Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

A big thank you to SuburbiaSurvivor for this fun and unique debate. It has wound up being one of my favorites! I would also like to thank all the readers who have stuck around this long for their interest and patience in our unusual ramblings. I hope you’ve enjoyed the ride so far!My Opponent’s Arguments1. “[R]ape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and against their wishes, not necessarily because it causes personal harm.”Pro continues to argue that consent is the relevant factor when it comes to morality but that line of reasoning stopped mattering the moment Pro mentioned suicide. Remember, my opponent described suicide as wrong because it causes harm to people other than the victim. Whether that’s bad because of consent or harm makes no difference. What matters is that rape has the same negative impact on others, while conversion does not. By Pro’s own rubric, rape is worse. Please reread Pro’s argument and notice that he does not contest this. What Pro does try to argue, though, is that conversion causes a worse kind of harm than rape because it impedes a person’s free will. Well, rape does too, so that’s a wash. The difference, which I stated in round 2 and which has never been addressed, is that the changes made by conversion are entirely and incomprehensibly positive: eternal happiness, avoidance of eternal torture, a loving relationship with God, an opportunity to save others, and a perfect morality as gifted by the lord. The changes made by rape, of course, are entirely negative: lasting physical, emotional, psychological, and social scars for the victim, as well as reverberating pain throughout their social circle. At this point, Pro’s soldiers and animals example is just kind of weirdly out of place. I explained that the harm caused in those cases are a product of implied moral exceptions (i.e. defense of the greater good & varying levels of consciousness, respectively), neither of which he defended and neither of which apply to a rape victim. Thus, any harm caused to a rape victim cannot be so easily justified or dismissed as only subjectively wrong. As a side note, the fact that Pro believes I conceded his stories about the unconscious rape victim and Joe the skydiver indicate that he did not grasp the crux of my argumentation. No matter how many times he says so, I never stated or even implied that rape was only wrong because of harm. I showed that as both rape and conversion involve a lack of formal consent, other factors - intent, impact, and outcome - must be weighed to determine which act is preferable. This is where Pro’s lack of defense of rape comes into play. 2. God’s intervention is done without consent and violates one’s greatest desire: control. I explained that God does not require consent to save someone, as he has dominion over them (e.g. parents vaccinating babies) and is saving them from inevitable harm they are not aware of (e.g. a pedestrian pushing a man away from a speeding bus). Pro counters by saying that such an act would be against God’s nature. First, this is a new last round argument and will not be considered. Second, given that God has used various types of force in the name of goodwill before, Pro would need to offer some argument here other than his blanket assertion. My two examples of action in the absence of consent stand (Pro concedes to one and ignores the other) as instances in which one's desires are met despite the fact that another acted on their behalf. In the meantime, Pro has offered no evidence that there is ever a case of implied consent when it comes to rape. I went on to explain that it is possible to desire eternal happiness without ascribing to a belief system which promises eternal happiness, meaning that God would not be granting atheists an unwanted gift by getting them into heaven. Pro doesn’t think that’s possible: “[I]f 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.”Once again, it’s the same reason not all thirsty people drink Fanta. It may seem inexplicable - Fanta is indeed a delicious, cold beverage - but just because you have a desire does not mean every possible means of obtaining that desire is favorable, convincing, or even true. Surely Pro would like the gift of flight, but that doesn’t mean he’d buy my magical flying elixir. He isn’t convinced. He shouldn’t be. It’s just Fanta. Pro still doesn’t buy it, though, and thinks Satan is a perfect example of someone who had a greater desire than eternal happiness. But Satan wasn’t directly converted by God. Satan wasn’t being saved from hell. Satan didn’t have to fear mortal death. Satan wasn’t helpless without God. Satan’s desires aren’t knowable to humans. Most importantly, though, regardless of what Satan ever did or wanted, Pro conceded in round 3 that no human could ever want more than heaven. 3. Forced conversion is like forcing someone to love you.I went into detail showing that Pro’s forced love scenario is flawed because it has all the negatives of rape with none of the positives of direct conversion. In response, my opponent literally repeated the example but just threw in a line about all the problems with this situation being magically erased. Okay, even then, this type of sexual manipulation is still done for selfish reasons, does not provide the victim with heaven-like happiness, and does not save them from hell-like despair. This is still just an example showing how much worse rape is to conversion. 4. Forced conversion is worse because it lasts forever. As one’s greatest possible satisfaction is being experienced following conversion, and Pro has never once argued how or why an incorrect choice (freely chosen or not) is more valuable to an individual than their greatest possible satisfaction, there is no harm here. Remember, if God exists, disbelief isn't just some incorrect belief that is valuable despite being wrong. It isn't even neutral. It is actively harmful. A pin prick would cause more harm than removing that false belief. Rape happens to be many times worse than a pin prick. My Arguments1. A Case for ConversionI’ve already spent a lot of time talking about all the good things conversion causes and all the bad things it prevents. It should be clear by now that the positives of conversion far outweigh the positives of rape (rape has none) and the negatives of rape are far greater than the negatives of conversion (conversion has none). My pedestrian example, which I described twice and Pro ignored twice, is a great analogy. Any informed individual would protect themselves from harm if they were able to do so and aware that harm awaited them. Saving someone from such harm is permissible without their consent because they lack the necessary awareness and ability. The fact that in this case “saving” also includes admission into heaven means they’re likely to kiss you on the lips afterward. 2. Conversion vs RapePro straw mans me again by saying I conceded that violating one’s free will is immoral. What I said was that both rape and conversion lack formal consent, so we must judge their remaining attributes and outcomes. Note that never once has Pro attempted to defend any aspect of rape. Understandable, as it would be abhorrent to do so. The point, though, is that he has conceded that rape is ALL bad, without a sliver of redemption. Thus, for rape to be the better of these two acts, conversion would either have to be ALL bad in a worse way or so intensely evil that any positives it has would just be washed away. This obviously isn’t the case. Pro’s one complaint - a lack of consent - has been justified and it has a laundry list of wonderful side-effects. Rape is clearly worse than direct intervention from God. The resolution is negated.Thanks again to Pro and the readers!