[SeekAndFind]

RE: Can someone explain the comment she is referring to, about the rape and the murder and the “atheist wife”?

SEE HERE:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/26/phil-robertson-morality-tale-has-atheists-daughters-raped-and-shot-wife-beheaded-and-man-castrated/

Here is the transcript of what he said:

________________________________________________

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, and then they take his daughters in front of him and rape both of them and shoot ‘em.

And they take his wife and decapitate her head off in front of him.

And then they 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’?

And then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this’?

But you’re the one that says there’s no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun.

We’re sick in the head. Have a nice day.

If it happened to them, they would probably say, ‘Something about this just ain’t right.’

________________________________________

Speaking at the Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast, which was later rebroadcast on TruNews, Robertson seemed to be addressing the question of whether atheists, because they don’t believe in God, are unable to distinguish between good and evil acts.

[Steve_Seattle]

Thank you. So what Robertson was doing was pointing out that atheism - quite literally - denies moral absolutes. It is actually a fairly obvious - if not sophisticated - argument, an argument that Timpf is nonetheless too timid to use, so she must mock it for fear of offending secularists. But Robertson is pointing to an undeniable fact.

This is actually a case of Robertson schooling Timpf in Philosophy 101. And she thinks SHE is the sophisticated one?

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Robertson seemed to be addressing the question of whether atheists, because they don’t believe in God, are unable to distinguish between good and evil acts.” <<

.
And his crudely fashioned anecdote illustrates well that we all know the difference, but for some its “situational.”

.

[Pelham]

His story isn’t about atheism per se, it’s about the moral relativism that results from it taken to a logical extreme.