Cats have moral agency?

Sounds like you’ve been reading Farenheit 451.

Wait a sec... I thought you disagreed! Didn't you say in another thread (in response to chezlaw in fact), that ridicule should only match the severity of the dellusion?

We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism?

No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her.

Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

Ahh. So you use your own morality to form an opinion on what is moral from the "good book", then... Er, isn't the good book supposed to be the source of our morals again?

Anoint me King, Stat, and I will gladly judge and rule over my people.

That's Leviticus, dude. This discussion shouldn't be limited to Islam, which has historically been relatively peaceful. I know that there are some verses in the Koran that, taken literally, are pretty damning. But I don't want to discuss them, as I've never read the Koran and am ill-equipped to deal with arguments of context/etc.

But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?

Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from!

Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent?

The good ol’ days. Now we have political correctness.

Anyway, my wife owns me and no one is coming to my rescue.

The real victim here is the family of the young girl, and her husband/ future husband. That she was defiled makes her unfit for marriage, and if anyone has a right to moral outrage it is her family. She has disgraced her family and Muhamed, blessed be his name, and peace to those who hear it. These young men who have been tempted by her, have also be caused harm. For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons.

The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God.

LOL!! But seriously... How do you reconcile your current beliefs with such a passage? How do you think, "Well, that's BS, but this part is not,"?

Yeah, censorship is cool. That's what I'm always saying.

My favorite kind of demons. Uh, not that I traffic with them. All that whipped cream in my fridge is for, um, unrelated purposes.

Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar...

It's the New Covenant. See, it used to be that murder and rape and stuff were cool. But God changed his mind. And if those morons are dumb enough to take God at his word? Well, gee. They should know that God changed his mind. Hope they enjoy the eternal barbecue. Along with us hedonistic devils with the good looks, right?

Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard.

Does that answer your question?

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "
The Book of Women 4.34
Translated by A. Yusufali

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.... "
The Book of Light 24:31
A. Yusufali

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)."
The Book of Women 4:15
M.M. Pickthall

Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran?

And when they get stuck they compare this version of an absolute standard to their own morality? No it doesnt answer the question, we're right back at the start.

Are you implying he is not up to the task of opining on the Bible? What specifically do you take issue with?

Not having read the Koran implies not having read the Bible now? The Christians are in trouble - then again, they never pay much attention anyhow. "Midianites? I've never heard of those." "Have you read the Bible?" "A bunch of times! It guides my life."

The Jesus part. (He obviously is well versed in the Bible, though.)

I guess I don’t understand the question. Is someone giving me authority to decide what is moral?

I can read some reference material and interpret it. I then have an opinion on what it means. That becomes my opinion.

If that reference material is indeed a reference for Absolute Morality, then how I interpret it does not change AM.

I can be right or wrong in my interpretation. To say that my morality is right or wrong is not really accurate. I don’t “have” morality.

Lestat -

I agree with you. The error is qualitative: objectifying women as sexual commodities that, once used, become worthless. This point of departure is the problem; some take it closer to its logical conclusions than others, but all share the same fundamental error.

Also, as Peter666 would point out, it makes perfect sense for a theocracy to take extreme punitive measures against sexual impropriety. Because their religion teaches that God thinks fornication is basis for eternal torture; aren't they really doing women a favor by veiling them from head to toe and locking them safely away?

I've only skimmed this thread, but I agree with everything Lestat has said.

This stuff is ridiculous, and I can't believe how few the people are that realize even a faction of the extent to which religion causes problems like these.

Freedom of religion is one thing when books are read and prayers are said, but when it comes to having the right to stone women over what some 1500 year old book said is just ridiculous.