Atheist Dan Barker Claims that Rape is A-Okay!

With an atheistic worldview, there is no absolute morality! You could just as easily murder someone as select a flavor of ice cream!

I hate this line of thinking, this argument from absolute morality, and I see it all the time. I was intrigued, then, when I saw on one of the many religious Facebook groups I belong to, someone posted this:

To which I responded:

But it made me curious to know what each of those above points were about. I decided to look up the last of them, to see what I could find. I just copied "Atheist Dan Barker says rape is not necessarily immoral in all situations" into Google and viola:

In fact, it even made Conservapedia.com, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia."

A moral obligation? Not only could rape be moral, but it could actually be a moral obligation? I pictured an end-of-the-world scenario in which the last surviving man encounters the last surviving woman, and in five minutes he knows he will die from radiation poisoning and so this is the absolute last chance for the human population to survive, there is no time for romance or even a how-do-you-do? He must spread his seed NOW before... before... his heart goes, he falls to the ground, dead. Before him, the last woman stands shaking, shivering, the human race saved by an act of rape.

But my imagination runs wild. Surely it couldn't be that ridiculous.

Finally, I found the video in question, from which all of these accusations spring forth:

I wasn't too far off. Not only is it an end-of-the-world scenario, but it also involves aliens. What if aliens invaded the planet earth and told us that if Dan Barker didn't rape a 16 year-old girl, then they would slaughter all of humanity. Under that extremely hypothetical example, then yes, Dan Barker argues, rape would be the moral recourse.

I hate that he said this, mostly because it allows fundamentalists everywhere to now utter the words, "Dan Barker claims that child rape could be moral!" and more generally, "Atheists condone child rape!" and finally, "Atheists will rape your children!"

But mostly I hate that he said this because it's not true. The distinction I would make is this: Having to choose between two immoral acts does not make one of them automatically moral. Choosing to rape the girl in order to save humanity does not make child rape moral. At most, you could say it was the less immoral action. Although even that, I don't think is accurate. The most moral action, as I see it, would be to refuse, and in that, I actually agree with Barker's Christian fundamentalist opponent.

I thought Kyle Butt's follow-up questions revealed this. Would you rape a hundred girls? he asked. Would you rape a thousand girls? At what point would you refuse? When is it enough?

Barker seems to be simply saying, for whatever horrible thing you can imagine, such as rape, it is possible to imagine something worse, and a scenario in which you would have to choose between the two. I will grant him this,.but the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

Atheists should not be afraid to assert an objective, ethical foundation.It is okay to say that rape is wrong, absolutely, one hundred per cent of the time. Really. I give you my permission.