# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/361 "2010-09-04T02:48:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Evolutionary theory suggests that murder would be not only acceptable but desirable AT A TRIBAL LEVEL. This is simply because of competition for resources. If man is ordered based on tribal lines, population growth would suffer from this ethos. We know, however, that this is not the case. > > Oh, nonsense. Evolutionary theory predicts no such thing. Cooperation is at least as important and successful in evolution as competition. > > We know it took thousands of years because it did. That wasn’t speculation, it was a description of history. As for the population, it was “suppressed”. A 90% or so murder rate will do that. > > And you clearly have no understanding of evolution. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > How do you recognise that the rape a 3 year old is ‘abuse’ of that 3 year old? By what standard, by what methodology, by what ‘code’? > > Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm. Biology and psychology, not theology. It isn’t some absolute; for some other hypothetical intelligent species sex with children might be beneficial or involuntary (something that breeds by spores, say). Or even a meaningless concept if the species in question doesn’t have children. We can only treat it as an effective absolute because the only children we actually have to deal with are human ones. > > What makes you think that your precious religion prevents child abuse anyway? You keep claiming that God is necessary for morality, when in reality religion has been a source of evil. 1\> You confuse ‘suggests’ and ‘predicts’. 2\> ‘We know it did because it did’? What nonsense. 3\> I never said cooperation didn’t have a place in evolutionary theory. But it is conditional on a mutual benefit. Evolutionary theory cannot explain random acts of kindness, and this is just one of many parts on whihc it fails. 4\> It amuses me to what lengths people will avoid arguing the moral dilemna of atheism face on. You resort to “Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm”, which is a blatant attempt to avoid the question. We cause harm to each other often out of benevolence. Answer the question. Why is the rpe of a 3 year old morally wrong? 5\> The question to religion iis a further attempt at evasion. The topic is the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/362 "2010-09-04T02:51:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Or put another way, where did the energy in the Quantum field come from? > > Why do you think it had to come from anything? Do you believe in a singularity? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/363 "2010-09-04T02:53:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > "The violent microstructure of the vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected with this legitimate speculations [sic] far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained ‘the creation of the universe out of nothing’ . . . > > > > From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic, it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process"(Kanitscheider 1990: 346-7). > > > > In other words, quantum physics does not contradict the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. > > Yers it does. You don’t understand this passage. Are you enagaging in a sensible discussion, or an episode in self delusion? “…they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained ‘the creation of the universe out of nothing’ . . .” “the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum.” ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/364 "2010-09-04T03:00:49Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > aignoz; If God is separate from the physical, how could He show Moses His back side? He also has a face, according to the writer of Genesis as the writer claims God couldn’t show Moses His face, because if He did, Moses would die. In such a case, God would have shape and could be seen by material eyes. > > In the case of being in the water and not part of it you are speaking of 2 material things, that is not the same as claiming God is separate from existence. Existence is what is! Either something is in extistense or it is non-existent! > > In your case, you and the water are both in existence so you can be together though separate. 1\> We begin with the following: Premise a\> God is all powerful. Premise b\> God created the natural universe. Based on these two premises, it is entirey logical that God could interact with the natural universe in a way that would ‘reveal’ himself to us in some way. 2\> You are mistating my ccase. I did not say God is seperate from ‘existence’. God is seperate from the natural universe. Both are ‘in existence’, just like me and my fish pond. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/365 "2010-09-04T03:04:57Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> The response related to the questions. Your question is ‘what is God’? For the purposes of this discussion, God is a super-natural entity that is seperate from the natural universe. > > What is a ‘super-natural’ entity? An entity ‘above’ or ‘different’ from the natural? That fails for the same reason that ‘immaterial’ does. It tells us nothing. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 2\> The claim has been made that an entity that is seperate from the universe could not interact with it. My position is that that is absurd, and no-one has been able to logically argue the claim. > > How does an immaterial entity interact with the material universe? How does an entity outside of time and space have any time to interact with time and space? > > Is there a ‘super’ time where this entity resides? > > How does an entity act upon nothing to create something? > > If you are simply going to retreat to magic, that’s fine, but I don’t see why anyone should take such a suggestion seriously. Read my other answers. Also, it is not satisfactory argumentation to label something as ‘magic’ simply because you don’ understand it. Do you understand quantum physics? Has a virtual particle ever been observed? No to both questions. Are these then magic? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/366 "2010-09-04T03:06:17Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@Meatros](#): > > > > Bump > > Bump again. > > aigonz, can I get a response? It’s been answered. Please note there is a lot of repetition in the questions…I will happily answer ANY question, but only once. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/367 "2010-09-04T03:22:31Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Evidence for God… > > > > 1. Design > > **aigonz** , So far you have hardly supplied us with any evidence of designed creation. Except an attempt at the First Cause argument. > > Your other example of a supposed “objective moral law” on child abuse has had the goalpoast shifted to have become meaningless. > Neither have you yet given any characteristics of this god, other than that he is “super-natural”. > Please tell us more about this god you believe created the world. > Are there any more gods or do you believe this god to be the god of the bible? Design The evidence to design is well documented, and there is wealth of material on the web if you are really interested. However to whet your appetite, the following is a list of just some of the intellectuals who have been persuaded on the evidence for an intelligent agent in creation: Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist), George Ellis (British astrophysicist), Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), Paul Davies, Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy), John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA), George Greenstein (astronomer), Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist), Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics), Roger Penrose (mathematician and author), Tony Rothman (physicist), Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist), Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic), Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician), Ed Harrison (cosmologist), Edward Milne (British cosmologist), Barry Parker (cosmologist), Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists), Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics, Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia), Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer), Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois), Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) This is not an argument from authority. It is simply an encouragement to anyone with an open mind that the existence of an intelligent creator is plausible from design. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/368 "2010-09-04T03:25:27Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > This is not chid abuse. There a plenty of examples of similar behaviours, including cultures who (willingly) marry very young. > > You’re hoisting yourself on your own petard here. You seem to accept cultures who marry very young, but in another context you see the same behavior as abuse. That doesn’t seem to be an objective definition to me, but a situational one. Abuse is defined as something harmful (or potentially harmful). An action that’s not even potentially harmful, to me, is not immoral. It’s all subjective. On the contrary. I don’t ‘accept’ the marriage of a 9 year old, or for that matter a 13 year old. I just don’t consider theses events help define child abuse, because many will diagree that a 13 year old is a child. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/369 "2010-09-04T03:38:06Z")
[quote=“CurtC, post:358, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > So? Stephen Hawking’s own talk, which you pointed us to, explains why quantum events are uncaused. Even though there can be no “nothing,” that doesn’t mean that quantum events are caused. I’m not sure why you’re not grasping this. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Your quote from Wiki doesn’t speak to the issue of cause. > > Stephen Hawking’s talk, which you pointed us to, does, and he says that quantum events are uncaused. You miss the point entirely. If an event occurs within something that is not ‘nothing’, then it is far from clear that it is uncaused. The existence of virtual particles (which by the way spend at least some time as parts of other particles) arise from vaccum fluctuations. How then can they be described as ‘uncaused’? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/370 "2010-09-04T04:19:32Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 4\> It amuses me to what lengths people will avoid arguing the moral dilemna of atheism face on. You resort to “Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm”, which is a blatant attempt to avoid the question. We cause harm to each other often out of benevolence. Answer the question. Why is the rpe of a 3 year old morally wrong? Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm. What other possible answer could there be? I’m not taunting you here, I really can’t imagine any other reasonable answer. > [@aigonz](#): > > You miss the point entirely. If an event occurs within something that is not ‘nothing’, then it is far from clear that it is uncaused. The existence of virtual particles (which by the way spend at least some time as parts of other particles) arise from vaccum fluctuations. How then can they be described as ‘uncaused’? How? They’re uncaused. Did you not read the Hawking essay that you pointed us to? He describes it clearly. The term “vacuum fluctuations” (one c, two u’s in both words) is simply another way of saying the uncertainty due to Heisenberg’s famous principle. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/371 "2010-09-04T04:43:27Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> ‘We know it did because it did’? What nonsense. “Nonsense”? Hardly. Our present moral system, including the prohibition against murder is something that had to be learned and developed. It didn’t just appear. We can see that process in history. > [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> I never said cooperation didn’t have a place in evolutionary theory. But it is conditional on a mutual benefit. Evolutionary theory cannot explain random acts of kindness, and this is just one of many parts on whihc it fails. Nonsense again. Evolutionary theory explains it easily; it can be a useful strategy to act generally benevolent even if there’s no immediate benefit. And evolution doesn’t have much if any places where it fails, it’s one of the best confirmed theories in science. It’s certainly far better than your “god did it” idea, which has never, ever been anything but wrong in all of human history. Why should I believe this is the one time it will turn out to be right after all these centuries? > [@aigonz](#): > > 4\> It amuses me to what lengths people will avoid arguing the moral dilemna of atheism face on. You resort to “Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm”, which is a blatant attempt to avoid the question. We cause harm to each other often out of benevolence. Answer the question. Why is the rpe of a 3 year old morally wrong? I already answered it; if you don’t like the answer too bad. The opinion of a god certainly has nothing to do with it even if gods were anything other than a delusion. And there IS no “moral dilemma of atheism”. > [@aigonz](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > What makes you think that your precious religion prevents child abuse anyway? You keep claiming that God is necessary for morality, when in reality religion has been a source of evil 5\> The question to religion iis a further attempt at evasion. The topic is the existence of God. [/QUOTE] Which is a religious idea and nothing more. I was making the obvious point that you keep harping on how your god is somehow necessary for morality without demonstrating that to be true, and despite religion having a long history of being overwhelmingly a force for evil. > [@aigonz](#): > > Design > The evidence to design is well documented, and there is wealth of material on the web if you are really interested. However to whet your appetite, the following is a list of just some of the intellectuals who have been persuaded on the evidence for an intelligent agent in creation: > > \ Meaningless. There is no such evidence; a list of people who supposedly support creationism doesn’t matter especially since the creationists and religious believers in general have a pervasive history of lying about who supports them; and again, creationism fails to answer any meaningful questions. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/372 "2010-09-04T05:00:54Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > “Abuse” is purely a word of description with no moral judgement attached. It is treatment which does injury. Observing that an action causes injury is purely empirical. > > To abuse is to misuse or mistreat. Of course that requires a moral judgement. No it doesn’t. It’s just an observation. Your “objective morality” doesn’t exist. Give it up. Morality is just a matter of opinion. Something is “wrong” if I DECIDE it is wrong. I don’t “recognize” it as wrong. I DECIDE it. So do you. So does everybody else. We’re all George W. Bush when it comes to morality. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/373 "2010-09-04T05:02:22Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Why do you think it had to come from anything? > > Do you believe in a singularity? I don’t think you really understand what a singularity is. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/374 "2010-09-04T05:03:45Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Yers it does. You don’t understand this passage. > > Are you enagaging in a sensible discussion, or an episode in self delusion? > > “…they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained ‘the creation of the universe out of nothing’ . . .” > > “the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum.” You still don’t understand the passage. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/375 "2010-09-04T05:05:45Z")
Let’s see a single piece of evidence for design. Quit ducking the question and pony something up. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/376 "2010-09-04T11:11:31Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > You have the question backwards. It’s up to you to explain why they _do_ need a beginning. > > You are wrong. You have claimed they have no beginning. The onus of proof is on you. Any entity needs a place ot exist, so if God is an entity He would first need a place , so who created that? If God always exised then existence would have to proceed Him, unless God and existence are the same thing! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/377 "2010-09-04T11:16:53Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Latro](#): > > > > **aigonz** , So far you have hardly supplied us with any evidence of designed creation. Except an attempt at the First Cause argument. > > > > Your other example of a supposed “objective moral law” on child abuse has had the goalpoast shifted to have become meaningless. > > Neither have you yet given any characteristics of this god, other than that he is “super-natural”. > > Please tell us more about this god you believe created the world. > > Are there any more gods or do you believe this god to be the god of the bible? > > Design > The evidence to design is well documented, and there is wealth of material on the web if you are really interested. However to whet your appetite, the following is a list of just some of the intellectuals who have been persuaded on the evidence for an intelligent agent in creation: > > Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist), George Ellis (British astrophysicist), Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), Paul Davies, Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy), John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA), George Greenstein (astronomer), Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist), Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics), Roger Penrose (mathematician and author), Tony Rothman (physicist), Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist), Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic), Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician), Ed Harrison (cosmologist), Edward Milne (British cosmologist), Barry Parker (cosmologist), Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists), Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics, Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia), Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer), Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois), Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) > > This is not an argument from authority. It is simply an encouragement to anyone with an open mind that the existence of an intelligent creator is plausible from design. Design can come from chance. One can drop ink on a tablet and it can look like a star or any thing, Some things happen just because they do…no plan or by design. It is a matter of Belief in how one views it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/378 "2010-09-04T11:24:16Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You are wrong. You have claimed they have no beginning. The onus of proof is on you. > > Any entity needs a place ot exist, so if God is an entity He would first need a place , so who created that? Not just a place; some kind of underlying order. An intelligent being is a complex, ordered thing that requires some kind of underlying set of rules to exist. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/379 "2010-09-05T01:02:57Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Your initial paragraphs refer to a ‘retaliation’ response. But that doesn’t disguise the fact that evolutionay impulses contradict the world as we know it. Universally, sane people acknowledge that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent without cause. Yet evolutionary theory would suggest that we benefit from the removal of competition. Evolutionary theory also suggests – indeed, makes explicit – that a fine way to benefit from reciprocity involves banding together in cooperative groups, often while enshrining cultural values that promote a concern for innocent life. [QUOTE=aigonz] 2\> Your final paragraph describes the direction of many modern societies. Yet we still hold to some immutable moral laws. [/QUOTE] That’s not really an “A, yet B” combination; the second part isn’t at odds with the first part, it follows from it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/380 "2010-09-05T01:23:00Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 4\> It amuses me to what lengths people will avoid arguing the moral dilemna of atheism face on. You resort to “Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm”, which is a blatant attempt to avoid the question. We cause harm to each other often out of benevolence. Answer the question. Why is the rpe of a 3 year old morally wrong? > > Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm. > > What other possible answer could there be? I’m not taunting you here, I really can’t imagine any other reasonable answer. No problem, I appreciate your questions are genuine. Are you referring physical harm? If so, I have answered that already. We inflict physical harm in other instances in the name of good (eg an innoculation). Who is to say that the harm imposed in child abuse is ‘wrong’? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=20)