incest between your children would make the children barely able to sustain themselves over generations, and your selfishness would've wiped out your bloodline at some point
Nophono 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:31:07 â„– 13984735 [Quote]
>>13984718 No need to source when you know the facts
Billy 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:35:15 â„– 13984793 [Quote]
>>13984754 nigga how was that a strawman argument
you brought up rapists (who supress compassion to get pleasure in satisfaction, which is selfish), tyrannical leaders (Wwho supress compassion to get [whatever goal they want, i dont touch on this because this one is more abstract than rapists]) which falls into the same point i just made. the raping will lead to more damaged people than your temporary pleasure
Lennonjak 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:36:12 â„– 13984800 [Quote]
I can prove that rape is bad. Your basic moral choice is whether to be or not to be, to continue living or to die. If you choose to continue living, then that means that your happiness is your basic moral value, since you would not choose to continue living if nothing in life made you happy. Now, given that you're a human being, i.e. a rational animal according to Aristotle's famous definition, your happiness depends on whether you act rationally or not. Therefore, if you decide to continue living, you must act rationally. We now have to deduce a rational legal principle. We can do so through argumentum e contrario: we list all possible legal principles, and by excluding the irrational ones, only the rational legal principle that we're looking for remains. Legal analysis requires precise definitions, but this is already a wall of text so I won't define aggression here. By using aggression as our criterion, the main legal principles are: 1 - the law of the jungle (aggression is not a crime) 2 - mixed law (aggression is a crime only in certain cases) 3 - the non-aggression principle (aggression is always a crime). The law of the jungle is irrational because it doesn't outlaw any action: it's like saying that irrational actions do not exist, which is obviously false. Mixed law systems are irrational because a rational principle is by definition universal, i.e. any rational being should be able to accept it (put more simply, I-can-hit-you-but-you-can't-hit-me ethics cannot be justified). Therefore, only the non-aggression principle remains. Rape is a form of aggression. Aggression is a crime. Therefore, rape is a crime.
Blartjak 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:39:12 â„– 13984825 [Quote]
>>13984754 >>13984793 >the christcuck arguments are getting shorter and the reddit atheist arguments are getting longer geg
Bapepe 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:40:14 â„– 13984830 [Quote]
Rape is bad because it causes unnecessary harm
Fingerboy 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:41:11 â„– 13984840 [Quote]
>>13984793 I brought up how people should supress empathy specifically when its beneficial to them and you presented some extreme scenario where suppressing empathy is explicitly non-beneficial. Why shouldn't I screw someone over to get a better paying job or want to keep niggers out of my country so I don't get taxed more for their welfare even if the opposite is more empathetic.
>>13984825 I'm not a christcuck doe I'm just saying compassion is overrated
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:44:16 â„– 13984867 [Quote]
>>13984840 the extreme scenario is supposed to be representative of how when supressing compassion to screw over someone else resulted in worse results overall, thus why it was evolved in the first place
compassion and empathy does have their flaws, but it was evolution's simplest and best way to not make humans kill eachother over food in a tribe when they could partion it out and let everyone live
Meximutt 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:46:21 â„– 13984888 [Quote]
>>13983277 (OP) I hate atheistcucks because they're immoral but this isnt true, if your moral theory is based off utilitarianism then rape is bad because its a net negative on happiness, but if you believe in utilitarianism like most atheistcucks do you probably also support euthanasia and all this other shit o algo
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:48:14 â„– 13984909 [Quote]
>>13984867 i admit i could've worded the argument to be showing more how it was evolved in the sense of "its not a perfect system, but it was evolved this way because" but its 4:45 pm and i'm honestly tired of arguing with christcucks when no matter who "wins" the debate neither of us will change our opinion and the side that "lost" will forget/ignore what the other side said because it's more convenient to forget/ignore a lost debate than to reformat all of your beliefs and the one that "won" will only come out hating the other side more
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:48:58 â„– 13984919 [Quote]
>>13984888 utilitarianism is gay and it always leads to killing every human ever stop endless suffering
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:50:40 â„– 13984944 [Quote]
>>13984867 Okay and? I said supressing compassion is fine when its personally beneficial i.e. results in better overall results for you, then you made a scenario where the opposite happens and act like it invalidates my point.
>compassion and empathy does have their flaws Then suppressing it in certain scenarios can be seen as counteracting those flaws
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:53:17 â„– 13984970 [Quote]
>>13984944 holy shit i misunderstood that argument badly
yeah i concede there
i should go to sleep
Chud 11/15/25 (Sat) 20:58:43 â„– 13985020 [Quote]
>>13984919 tsmt one of my sorta friends (moreso a friend of a friend) is a self proclaimed utilitarian atheist and he is the most insurable person I've ever met, its like he is every redditer rolled into one but it is fun to ragebait him though because his hyperautism will lead him to screaming about snca in a crowded room because someone disagreed with him
Thougher 11/15/25 (Sat) 21:07:15 â„– 13985108 [Quote]
>>13984275 Because we are arguing about said book and if you don't know the book there is no use for debate in this situation. though
Unknown 11/15/25 (Sat) 21:08:37 â„– 13985128 [Quote]
>>13984800 >Your basic moral choice is whether to be or not to be, to continue living or to die. If you choose to continue living, then that means that your happiness is your basic moral value, since you would not choose to continue living if nothing in life made you happy What if you keep living and arent happy?