What do atheist think about rape?

[SSY]

Atheists make up abot 5% of the population of the US but only occupy 0.3% of its prisons.  What does this tell you about morality and God?  It tells me they are mutually exclusive.

Well, to be fair, it could mean a number of things, atheists tend to be more intelligent, which leads to affluence and lower crime rates, atheists may be better at committing crimes so as not to get caught, there may be bias against convicting/arresting atheists, atheists may get shorter jail spells or be released earlier etc. Statistics always bear looking into, while I certainly agree that  belief in god does not infuse one with a strong moral sense, I don't think your argument stands as it is.

[LoneMateria]

Atheists make up abot 5% of the population of the US but only occupy 0.3% of its prisons.  What does this tell you about morality and God?  It tells me they are mutually exclusive.

Well, to be fair, it could mean a number of things, atheists tend to be more intelligent, which leads to affluence and lower crime rates, atheists may be better at committing crimes so as not to get caught, there may be bias against convicting/arresting atheists, atheists may get shorter jail spells or be released earlier etc. Statistics always bear looking into, while I certainly agree that  belief in god does not infuse one with a strong moral sense, I don't think your argument stands as it is.

Devil's advocate?  If atheists depict their portrayal by Christians then being "immoral and evil" then we should make up at significant portion of our penal system.  If the Christians view depicts reality then almost no Christians would be in prison (because they are more moral) and an overwhelming number of non-Christians should be in them (assuming of course it is a fair and unbiased system).  We shouldn't have the problem of over crowded prisons because there shouldn't be but a handful of Christians in prison.  We shouldn't have the Christian population in prison make up the overwhelming majority of convicted criminals.  But we do.  There may be slight variations, atheists may be better at not being caught in their crimes, but then again how many criminals think they won't get caught?  How many would have to get away with their crimes to make up for that big difference?  Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation (after all if we were having this conversation 50 years ago having more black people in jail my not mean that black people cause more crimes) however when a Christian makes the claim that Christians are more moral then atheists then there should be some relevant statistic to prove it. There is not.

***EDIT***

I was gonna add this but I forgot until after I hit submit.  To be as fair as I possibly can be, given the circumstance, there is a link with poverty level and criminal activity.  The overwhelming majority of poverty stricken Americans happen to be very religious.  So that could possibly make up for some of the numbers.  But certainly not all of it because there is such an overwhelming majority (something around 80%) of the prison population is Christian.  But whatever I guess the common retort is, "Well they aren't true Christians".  So arguing this against a Christian would probably be pointless.

[tkd]

Well, being an atheist and thus not being told what I'm allowed to believe, MY answer is I think it's horrible and not punished nearly as severely as it should be. It is so repugnant and hurtful that I think serial rapists should be castrated. No lengthy trial, no appeals, just cut that shit off. But that's just me since I can only speak for myself.

However, based on the number of cultures that do not prosecute rape, or at the least encourage it during war-type situations, I wouldn't say it's ALWAYS considered immoral. Also it would appear that the rapists doing it don't consider it all that wrong. Given the percentages of known (jailed) atheist rapists vs. known theist rapists, it would seem that you should be asking how theists feel about rape, since a higher percentage of them seem to do it. I'm curious too because as far as I know, they're told it's wrong, yet obviously, there's a lot of rapin' goin' on.

I also don't think it necessarily would be in the best interest of survival of the species as I think female orgasm aids conception and rape pretty much prevents that. I'm not saying you can't get pregnant from a rape, obviously you can, but if would seem the number of conceptions would be higher with consensual sex than rape.

I think humans have evolved to think things that cause pain are bad and speaking from experience, rape is pretty painful. Even IF it wasn't physically painful, emotionally it is, so still = pain. While animals don't like pain either, they appear to lack the higher conscience that we have that tells us rape = pain = wrong. So maybe you've seen male ducks raping a female, but I doubt they have the same thought process.

Well, that's what I think about it.

[Sophus]

Umm... is someone pushing for the legalization of rape or something? I don't understand.  

Now a more interesting topic would be:

What do you think of the way America's system for classifying sex offenders? Rape, to me, is one where the person should be required to register. But I also think one size does not fit all and there are some people who are put through hell for just silly things that they then must identify as a sex offender for.

[AlP]

What do you think of the way America's system for classifying sex offenders? Rape, to me, is one where the person should be required to register. But I also think one size does not fit all and there are some people who are put through hell for just silly things that they then must identify as a sex offender for.

Such as?

[Ihateusernames]

Atheists make up abot 5% of the population of the US but only occupy 0.3% of its prisons.  What does this tell you about morality and God?  It tells me they are mutually exclusive.

Well, to be fair, it could mean a number of things, atheists tend to be more intelligent, which leads to affluence and lower crime rates, atheists may be better at committing crimes so as not to get caught, there may be bias against convicting/arresting atheists, atheists may get shorter jail spells or be released earlier etc. Statistics always bear looking into, while I certainly agree that  belief in god does not infuse one with a strong moral sense, I don't think your argument stands as it is.

Devil's advocate?  If atheists depict their portrayal by Christians then being "immoral and evil" then we should make up at significant portion of our penal system.  If the Christians view depicts reality then almost no Christians would be in prison (because they are more moral) and an overwhelming number of non-Christians should be in them (assuming of course it is a fair and unbiased system).  We shouldn't have the problem of over crowded prisons because there shouldn't be but a handful of Christians in prison.  We shouldn't have the Christian population in prison make up the overwhelming majority of convicted criminals.  But we do.  There may be slight variations, atheists may be better at not being caught in their crimes, but then again how many criminals think they won't get caught?  How many would have to get away with their crimes to make up for that big difference?  Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation (after all if we were having this conversation 50 years ago having more black people in jail my not mean that black people cause more crimes) however when a Christian makes the claim that Christians are more moral then atheists then there should be some relevant statistic to prove it. There is not.

***EDIT***

I was gonna add this but I forgot until after I hit submit.  To be as fair as I possibly can be, given the circumstance, there is a link with poverty level and criminal activity.  The overwhelming majority of poverty stricken Americans happen to be very religious.  So that could possibly make up for some of the numbers.  But certainly not all of it because there is such an overwhelming majority (something around 80%) of the prison population is Christian.  But whatever I guess the common retort is, "Well they aren't true Christians".  So arguing this against a Christian would probably be pointless.

Hey now, *I* am the devil's advocate of HAF! grrr! haven't you read the other thread?

But honestly, you really are straw-manning "Christian" arguments.  I don't really blame you, though, because if you don't really put the effort into listening to the more intellectual Christians (and since you seem to disregard anything a christian says as stupid, I doubt you are actually reading any of the more intellectual christian literature, pardon my frankness and possible mistake), and instead listen to all the trolls (rather retarded people, honestly) what you present *is* what "christians" normally say.

The more eloquent Christian's argument follows more along the lines of the theistic morality vs ethical nihilism debate.  They don't state that the atheist is necessarily "immoral" because of their beliefs, they state that if you accept the atheist's assumptions (there is no god, or there most probably isn't, either way) it leads to ethical nihilism which as I'm sure you know disregards the notion of morality in general.  Its not that the atheist IS immoral, its that the atheist has no concept of morality. The thoughtful Christian will obviously admit that if an atheist's personal desire is in line with what society generally considers "moral" then obviously the atheist can be as moral as the next person.  However, the thoughtful atheist also has to admit that if the atheist's personal desire is totally out of line of what society generally considers "moral" they have no philosophically binding reason (negating legal punishment as that is possibly  avoidable) to not act on those desires.

Also something of note, if I was a Christian and I came in here and said "Atheists are immoral!" that statement by itself also doesn't necessarily say that I am assuming Christians act in a moral way. (although most trolls do, that's irrelevant to my point  )  That would be reading something into the statement that wasn't actually said. The bible depicts Christians acting in very immoral ways, while still retaining their "true christian-ness" status and the entire attempted point of the bible (imo) is that moral 'perfection' isn't possible, so there needs to be something to help the morally 'imperfect' into 'perfection'.

Anyway this is a quickly-written long-winded way of saying the whole "Christians say atheists are immoral!" argument is almost as straw-man-y as a christian actually saying atheists are immoral!

So, regarding the jail population's religious status... I'd just like to point out that in general people in jail tend to not be philosophically or theologically inclined as they are stupid (I understand this is a generalization, but seriously...).  That being said, I think we can all agree that being "religious" is considered a step in the right direction by our legal system, even if we think that this shouldn't be the case.  People in jail's primary (and I'd say extremely focused on) goal is getting out/getting parole/and getting good behavior benefits, not think deeply about issues like morality or religion.  If claiming atheism was dangled as a carrot in front of people in jail's face like being religious currently is, the population of atheists in jail would drastically jump into the majority I'd wager. Isn't prison just socially sanctioned torture in a way? people will say anything to get out of torture ; )

-Ihateusernames

PS: Why am I posting in this thread... I had hoped it would die a slow and painful death.. ugh.

[juliec0211]

As for the first question.  Are you a complete nutball?  Atheists think rape is wrong because it is IMMORAL TO FORCE ANOTHER PERSON TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL.  It is WRONG to force yourself on anyone because it HURTS the other person.  I don't need a holy book or a 900-foot diety to tell me not to be a shit to other people.  I will use small words:  I feel sad when I do bad things and I get an owie when people do bad things to me....I remember the owie, so I don't want to make other people have owies.  It's really not a difficult concept.

As for your suggestion of rape as a means of procreation: really?  Is RAPE REALLY the best way to go about making new little humans?  No?  I didn't think so.  This idea is idiocy.

As for being an animal.  I don't think it is even a question.  We are.  And men that rape women are proof that we will have some evolving to do.

[Sophus]

Such as?

I remember reading about a guy who at the age of ten found some of his parents videos, invited some of his friends over and one thing led to another. He then had to register every year until he had finally had enough, took it to court and won. There's a large number of offenders who really don't pose a great threat to society. Especially nothing like rapists. It's a bit ridiculous to lump them all together (I'm aware they have three levels but they all do a lot of damage to their lives). Don't get me wrong, it's a system we need but we need to be careful about who we label.

[AlP]

I remember reading about a guy who at the age of ten found some of his parents videos, invited some of his friends over and one thing led to another. He then had to register every year until he had finally had enough, took it to court and won. There's a large number of offenders who really don't pose a great threat to society. Especially nothing like rapists. It's a bit ridiculous to lump them all together (I'm aware they have three levels but they all do a lot of damage to their lives). Don't get me wrong, it's a system we need but we need to be careful about who we label.

Being labelled as a sex offender in the case above seems inappropriate. I question this forced registration of sex offenders altogether. If they have been convicted of a crime then they will have a criminal record. Why don't released murderers have to register every year? If you're going to force people to register, I think do it consistently. Maybe all violent criminals have to register.

[Sophus]

Yeah, I'd much rather know if a murderer just moved down the street than a sex offender.

[LoneMateria]

Hey now, *I* am the devil's advocate of HAF! grrr! haven't you read the other thread?

But honestly, you really are straw-manning "Christian" arguments.  I don't really blame you, though, because if you don't really put the effort into listening to the more intellectual Christians (and since you seem to disregard anything a christian says as stupid, I doubt you are actually reading any of the more intellectual christian literature, pardon my frankness and possible mistake), and instead listen to all the trolls (rather retarded people, honestly) what you present *is* what "christians" normally say.

The more eloquent Christian's argument follows more along the lines of the theistic morality vs ethical nihilism debate.  They don't state that the atheist is necessarily "immoral" because of their beliefs, they state that if you accept the atheist's assumptions (there is no god, or there most probably isn't, either way) it leads to ethical nihilism which as I'm sure you know disregards the notion of morality in general.  Its not that the atheist IS immoral, its that the atheist has no concept of morality. The thoughtful Christian will obviously admit that if an atheist's personal desire is in line with what society generally considers "moral" then obviously the atheist can be as moral as the next person.  However, the thoughtful atheist also has to admit that if the atheist's personal desire is totally out of line of what society generally considers "moral" they have no philosophically binding reason (negating legal punishment as that is possibly  avoidable) to not act on those desires.

Also something of note, if I was a Christian and I came in here and said "Atheists are immoral!" that statement by itself also doesn't necessarily say that I am assuming Christians act in a moral way. (although most trolls do, that's irrelevant to my point  )  That would be reading something into the statement that wasn't actually said. The bible depicts Christians acting in very immoral ways, while still retaining their "true christian-ness" status and the entire attempted point of the bible (imo) is that moral 'perfection' isn't possible, so there needs to be something to help the morally 'imperfect' into 'perfection'.

Anyway this is a quickly-written long-winded way of saying the whole "Christians say atheists are immoral!" argument is almost as straw-man-y as a christian actually saying atheists are immoral!

So, regarding the jail population's religious status... I'd just like to point out that in general people in jail tend to not be philosophically or theologically inclined as they are stupid (I understand this is a generalization, but seriously...).  That being said, I think we can all agree that being "religious" is considered a step in the right direction by our legal system, even if we think that this shouldn't be the case.  People in jail's primary (and I'd say extremely focused on) goal is getting out/getting parole/and getting good behavior benefits, not think deeply about issues like morality or religion.  If claiming atheism was dangled as a carrot in front of people in jail's face like being religious currently is, the population of atheists in jail would drastically jump into the majority I'd wager. Isn't prison just socially sanctioned torture in a way? people will say anything to get out of torture ; )

-Ihateusernames

PS: Why am I posting in this thread... I had hoped it would die a slow and painful death.. ugh.

^_^ if i'm confusing the minority for the majority I apologize.  I live in the bible belt so the argument i'm refuting is one that i hear the Southern Baptists in the area make frequently.    Just because you live in a area where there are more rational Christians doesn't mean we are all that fortunate.  If most Christians were like the ones you seem to be describing i'd have next to no problem with religion.  The thing is 1/3 of our population classifies themselves as evangelical christians.  They take the word of the bible as literal and true.  They are the ones who claim atheists are immoral, and enjoy quoting psalms to "support" their view point.

I don't exactly know how i'm misrepresenting that situation and the claim that these people make.  Can you please explain it to me ^_^?

[Kylyssa]

What do you think of the way America's system for classifying sex offenders? Rape, to me, is one where the person should be required to register. But I also think one size does not fit all and there are some people who are put through hell for just silly things that they then must identify as a sex offender for.

Such as?

Quite often it's consensual sex between teenagers and one of them can get registered as a pedophile.  In one Georgia case a 17 year old girl gave her almost-16-year-old boyfriend a blowjob which his parents found out about.  She was convicted, did ten years of hard time (more time than most actual rapists) and is registered as a pedophile.  I think it was last year that she lost her house because there was a daycare nearby and she can't be within 1000 feet or some such of any place where children congregate.  

Consensual sex between teens in Georgia is particularly hazardous, resulting in some kids getting sent to prison where they are confused with short eyes (actual pedophiles) and get treated as such by other prisoners.  They are often subjected to prison rape and other abuses.  Ten year prison sentences for teenage consensual sex are possible.

The thing that is so entirely fucked up about this is that the average American loses their virginity before age 16!  So the average American has been "raped" or has "raped" according to these rulings - probably including the prosecutors, judges, juries, and the stupid parents that push for prosecution!

As someone who was actually raped I find this phenomenon revolting on many levels. Real rapists are serving shorter sentences.  Real rapists hurt people.  How dare anyone compare a teen getting a blowjob to him being raped?  (Guys, would you, at almost 16, have been emotionally scarred if you asked your girlfriend to give you a blowjob and she did?)  But far worse - rape is about coercive power over another person's sexual being.  So in my opinion, the teen that goes to prison for consensual sex with another teen is being raped by the system.

[Kylyssa]

Oh, and another stupid thing people get registered as sex offenders for is taking a leak outside.  You know, when you think you are all alone and can't find a restroom so you urinate into a bush on the roadside - that makes you a sex offender if you get caught.

[SuperPhunThyme]

to digress a bit (and as my first post )

my question is why we evolved into moral beings, especially if the moral development seems contrary to our purpose. i was assuming that a naturalist's thought must be that we developed these morals... naturally... because it was beneficial to our survival. i chose one instance that seemed out of place in that purpose. for example, why is murder wrong, well obviously if we all kill each other we won't survive. why is good to help people, well because we'll all become stronger. these are morals that would make sense to me.

i believe the human species' set of morals will soon be significantly altered. It has to be sadly, or we as a species will not survive. We've become too moral and helpful to one another (keeping each other alive, for the most part) for our own good, animalistically, and are spreading like a disease across this planet. we're so good at surviving that everything is dying and when that happens it will kill us too. sardonic, huh?

[SuperPhunThyme]

and to Kylyssa i want to say i completely agree. the teen consensual sex thing worried me greatly when i was younger. I was 17 dating a 15 year old girl and was scared to death her parents would send me up the river. its rediculous.