Can an atheist be a feminist?
So if an atheist objects to rape and abuse of women, then he's merely going against his own evolutionary instinct, which would imply he really isn't an atheist and realizes that there's a higher objective standard of truth than his mere rapacious animal impulses.
For the record many modern notions of women's rights herald from the codes of chivalry of organizations such as the nights Templar; while on the other hand one of the most famous atheists Marquis de Sade advocated rape, torture and murder of women and children since he believed as humans were just like any other animal, they shouldn't be above their perverse impulses if it gave them pleasure.
Yes
Side Score: 13
|
No
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
1
point
I don't see why not. Atheists may believe that rape is a evolutionary adaptation, which it very possibly might be, but that doesn't mean that they think it's okay. This is a bit of a naturalistic fallacy- just because something is "natural" or "evolutionary advantageous" does not mean it's okay. In short, yes, because supporting evolution is not supporting rape. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Your entire argument collapses in on itself. You argue that we cannot be feminists because we all believe rape is "right". However, I am an atheist, and I would never even dream of raping someone. Therefore, I, and the countless other atheists who agree, cause your argument to be irrelevant. Have a nice day. Side: Yes
1
point
Then your belief that rape is wrong is based on faith, therefore you are not truly an atheist. If you were truly an atheist then it would be logically incompatible for you to have any problem with rape, murder or torture if it benefited you from a survivalist POV. Chimpanzees also sometimes commit rape, so there's no logical reason you shouldn't rape if it would increase your odds of reproducing, and you knew you would not be caught for it. Side: No
1
point
You have a completely warped view of atheism and evolution. The point of evolution is, quite fittingly, that we EVOLVE. Therefore, we're evolved enough to develop morals. You use the example of Chimpanzees, so I will too. Chimpanzees (and pretty much every other animal) avoids murdering its own. They recognise that as WRONG... yet they do not have religion. Your example also does not work at all. Chimpanzees "also sometimes commit rape"... in other words, not all Chimpanzees always rape. There is a perfectly logical reason why I do not rape or murder or commit otherwise despicable acts, you're just too narrow minded to acknowledge it. It's called having a moral code, which is not based on God. Morals are not dependant on God. Side: Yes
1
point
|
0
points
I don't see how an atheist can logically be a feminist, since atheists view themselves as no different from other animals, from a pure Darwinian perspective it can be evolutionarily advantages to commit rape and abuse women if it enables one to procreate more. So if an atheist objects to rape and abuse of women, then he's merely going against his own evolutionary interest, which would imply he really isn't an atheist and realizes that there's a higher objective standard of truth than his mere rapacious animal impulses. For the record many modern notions of women's rights herald from the codes of chivalry of organizations such as the nights Templar; while on the other hand one of the most famous atheists Marquis de Sade advocated rape, torture and murder of women and children since he believed as humans were just like any other animal, they shouldn't be above their perverse impulses if it gave them pleasure. Side: No
1
point
I'm not seeing how atheism somehow means that you should go along with your evolutionary interest. From what I understand, atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, not the disbelief of morality. Furthermore, just because you don't think there's some higher objective standard of truth doesn't necessarily mean that instead you want to give into animal impulses. Side: Yes
1
point
|