Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

However, while emotionally charged, his rebuttal simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Con has misunderstood and misrepresented my position. My ArgumentsHere Con admirably follows my lead, and attempts to show that I've contradicted myself. Indeed, this is a clever debating move, but is simply confused. I argue that harm is a relevant factor, of course, but only because it is done without a person's consent. We have an obligation to stop suicide, yes, but this is because suicide causes harm without consent. After all, the relatives of someone who committed suicide certainly did not give consent to being psychologically damaged as a result of their loved one's death. The same applies to saving a person's life. When someone commits suicide, it causes emotional harm to the people that person knows, however, this emotional harm is not inflicted with that victim's consent. After all, who would consent to being emotionally scarred? Interestingly, Con ignores the whole reason causing harm is considered so wrong. After all, what is wrong with causing harm to someone? Well, that person doesn't like being harmed, so they don't want anyone harming them. The more harm caused, is more violation of that person's personal wishes. In fact, the more one causes harm, the more one violates another's privacy and consent. This supports the conclusion that causing harm is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and is against their personal wishes, not because causing harm itself is objectively wrong. In fact, I would even go so far as to argue that violating a person's free will is actually a type of harm in of itself. You damage a person's ability to pursue their desires when you force yourself onto them, and therefore cause harm. Thus, even if we accept Con's irrational view, it still leads us to the conclusion that Direct Intervention causes considerably more harm then rape. In paragraph 3, Con completely misunderstands what I'm arguing. First of all, it's irrelevant whether causing harm for the sake of causing harm is objectively wrong. This is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that causing harm in of itself isn't objectively wrong. Con never gives a reason why causing harm to soldiers in a war isn't morally acceptable, and how the same applies to causing harm to animals. He then asserts that it obviously doesn't apply. To this I'd reply, really? Why not? Sure, an animal may not be able to give consent either way, but consent isn't the only morally relevant factor according to you, now is it? Harm is a morally relevant factor. So then, any and all acts that cause harm are immoral. If not, then Con's position collapses entirely. Finally, Con completely fails to rebut my analogies of the unconscious rape, and the falling skydiver. I will count this as a concession. Interestingly, these arguments were considerable blows to Con's view that rape is wrong because it causes harm, not because it is done without consent. In fact, in Con's point 2. he argues that rape with consent is just rough sex, and presumably moral. But if so, then what is morally wrong with causing harm in of itself? God's intervention is done without consent and violates one's greatest desire: control. Here Con confuses God's omnipotence with his omnibenevolence. No one is arguing that God can't force someone into heaven, I am arguing that God won't, because it is against his nature to do that which is immoral. Con has failed to offer a morally sufficient reason for God violating a person's free will. Indeed, the mother is morally justified in violating her baby's will by giving her baby a vaccination because the baby being sick would cause physical and emotional harm to the mother as she is forced to take care of her child, that is, stress she did not consent too. Also, a baby isn't necessarily capable of giving consent either way. Babies only have one desire, and that overriding desire is to be taken care of. Next we come to Con's rebuttal to the overriding desire bit of my argument. This is perhaps the most blatant misrepresentation of my argumentation that I have seen yet. I never argued that if a person had an overriding desire for eternal bliss, they would choose Christianity. I argued that if they had an overriding desire for eternal bliss, then it is inexplicable why they would reject the possibility of attaining eternal bliss because of rational or emotional objections. This could mean rejecting Islam, Christianity, or any other possible belief system. Indeed, we certainly have people who reject ALL possible means of attaining eternal bliss because of rational or emotional objections. To illustrate my point, if my overriding desire, my desire that literally overrides any and all other desires (such as the desire to be rational or emotional), was to be abducted by aliens, it is inexplicable why I would refuse to try going into crop circles. Con seems to but unaware of the fact that Satan's divinely powerful nature not only fails to render him ineffective as an example, but actually strengthens my position further. Indeed, Satan had full and complete access to the pleasure of Heaven. Yet he developed a desire that overrided his desire for eternal bliss that he was already experiencing, in fact, he caused a third of the angels in heaven [1] to develop a similar overriding desire. So then, if such beings can develop such a desire, why not human beings who share the same free will? Forced Conversion Is Forcing Someone to Love YouCon's rebuttal here is incoherent. Indeed, my analogy was intended to show how both rape and forced conversion were wrong. No backfire here. However, Con's responds with the usual answer of it being wrong because of harm caused. But imagine if you loved a women, and so found a way to reprogram her so that she will love you back. The reprogramming was against her will, but was done without any physical or mental harm. Imagine a situation similar to the premise of the tv series Dollhouse [2]. The object of your affection is imprinted with a desire for you, and has all objections to desiring you removed. How contrary to the very essence of love and romance this is! Con is advocating synthetic love. Finally, Direct Intervention damages one's ability to pursue one's overriding desire for an eternal amount of time, whereas rape only damages one's ability to pursue one's overriding desire for a temporal amount of time. Direct Intervention is much worse. A Case For ConversionI have already explained why the damages of direct intervention against a person's free will and overriding desire far surpass the effects of rape. I have also already explained why causing harm in of itself is not objectively wrong. Con's argument here is mostly an echo of his previous statements. Conversion Vs. RapeStrangely, Con concedes that violating a person's free will is immoral. I'd say at this point I've won the debate. If violating a person's free will is immoral, then whichever situation damages one's free will more is more immoral. If causing harm is not objectively wrong, as I have previously demonstrated, then what then remains? Nothing. Closing The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. "-Richard Dawkins [3]Indeed, imagine God forcing Dawkins into heaven, and in order to keep him from kicking, screaming, and trying to claw his way out, God reprograms Richard's mind so that he will mindlessly accept him. Forever praising God in the most insincere and synthetic way possible, a literal human robot. How absurd. . http://www.debate.org...