I don't see objective morality changing that. Often enough, rape has been done in the name of objective moralities.
Which would be better, an objective morality that promotes rape or a subjective morality that forbids it?
My fault. When I said "objective morality" I was referring to religious scriptures. In the absence Divine revelations, one could easily rationalize raping another individual.
I rape all I want. I'm against rape.
Your no-true-Scotsman argument is off target anyway. You purport to be claiming that objective morality prevents rape, but then you actually argue that organized society prevents rape. The two have nothing in common.
Again, it was my fault for saying objective morals.
1. Scriptures prohibit fornication/rape
2. Subjective morals can rationalize why/how a man would rape
3. Society is what prevents man from enforcing his lust
Mind you I also believe that rape goes against human nature to an extent. However, if an individuals disposition has been corrupted, then it's possible for lust and greed to overwhelm such person.
I love it when theists pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to make people want to be like them.
Why do you think theists should do any of those things? Not out of the goodness of your hearts, like atheists, but rather in the attempt to get rewarded by gods? That's supposed to make you better than us?
That's hilarious.
You misunderstood my perspective. I wasn't accusing Atheists of being disingenuous or anything. I was inquiring as to why an Atheist should be anything but greedy and lustful. The "goodness of your heart" isn't a rational answer.
1. You Only Live Once
2. Good and Evil are arbitrary
3. Just do whatever pleasures/benefits you at the expense of others
Why would you contradict this? Tell me, what's the use in giving charity to an organization on the other side of the planet? How does that benefit you specifically? If it doesn't benefit you, then how do you justify it as rational in light of YOLO? YOLO suggests saving your money and spending it on something that directly benefits you.
I could argue that, from a theist point of view--and many theists have made this claim--once you are saved you cannot be unsaved, and therefore you can rape all you want without jeopardizing your soul.
That may not be a strong argument, but it's certainly as fair as yours.
I don't follow that theology. We believe God is mindful of our actions, sincerity and beliefs. But regardless, yeah, I'd question them in a similar way that I'm questioning you.
And you can't think of any answer to that question other than that an invisible eccentric will punish you if you do?
And you think that this moral blindness of yours somehow makes you more righteous than us?
Nope. I have a logical reason for doing things that don't immediately benefit me; you don't. I want to know why you even bother. You appear to be inconsistent with your own principles.
I believe it's a moral duty to speak the truth at all times, even when it's against myself. Why would an Atheist disclose his faults when revealing them could result in a loss? That's inconsistent with living once and getting the most from life.
William Lane Craig makes similar arguments. He claims that he has nothing against rape himself. The only reason for not raping is that his gods forbid it.
I give him the benefit of the doubt: I assume he's lying.
But if he's not lying, then he's a terrible person, one who has no business lecturing people about morality.
I share a similar view to him. I believe rape goes against our natural disposition, however it is God's Speech which makes it objectively immoral. God dictates what is good and what is evil; legal from illegal.