• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

‘Duck Dynasty’ star fantasizes about atheist family’s rape and murder

ponderingturtle said:
How is Christianity a minority religion in the US? Or are we defining it such that it is about true Christians so we get rid of Catholics and such?
Click to expand...

Interesting. You made a claim about "basic religion" which was blatantly false under any reasonable definition of such. In fact, the only ways that it actually works is if you accept obviously false premises to be true, which is no better. At what point did you think that "in the US" came into the picture? I was talking about worldwide, historically, and with regards to actual religions as a whole, which would be the appropriate categories when one makes a general statement like that.
 
ponderingturtle said:
A christian fantasizing about raping and torturing people who claims that it is only god that is holding them back from doing this?
Click to expand...

But his point was if one watched one's family gruesomly raped and murdered and knew that the perpetrators may escape worldly punishment, then wouldn't the one hope for some after-world punishment for the criminals. It is faulty logic to use that scenario as a reason to believe in God (I choose to believe in God because I want to live in a universe with divine retribution). But the point isn't about how painful it will be for atheists in hell1, the point is that people who don't believe in God can find no divine comfort when faced with Life-shattering loses.

Belz... said:
Oh, no. He just laid his hatred of atheists bare, there.
Click to expand...

He may have nothing but contempt for atheists, but his point was not that atheists are worthless, his point was that atheists just haven't thought things through the same way that he has thought things through.

The guy is a bigotted attention-whore who sincerely thinks he is helping the world by expressing his bigotry, but this anecdote is not about how atheists deserve this treatment, it is about how atheists are too short-sighted to see the need for God and His after-life punishments.

..........
(1) there is not shortage of Christians who fantasize about how painful hell will be for those who reject Christianity, and this clown may have said stuff like that in the past, but my point is that from the quoted words, this particular incident is not about atheist hating.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
Perhaps nitpicking, but Phil is the star of the Duck Dynasty. One could even argue that all the Robertsons are stars in the universe that they revolve in, namely, the unhinged Christian right wing nutosphere.
Click to expand...

I was jokingly arguing that Duck Dynasty is such a staged, one-dimensional pathetic excuse for a TV program that folks appearing in it do not deserve the title "star."
 
Ladewig said:
He may have nothing but contempt for atheists, but his point was not that atheists are worthless, his point was that atheists just haven't thought things through the same way that he has thought things through.
Click to expand...

I'll see his nonsense point and raise him this one: he can kill and maim as many people as he wants, and then ask for god's forgiveness, and it will be granted. How is that more moral ?
 
So presumably he would go around raping and murdering people all over the place if he suddenly had an epiphany and became an atheist?
 
Aridas said:
Interesting. You made a claim about "basic religion" which was blatantly false under any reasonable definition of such. In fact, the only ways that it actually works is if you accept obviously false premises to be true, which is no better. At what point did you think that "in the US" came into the picture? I was talking about worldwide, historically, and with regards to actual religions as a whole, which would be the appropriate categories when one makes a general statement like that.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most popular reasons people use when they advocate for religion. That with out religion the person involved has no reason not to rape and murder their way through life. With out that the benefits seem to be much much harder for many people to grasp.
 
It's also an argument from consequences. From his hypothetical story, he seems to believe that of course atheists would believe in God and eternal punishment if something bad happened to them. He also seems to forget that atheists don't simply tolerate crime because they don't have religion.

It's such a mishmash of strawmen and flawed logic, it's hard to classify.

ETA: Ladewig pretty much covered this.
 
Last edited:
Errrrm... I understand that Robertson's characterization of atheists is not at all universal, but it's not exactly a strawman for a sizable number of them.

There is certainly no shortage of atheists, including a few posting in this thread, who forcefully argue that "morality" is a social fiction and things we deem "moral" or "immoral" are little more than subjective expressions about people's fuzzy wuzzy feelings -- views which are scarcely different to the statement "there is no 'right' or 'wrong' / there are no 'right' or 'wrong' behaviors".

Ignoring that Robertson's rape/murder fantasy is super offensive in it's own right, many atheists and especially those in the skeptics movement are committed to the view that morality is "subjective feelings". They don't want to be a victim of a violent crime, but they cannot, by their own principles, state a reason why they shouldn't.

People are going to pile on me for writing this post, but please be kind in your replies. I am aware that I have as many (factually) wrong opinions as right opinions, and I am absolutely happy to be gently corrected if I've seriously misunderstood the kinds of moral views held by a small subset of atheists.
 
Dessi said:
Errrrm... I understand that Robertson's characterization of atheists is not at all universal, but it's not exactly a strawman for a sizable number of them.

There is certainly no shortage of atheists, including a few posting in this thread, who forcefully argue that "morality" is a social fiction and things we deem "moral" or "immoral" are little more than subjective expressions about people's fuzzy wuzzy feelings -- views which are scarcely different to the statement "there is no 'right' or 'wrong' / there are no 'right' or 'wrong' behaviors".

Ignoring that Robertson's rape/murder fantasy is super offensive in it's own right, many atheists and especially those in the skeptics movement are committed to the view that morality is "subjective feelings". They don't want to be a victim of a violent crime, but they cannot, by their own principles, state a reason why they shouldn't.

People are going to pile on me for writing this post, but please be kind in your replies. I am aware that I have as many (factually) wrong opinions as right opinions, and I am absolutely happy to be gently corrected if I've seriously misunderstood the kinds of moral views held by a small subset of atheists.
Click to expand...


I'll echo this observation. It's useful nuance.
 
Christianity is great. Those two rapist/murderers simply have to ask Jesus for forgiveness and they will get to heaven.
 
What was the bet? He started off with "I’ll make a bet with you" and didn't make one.

Do Christians really buy into this sort of idiocy? Does it sell?
It's completely unconvincing and stupid. I guess the Duck Dynasty reference in the title should've tipped me off.
 
“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson told the religious gathering. “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him.”


“Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him,” Robertson continued, “and then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now, is it dude?’”


...


“If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘Something about this just ain’t right,’” Robertson added.
Click to expand...

Matt Dillahunty addressed this very "judged/justice" nonsense a few years ago:



Not that Phil would care (or understand).
 
Dessi said:
People are going to pile on me for writing this post, but please be kind in your replies. I am aware that I have as many (factually) wrong opinions as right opinions, and I am absolutely happy to be gently corrected if I've seriously misunderstood the kinds of moral views held by a small subset of atheists.
Click to expand...

You're really not wrong. It's important to point this out.

However, where this gets into skeezy creeper territory is how he inserts those with whom he disagrees into the narrative. I think it's fine to imagine scenarios and see how morality applies: If a person is being tortured, what makes that wrong? There's no need to turn it into a (possibly self-insert) fan fiction: If some guy was torturing you and your family, you'd see things my way!
 
Last edited:
Characterizing this hypothetical scenario as a fantasy is a great example of poisoning the well. I think Robertson was over the top and and distasteful in using such a graphic scenario but as Laedwig pointed it out, he was making a valid point -valid for people who share his Christian viewpoint.. This wasn't some, "let's get off on atheists being raped and tortured" fantasy.

If the headline read, "Duck Dynasty star uses distasteful rape scenario to argue for Christianity," that would have been more honest even if it was less "click-baity."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom