tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post7789533485619503411..comments2023-10-15T08:36:48.841-07:00Comments on A Counter Apologist Blog: Cheering for Jeff LowderA Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-14999595509367446822017-01-12T14:21:05.141-08:002017-01-12T14:21:05.141-08:00I saw the debate, and Lowder could probably have d...I saw the debate, and Lowder could probably have done better to answer Turek's intentionally provocative question, before an audience of laymen, of how atheists can justify believing adult-child sex is "really" wrong (apparently Turek upgraded from his tired out "How can atheists know that Hitler was wrong to massacre the Jews?"). <br /><br />There are many ways to show that the bible-god approves of sex within adult-child marriages, making Lowder's subjective opinion that these unions are immoral, more attractive to the layman audience who would agree and who would also be aghast to find out their bible-god is concerned more to see parts of animals "waved" before Him than in preserving the innocence of a child. Turek's layman audience would also likely characterize forced marriage of a 12 year old girl to an adult man to be "absolutely" immoral, but most scholars agree such marriages were routine in the days of Moses.<br /><br />Atheists do not need absolute morality to answer this question: the fact that we never see pedophilia in the higher mammals or lower-order animals, and the fact that adult-child sex routinely and predictably causes lasting psychological harm is perfectly sufficient to substantiate the opinion that such activity is a violation of nature's intent and therefore sufficiently counterproductive to the natural intent of humanity to thrive and survive to warrant being criminalized. (I disagree with SCOTUS in Kennedy v. Louisiana, and instead approve of Louisiana's prior state law requiring death-penalty for child-rape. It is in no way cruel or unusual).<br />I would use the same argument to criticize the stupidity of having little girls learn pole-dancing, twerking, or that egregious "toddlers and tiaras" nonsense.<br /><br />We don't find children precious because of any "god-pod" in our brain, but solely because we instinctively know they are the future of humanity, therefore, this is entirely sufficient to "explain" why it is that we are "naturally" more horrified to hear that a child was sexually abused, than when we hear about an adult woman being raped. This natural instinct is sufficiently pervasive that we have a scientific basis to assert that those who would take the opposite view (i.e., rape kids if you wish) are nature's rejects. In other words, we have a scientific criteria by which to decide what constitutes "normal", and thus, can justify our morality without any need for absolutes or 'god'.<br /><br />Lowder could have used the bible to show that many things Turek wants people to believe are absolute morals, aren't. For example, because divine orders for child-massacre are in the bible, Turek can never say child-massacre is absolutely immoral. He is forced to agree that, within his own bible-believing world-view, whether it is good or bad to massacre children depends solely on whether God wants you to do it or not...which might be biblically true, but probably wouldn't sit well with most, including average bible believing Christians.barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-79543167000816779652016-09-26T06:00:40.380-07:002016-09-26T06:00:40.380-07:00He's always been pretty clear about the fact t...He's always been pretty clear about the fact that he's not a professional philosopher. <br /><br />Not that I consider being a professional philosopher to be a necessary or sufficient condition to be someone I'd want to see arguing the case for atheism against an apologist. <br /><br />Some professional philosophers are very good at it while others were horribly embarrassing. I'll refrain from naming names though. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-30091785516872588242016-09-21T03:30:51.849-07:002016-09-21T03:30:51.849-07:00This should be a good debate. They are both good d...This should be a good debate. They are both good debaters. Where did you learn Jeff was not a professional philosopher?John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.com