Fascism and Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong


Today I will play the role of an atheist who subscribes to humanism and the relative nature of morality.

(Hey, this is a realistic role-play… See After Homosexuality, Sexual Revolutionary Frank Kameny Moves on to Making Bestiality ‘Normal’ for details)

Shall we begin?

—– 

THESE ARE MY TWO CORE BELIEFS:

1) I believe that certain nonproductive members of society – i.e. the terminally and painfully sick, unemployed and alcohol-addicted street vagrants, serial criminals, and those too old to contribute anything meaningful – should be euthanized for the greater of good of society and mankind.

Resources that they consume can find much better use in advancing civilization and the happiness of other (and more) people. The good and survival of the human species takes precedence over selfish and petty individual needs.

2) I believe that bestiality as a sexual choice should be given the same legal rights and social respect as heterosexual and homosexual human-human relationships.

I am a practising zoophile who regularly engages in group sex with my fully-mature rottweilers (both male and female) who willingly and often actively reciprocate the intimate eroticity.

We all enjoy it immensely, so what’s wrong with it? For some reason, most people – even the supposedly enlightened individuals at PFLAG – think my sexual choice is disgusting, morally repugnant and unnatural. To me it’s incomprehensible and inexplicable why.

—–

Now please tell me why my stand is MORALLY WRONG from a atheistic, humanist point of view.

Quotes from the Bible or other holy scriptures will not be accepted. Arguments that some god or another forbids it will similarly be ignored. As a atheist, I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY RELIGION OR PHILOSOPHY BASED ARGUMENTS.

I welcome and eagerly await comments which attempt to persuade me that somehow, my beliefs and practices are fundamentally wrong from a relativistic, humanist, liberal and pluralistic point of view.

Convince me.

—–

Role-playing ends here. Related to my posts Communism = Atheism = Relative Morality and Morality: Of Absolutes and Relatives.

————–

UPDATE: The Dutch ban bestiality, and a liberal makes the case for why it shouldn’t be banned. Nuff said?


174 Responses to “Fascism and Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong”

  1. Samuel Skinner Says:

    Society isn’t a living organism- it is an aggregate of people. You can’t claim you are removing the weak for the good of society because the good of society is actions that benefit everyone. Obviuosly these people are not benefiting. Not to mention there is Kant’s “people are ends unto themselves” rule. It helps avoid insanity such as you are describing. It is the concept that we should treat other people with a minimum of fairness and decency or else you shouldn’t except to recieve the same courtesy.

    I’m good with that, but I never really got bestality. I don’t think it should have the same legal rights- there is only one consenting adults. I’m not really against it though, because there are more important things to worry about- like keeping you away from firearms.

  2. Samuel Skinner Says:

    In case you’re curious there are two camps on bestiality- the “what the heck is the big deal?” camp and the “there is a problem here” camp. The second group brings up the issues of consent (how do you know you aren’t raping said animal, disease and maybe a few others.

  3. Samuel Skinner Says:

    Echo… Echo… Echo… Echo.

  4. Samuel Skinner Says:

    Old McDonald had a farm- e i e i oh
    And on that farm he had a goat
    e i ei oh

  5. b k Says:

    Fascism: exertion of will by a political authority. Being an atheist, we don’t believe in a divine authority. And thus we tend to question the legitimacy of earthly authorities as well. We (or I or whatever) accept political authority because I am allowed to participate in it and there are limits to the impact it has on my private life (though this is disappearing rapidly). Thus, I think exerting one’s will (in this case the gov’t’s) on another is a neccesary evil. Also, I value human life greatly and do not consider it disposable. Because there is no peaceful afterlife it is important that we try to make our time here, together, as harmonious as we can.

    Bestiality. If you could prove the animals like it, I say have a good time. Just don’t do it in my living room.

  6. lal Says:

    keep trying Sam…you sure you’re an ateist?

  7. Dale Says:

    What good does it do for me to label those views or actions as morally wrong? You get the same results if people are religious or not, if people believe in gods or not. You still have fascists, bestialists, and more in the religious community, so what good does it do to have religion? You’re just into religion because you think it’s an exclusive club that makes you superior to others.

  8. Mythprogrammer Says:

    I dont think farm animals should be brought into the discussion Samuel😉

    For beastiality, if you can prove to other people it was consent and they agree, then I dont see it being different than human with human. Although for consent, you’d need a talking animal… I mean when were finally visited by aliens, Im going to want to add a few notches to my belt so i see where your going with this.😛

    About euthanizing, let the sick and etc be the decider.😛 I don’t want my life in the hands of someone else unless I specifically say what person decides. Apart from that, we shouldnt be able to force death on people because they’re using resources. If we become that cold blooded then why would aliens want to visit us? your robbing me of a notch!

  9. MJK Says:

    1.) Well, there are a couple of ways to approach this. Humans are evolved to take care of their kin or clan. Whatever reason you have or conceive of, you have to keep this in mind. As for removing members of society, it depends. In some human cultures in the past have actually done that; I can think of one subculture that does it now [much to the disgust of closely related subcultures]. But the moral zeitgeist moves on; a complex adaptive system of what is not nice and what is nice with many interplaying forces. We don’t do that because of a huge shift in moral values from the past — the golden rule. Seeing each other as part of a whole. Some religions, such as Buddahism and Christianity have something along these lines. LSD (acid) is said to have a similar effect on a large number of its users, the feeling that we are part of a whole being who shattered his/her conscience to give rise to people. It would seem that if you can chemically induce such feelings it gives some credence that humans are evolved to be nice to each other and humans continue to evolve right now. One product of the agnostic Age of Englightment was (among others such as *classic* liberalism and democracy) was the Bill of Rights and “the rights of man”.
    2.) If the animal doesn’t mind or even likes it, I guess it’s not cruelty. It’s hard to say since a certain amount of the population is already “into” animals (anywhere from 3% [Kinsey] up to 10% are zoophiliacs or zoo-curious [survey.net]) .
    As for not accepting religious or philosophical arguments, I think you should be more careful in your wording. On one hand, it is one thing to keep koran/bible/gita thumpers or AynRandian “philosophers” away with a disclaimer but zoning yourself into a rhetorical safe tautilogical zone, to win what I presume is you already decided position.

  10. Parker Says:

    I won’t comment on the first one, as I think it is a matter worthy of real discussion.

    For the second, I’ll echo what so many others have said. If consent can be proven, have fun you fucking weirdo.😉 But again, you’ll need to find an animal that can speak its consent in human language. Good luck with that.

  11. Daemin Says:

    You first question/statement/whatever is inconsistent and nonsensical.

    You say first

    I believe that certain nonproductive members of society – i.e. the terminally and painfully sick, unemployed and alcohol-addicted street vagrants, serial criminals, and those too old to contribute anything meaningful – should be euthanized for the greater of good of society and mankind.

    And then you say

    Resources that they consume can find much better use in advancing civilization and the happiness of other (and more) people. The good and survival of the human species takes precedence over selfish and petty individual needs.

    This two paragraphs contradict each other.

    If the justification for killing the first class of people is that it can be put to better use making a second, unspecified group happier than they are currently, you are basically saying any increase in happiness is worth any cost of suffering. So we should kill you if your death would give me a split second of happiness?

    You claim that the old do not contribute anything meaningful and that they get a free ride. But in fact they already contributed to the society that you are currently benefited from. On top of that, chances are they are being cared for by someone who IS contributing to society under your defintinion, and who is free to spend the proceeds of his contribution as he sees fit.

    So really what your first question amounts to is a question of why we all shouldn’t be slaves under one or more masters who get to dictate how we live our lives. Do i really need to give you an argument as to whats wrong with that?

  12. Joey Ramone Says:

    Those acts are morally wrong because society says so…not because religion says so. Morality is a product of evolution, not religion. Moreover, religion does not have exclusive rights to morality; I, for example, have never been religious and live a moral lifestyle; probably more moral than many so-called “good Christians”. I don’t smoke, don’t drink, and have never committed any crime worse than shoplifting (as a minor, one time).

  13. MJK Says:

    I think it’s also worth pointing out that morality doesn’t necessarily come out of the bible or any holy book. Those holy texts are written according to the times they were written in. The old testament of the christian bible seems to indicate that slavery was ok. Human sacrifice was OK (particularly, Judges 11). I hope you don’t take your morality from that holy book. “But pick out the good parts!” I hear you say? Which good parts?

    This brings up another point. If you are the kind of person whose only reason for not killing, murdering, raping and stealing is because of a few pieces of text, then I think you are the kind of person I should stay far, far away from. If you are protesting that is not necessarily so, then you acknowledge that you don’t get your morals from scripture.

  14. Chris Says:

    In order to provide the requisite proof, we must start by agreeing upon a definition for morality – the crux of your argument is contingent upon the belief that morality cannot be established without god (big G or otherwise) who has greater knowledge and/or wisdom defining morality for us. For this purpose, we must start with a definition for morality that falls within the constraints set forth for the argument. To recap: no religion, and no philosophy. Within these constraints, we will define morality as follows, “morality: a particular set of values that determine whether an action is good or bad”.

    Before I begin, I’d like to note a general objection to the premise of rejecting philosophical arguments in the debate you’ve set forth. Morality, as defined above, is not subject to scientific inquiry, and, therefore, cannot be tested and proven. As such, the only appropriate avenue for discourse is through philosophy – as an intellectual pursuit of truth. By rejecting arguments that test the truth of morality outright, you have artificially eliminated one (possibly the only) proof of morality independent of religion.

    Moreover, morality cannot be defined independent of philosophy and religion because it is an abstract concept that requires either one, or both, to evaluate. As an example, morality is the set of rules which tells us that murder is “bad”. Philosophy is what allows us to determine whether this is true. Please note, what I’m about to say is, to a degree, a straw man argument; however, I’ve provided disclosure and the question is rhetorical (i.e. it illustrates a point, it does not draw a conclusion). Defeating this argument does not have any effect on the greater debate of religion independent morality, only the validity of the premises set forth originally. The debate you’ve set forth is akin to asking “Is murder good or bad? Please answer yes or no. Answering no will not be accepted”. The conclusion I wish to draw is that you have set up an argument which cannot be refuted because successful rebuke breaks the arbitrary rules you’ve set.

    Yet, I digress. Your two core beliefs fail upon initial inspection. They fail because they presume a conclusion in their construction.

    Both arguments presuppose that your positions are “good”, and rely on the prevailing morality of our society to generate outrage at the sentiments. Yet, your statements are judgements without supporting evidence. You are asking for proof that they are “bad” (i.e. the opposite of your judgement), without first supporting your judgement that they are “good”. I would ask, then, how you came to believe these two core principles. In the absence of evidence, I will presume your positions are not arbitrary, and are not insanity – and, therefore, must have some logical basis.

    Your position on euthanasia is that it is better for society to utilize sparse resources by eliminating non-productive members – an argument that “the greater good” outweighs individual rights. The debate between these two alternatives is already well documented and is unlikely to be resolved here, so I will instead focus on the underlying issue, that of choice. There are two forms of euthanasia: voluntary and imposed. While a case can be made that voluntary euthanasia is a matter of individual choice, imposed euthanasia requires a society wide pact to abide by the decisions of the many. In effect, the principle itself suffers from a circular logic of conclusions. If we accept the judgement of society to determine when to impose euthanasia, we must contend with the shifting judgement of society. We cannot say (without philosophical discourse) whether the act of euthanasia is good or bad, we can only conclude that the principle of imposed euthanasia is bad policy because there is no underlying morality which can limit its implementation.

    Your position on bestiality is a typical example of defining “right” as “whatever feels good”. Yet, this position is fundamentally inconsistent because it defies broad adoption. For example, following the logic of your position, society would be required to allow a sadist to “feel good” by hurting others. Now, we might constrain your position to say that “whatever feels good is right, except if it diminishes how good another person feels”. However, even this constraint is insufficient to justify “whatever feels good”. Furthermore, requesting legal rights with your dogs cannot be equated to human-human relationships. The question I must ask is what legal rights would you like bestowed upon your dogs as a result of your relationship?

    In conclusion, I have not shown that your positions are “bad” (which means you could say I’ve failed your criteria), but I have sufficiently demonstrated that your core beliefs do not meet any measure of test that they are “good”. Without significant justification, your core values cannot be endorsed. In simplest terms, the question of morality focuses more intently upon what is “right”, than what is “wrong”. Your values fail to justify themselves as “right”.

  15. Scott Thong Says:

    The debate you’ve set forth is akin to asking “Is murder good or bad? Please answer yes or no. Answering no will not be accepted”. – Chris

    Actually, the whole point of my thought exercise is to bring to light the basis for a society’s particular band of morality.

    Is murder good or bad? If one does not believe in an absolute and undefiable source of morality (say, God) then all morality is chosen by society, and is thus relative to the situation and other societies, and is thus arbitrary.

    Both my ‘positions’ on euthanasia and bestiality are meant to evoke a strong emotional response of disgust, yet also raise the question – If we do not have an absolute standard that tells us that these thigns are wrong, then what basis do we have to feel that these things are ‘wrong’?

    You are correct, then, that my positions do not prove themselves right or wrong, good or bad. They exist only to bring the reader’s thoughts to WHY we consider them good or bad according to an immediate gut reaction.

  16. Scott Thong Says:

    Those holy texts are written according to the times they were written in. The old testament of the christian bible seems to indicate that slavery was ok. -MJK

    You’ve just answered your own objection – the laws of Moses were meant for Old Testament times, and specifically for Jews in Israel. Christians use the New Testament which does not proscribe specific laws, only general guidelines of love and justness.

    Human sacrifice was OK (particularly, Judges 11).

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=judges%2011&version=31

    And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

    34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”

    36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

    38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

    I’ve addressed this long before, and anyone who actually reads the passage (instead of paroting what some anti-Christian website or message board posts) would note the following:

    1) Does God at any time actually approve of this so-called human sacrifice by Jephthah? Especially when God repeatedly calls human sacrifice to Molech ‘detestable’?

    2) Did Jephthah actually burn his daughter in flames? Why does she say “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry” instead of “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will die”? And why does it say at the end, ‘And she was a virgin’?

    3) Most likely, she was ‘given as a sacrifice’ by becoming a nun in service to God. That explains the mourning abotu virginity part.

    And if you think that the Jews were idiots (never are they accused of that!) and take things 100% literally, picture this: What if as soon as Jephthah came home, his wife threw a stone at him for being so late?

    Do you think he would have offered the stone to the poor priests, wo would be ‘burning’ the stone to God for the next few decades? Lol! If that had happened, most likely he would have ‘redeemed’ (broken into bits) the rock as an offering to God.

    So the sacrifice must suit the situation.

    I could go into the PURPOSE of burnt offerings in Mosaic sacrificial laws, but I think I’ve made my point.

    UPDATE 21 Feb 2008: Full explanation at https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/judges-11-debunking-the-myth-that-jephthah-burns-his-daughter-as-a-human-sacrifice-to-god/

    ———————–

    I hope you don’t take your morality from that holy book. “But pick out the good parts!” I hear you say? Which good parts?

    If you actually took a look at Christianity instead of just bashing it from afar, you’d know the incredibly simple answer to that. Go ahead, give it a try.

    ———————–

    If you are the kind of person whose only reason for not killing, murdering, raping and stealing is because of a few pieces of text, then I think you are the kind of person I should stay far, far away from. If you are protesting that is not necessarily so, then you acknowledge that you don’t get your morals from scripture.

    Do you REALLY believe that about Christians? Honestly?

    Ask yourself, if you were walking down a dark and deserted road, and suddenly encountered six burly men… Would you feel SAFER or LESS SAFE if these men had just come from a Bible study?

    Say what you want, rationalize to yourself however much you wish about the moral justifications of Bible believers. The simple reality is that the vast majority of Christians are stereotypically nice people who try to be nicer.

    And just for the record, Christians behave nice because they’re entire core philosophy is ‘Love God and love humanity.’ If Stalin, Lenin and Mao thad adhered to this precept, the Communist slaughter of 100 millions would never have been carried out.

    And seriously, you don’t know half of anything about Christian Scripture.

  17. Scott Thong Says:

    Those acts are morally wrong because society says so…not because religion says so. Morality is a product of evolution, not religion. – Joey Ramone

    So Joey, if society says that killing babies is okay (Middle Eastern worship of Molech, abortion); or sex with animalsis okay (European countries); or killing dissidents is okay (Communist states)… Does that make ti okay with you?

    But good on you for being a law-abiding, moral person. Just some questions: How did you know what is moral or not? Where did you learn your moral standard from?

    If it was from society, then see my killing babies/bestiality/mass murder paragraph again.

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    About euthanizing, let the sick and etc be the decider. I don’t want my life in the hands of someone else unless I specifically say what person decides. – Mythprogrammer

    Myth, how about the Terry Schiavo case?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

    Related to that, if someone is suffering and dying from an incureable, debilitating, painful disease but is in a coma, should we end their life to spare them the pain?

    And also related: If it’s wrong to euthanise old people with almost-broken health who have already lived 80 years of life, why is it right to ‘euthanise’ perfectly healthy babies who have 80 years of life to live via abortion?

  19. MJK Says:

    OK. So why does he talk about a *burnt* offering? Why does he get so distraught in Judges 11:35? If she did go be a nun or whatever, why didn’t the
    story just say so at the end? Why does it have to be so confusing and ambigious? It says “And she was a virgin.” in the NIV version but not the KJV.
    How do I determine which is “more” biblical? How do I know the translators didn’t try and throw me for a loop?

    If the old testment isn’t necessary for christians then why do they still have it? Why not add the catholic apocrphyal books, like the book of Mary?
    Was slavery OK in the new testmanet, not to mention the vast majority of human history as well?

    Stone burning? Why not? Is there a rule saying it’s not so? The Amplified bible seems to indicate whatever or whoever, implying that he expected a
    living thing (person or beast). Indeed the footnote there seems to indicate serious debate among biblical “scholars”.
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011;&version=45; What about the Contemporary English Version? It sounds like he was expecting a
    person http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011;&version=46; Is there by chance a “biblical” way of determing what is biblical?

    Do I REALLY believe that about Christians? Yes, and other faiths as well. You said that it is Christian’s core belief to “love god and humanity”.
    If it was written to say something else, then what? You mention Stalin, Mao, et al. What about god? How many has he or his agents (like Jephthah)
    killed? Besides, Hitler’s 6 million is chump change compared go Ghengis Kahn. But somehow Stalin is seen as pushing the envalope of evil. It’s
    because he did it this past century.

    As for your group of men scenario, I dunno. Do they take Luke 19:11 literally? Or do they take it as a parable with the real-life lesson to be “kill
    the nonbelievers”? Do they think that Matthew Shepard got what he deserved? Hope they don’t think that I’m gay if they do think so.

    As an aside, I did spend a lot of time studying the bible. Of my own volition, I accepted christ when I was 13 and stayed with my church for about 10
    years. It was the questions that I had, and the unconvincing answers I got that got me to wonder why I believe what I did. No one had an answer for
    the questions. No catholic, orthodox, pentacostal, new-age megachurch pastor member had any answers that weren’t somehow unconvincing. It was painful
    to leave and it still affects me. There were good parts, like staying away from smoking and drinking. I’m still abstinent because it suits me
    personally (but it is unreasonable to expect even %5 of the population to go along with it). It is part of who I am. But I grew up and moved on.

  20. Chris Says:

    Ironically, you focused most (in fact, quoted) the one sentence I hoped readers would pay least attention to, since it is a straw man argument. I didn’t realize it before, but I had attempted to tag that sentence as “Straw man” before and “/Straw man” after – the comment system parsed my tags as HTML and did not display them.

    If we do not have an absolute standard that tells us that these thigns [sic] are wrong, then what basis do we have to feel that these things are ‘wrong’?

    Your comment is exactly what I tried to avoid. Without diving into the philosophy of morality as relative or absolute, proving that your core beliefs are “wrong” is impossible. What I attempted to point out, sans philosophy to the extent possible, is that your two core beliefs have no moral basis to begin with. The way you framed the exercise presumes that your beliefs are “right” and must be proven “wrong”. A statement consisting of abstracts (such as morality) cannot be proven right or wrong without philosophy.

    -Chris

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    So MJK, you were once a Christian. Then answer me straight and direct: Knowing what REAL Christians are REALLY like, regardless of individual Bible verses, would you not feel safer than if they were general people?

    Because, online unreality and atheist polemics aside, real Christians in everyday life are nice, decent people who are LESS LIKELY to rob, rape or murder you – are they not?

    And again you quote just one verse out of context (how does Luke 19 even apply to ordinary people???), but ignore all the others such as ‘Do not murder’, ‘Love thy neighbour and thy enemy’ and ‘Love God and mankind.’

    ——————————

    If the old testment isn’t necessary for christians then why do they still have it? Why not add the catholic apocrphyal books, like the book of Mary?
    Was slavery OK in the new testmanet, not to mention the vast majority of human history as well?

    The OT is important as a record of history and to verify the NT with its prophecies, foreshadowing and typology – particularly of the Messiah. Without the OT, the NT would have no background or basis for its themes such as sin, salvation, blood sacrifice or even God.

    Slavery was a deeply ingrained economic system, as I have mentioend before. The way Paul addressed the issue in the New Testament was to consider all believers as equal and brothers and treat them thus, rather than rising up in revolution. I’m sure you know the short little book of Philemon.

    As for the apocrypha and other non-Canonical books, there are plenty of reasons why they aren’t accepted:

    The Apocrypha were not considered Canon by the Nicean Council, which judges them in part by the fact that they were not considered genuine Scripture by churches at the time the Council convened. There were also not accepted by the Catholic Church until Martin Luther criticized them.

    And frankly, some of the so-called ‘Gospels’ are full of nonsense: Gospel of Thomas with a giant Jesus and talking cross; Gospel of Barnabas describing it rains in summer (not in the Middle East it doesn’t, but in Euroe it does).

    The books of the Old Testament are accepted according to Jewish tradition (being their books). Jesus also attests to their inclusion by saying ‘From the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah’ which is how the Old Testament was arranged by the Jews.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2023:35&version=31

    I can go more into detail if you wish.

    ——————————

    On Judges 11, Jephthah was most likely expecting an animal to be ‘burnt’ as in accordance with Mosaic laws of thanksgiving sacrifice. He did not expect his own daughter to appear – whom would be illegal and sinful to murder as a burnt sacrifice.

    Or do you think that the priests of YHWH who must carry out the daily sacrifices would willingly kill her – In direct contradiction of the Laws of Moses, defiling themselves (they have to eat some of the meat, and human flesh is non-kosher forbiddden), and offering a sacrifice that does not follow the VERY STRICT rituals laid out by Moses (only goats, cows, sheep, birds, grain, drink are allowed)?

    Use some common sense, imagine what the scenario is like in its entirety instead of zooming in on one corner of the TV screen.

    The ‘burnt’ is mentioned as his intention at the start, yet not when his actual act carried out where ‘never marry’ and ‘virgin’ appear instead.

    Even if one accepts your interpretations you fail to adress the facts that:

    1) Just because the Bible mentions something DOES NOT mean that it condones the act. God still did not anywhere approve of Jephthah’s offering. It doesn’t even mention God being directly involved at all.

    So Jephthah was misguided, does this make God Himself evil? The Bible also describes Herod killing all the male children in an attempt to kill baby Jesus, does this mean God approves it?

    2) You ignore all the other times where God forbids human scarifice, including times where He actually speaks Himself to say that it is detestable. So I voted Republican 99 times and Democrat once, does this make me a Democrat for life?

    3) Jephthah may hav been a fanatical, arrogant fool to burn his daughetr (assuming he actually did so). But God Himself is the author and giver of life. He gives us life for free, we never repay Him or thank Him, but we complain when He takes it back. What right do we have to whine?

    If some eccentric billionaire gives you $1000 every month for no reason or payback, how can you complain if one day he stops giving you free cash on a whim?

    So when God smites Sodom and Gomorrah, or floods the world, or takes away all Job’s possessions, or lets me get cancer and die… What basis do I have to claim He did me wrong? I’m living on a loan from Him.

    And maybe to a Jew in the original Hebrew (which many can actually read), the last past about being a virgin is not at all ambigious.

    I know for one when the Sanhedrin asked Jesus: “Are You then the Son of God?”, Jesus responded “You rightly say that I am.” (NKJV) This sounds like a vague denial to modern ears, but to a Jew of those times, it was a firm ‘Yes.’

    ———————–

    But somehow Stalin is seen as pushing the envalope of evil. It’s
    because he did it this past century.

    Actually, it’s because Communist dictators killed more than any other philosophy or religion EVER. Stalin got perhaps 7 million in just tiny little Ukraine alone.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

    Wait, I take that back that statement… 46+ million babies are killed by abortions EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Communism loses flat out with a paltry 100 million over 100 years. So selfish abortions are the worst killer in all of human history.

    ———————–

    It was the questions that I had, and the unconvincing answers I got that got me to wonder why I believe what I did. No one had an answer for
    the questions. No catholic, orthodox, pentacostal, new-age megachurch pastor member had any answers that weren’t somehow unconvincing. It was painful to leave and it still affects me.

    Well, I am no great and wise person, but I can try to gvie you answers to your questions. Whether they are satisfactory is up to your standard, however.

  22. Scott Thong Says:

    Sorry about that Chris, but that is what I feel is the core question of my entire post: If we consider all morality human defined and therefore relative, what basis do we have to argue that it is inherently wrong? We can’t science it out (as you have said), we can’t vote it in without making it a relative matter.

    If I was vague about my ‘core beliefs’, let me clarify: I don’t actually support them. I just use them as emotionally provocative examples of behaviour that the majority of people cannot condone, yet have little reason to feel are evil if they subscribe to a society defined relative standard of morality.

    I don’t expect anyone to disprove those two beliefs, as I myself agree that they have no moral basis if divine absolute authority is ruled out.

    How exactly does philosophy prove that an action if morally right or wrong? I’m interested to know.

  23. MJK Says:

    Sorry, Luke 19:27. I’m a bit rusty.

    So why didn’t god stop this sacrifice in his name? Why did Jeph.. get away with it? Could have god at least *said* something? Not something I’d use
    as a moral guide.

    Again, my answer is “I don’t know.” If I am supposed to feel safe around christians, then no christian should ever comply with an order to go to war.
    Some christians are mean and evil spirited and some christians are genuinely nice. Most human beings are ok, too.

    We could spend all of eternity going back and forth about this point or that and it won’t really convince you or me. I answered your original questions as best as I could.

    One of the things I needed addressed is this: why should I believe the bible as absolute truth versus any other holy text of my choosing. Some of it is good other parts are not. All religions seem to fall into this category. I can only really deal with things I can observe, that are real.

    In the end, i concluded that there was no real reason to worship “christ” or any other deity.

    I then just moved along with life.

  24. Scott Thong Says:

    Sorry, Luke 19:27. I’m a bit rusty.

    “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” – Luke 19:27

    You do realize that Jesus is telling a story about an earthly king, who in those days behaved exactly the way Jesus decribes (e.g. Herod, Pharaoh). Jesus also told parables about sowing seed, does that mean God is literally a careless farmer?

    If one extends it to be referring to what Jesus will actually do, it only applies at the End of Days when he returns personally and – yes – condemns all who rejected Him to an eternity away from His presence, the true eternal ‘spiritual death’.

    As a comparison, take Luke 18. You can see how Jesus makes it clear in the last verses that the characters in His parables do not always illustrate what God is really like:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018;&version=31;

    The Parable of the Persistent Widow

    1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

    4″For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care about men, 5yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’ ”

    6And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

    And seriously, how often to modern day, educated fundamentalist Christians go out and wage war on nonChrsitians? That’s that other religion.

    And also the Soviet Union’s murder of every religion in the name of enlightened atheism.

    See, that’s one problem with most anti-Christian polemic arguments: They pick out one verse they dislike and intentionally ignore everything else. If you looked at the Bible and doctrine and theology as a whole, you might not be so quick to find apparent flaws.

    ——————

    So why didn’t god stop this sacrifice in his name? Why did Jeph.. get away with it? Could have god at least *said* something? Not something I’d use as a moral guide.

    Why do you focus on just this highly debateable passage, and ignore the vast majority of others that describe God’s DIRECT MORAL GUIDE to love others, serve others and die for their sake?

    IF Jephthah REALLY sacrificed his daughter (which is highly, highly improbable for plenty of reasons as I have just explained), it’s God’s fault for not stopping it? It’s also God’s fault for not stopping the KKK, abortion doctor murderers and the Oklahoma bombing right?

    Did you really quite Christianity out of objections like this?

    ————————

    Again, my answer is “I don’t know.” If I am supposed to feel safe around christians, then no christian should ever comply with an order to go to war.

    Christianity = Never war? Not to be insulting, but did you actually quit Christianity because of liberal influence?

    Let me give you a scenario: A 6 foot guy is beating up a 5 foot girl. No one else is around. What is the Christian thing to do – say grace, pray for peace and let the girl be pummelled to death?

    Similarly, if genocide is being perpetrated in a Third World country, is it Christian to ‘turn the other cheek’ and let the populace be slaughtered out of total pacifism?

    Or take if you will World War II when America was much moe Christianized than today. Imagine the majority of the populace refusing to go to war after Pearl Harbour, letting Nazi Germany Holocaust all of Europe and Hirohito’s Japan enslave all of Asia – because ‘War isn’t the Christian thing to do’.

    Christians are also called to oppose injustice. God is a god of judgement as well as love. This is something many liberalized, secularized, humanistic and hedonistic/antinomianist churches often ignore.

    PS. Thank you, war-waging Americans, for saving me from Communist death.

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/what-did-the-vietnam-war-ever-accomplish/

    ———————–

    One of the things I needed addressed is this: why should I believe the bible as absolute truth versus any other holy text of my choosing. Some of it is good other parts are not.

    Well, for me, the Bible is much more historically verifiable than other religion’s texts. An example:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-cyrus-cylinder-not-isolated-and-not-vague-verification-of-the-bibles-historical-account/

    And if it’s accurate in wordly reporting, it is much more likely to be accurate in heavenly reporting too (salvation, God, sin etc). Of course, not all the historical gaps and apparent contradictions are filled in yet – but it will get there someday.

    As for the ‘good parts, bad parts’ that’s very much a personal decision. I believe the Bible is all good, with record of bad parts for comparison. And in the end, no one can say that God was unfair for His decisions.

    And Christianity HAS to be better than some other religions that directly, specifically command murder of others for glory and reward.

  25. Samuel Skinner Says:

    For the record the Old Macdonald comment wasn’t about bestality- I was just wondering when anyone would comment- Scott is usually so quick about it.

    And technically wouldn’t having sex with aliens count as bestality? Thus making Star Trek an X-rated series? Or does bestality just refer to sex with animals that can’t consent?

  26. Billards Champ Says:

    Are the animals consenting to this action? If not then that is rape isn’t it. Cruelty to animals? You’ve heard of that surely. Unless you can PROVE that animals WANT TO engage in such action then you shouldn’t do such things because it falls under cruelty to animals (or at least I would rank it akin to that).

    As for euthanising the non-productive members of society, what I find morally wrong about that is that, even if they are not being productive, I consider them my EQUAL. We are ALL human beings. Nothing gives me the right to claim I am BETTER or HIGHER than they are and so give me the authority to kill them off.

  27. Blair Mitchelmore Says:

    First of all, you say that you reject any philosophy based reasoning which is possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said. Philosophy strives to create logically valid reasoning. If the premises of that logic are true, then the reasoning is also true so to say you reject philosophy (but accept “atheistic” arguments which wouldn’t exist without philosophy) is really dumb.

    As for your first point, there’s a difference between euthanasia and what you propose. Euthanasia is about ending the suffering of people who wish death. You’re talking about killing people against their will because they are no longer useful to society. That’s an egregious attack on the freedoms of people. Not only that but you then need to define usefulness to society. What if someone is intelligent, went through university and even went through medical school and graduated at the top of their class. But once that was all done they decided to make crappy clay sculptures that everyone agrees are not only a terrible waste of their talents but also just in general terrible. He is no longer useful to society and was even a burden on society by going through an unused education process so your proposal would be to kill him, but hopefully you can see that that is no more than cold blooded murder.

    Secondly, regarding bestiality. I have a very specific opinion about sex: you don’t do it without consent. Until animals can be proven to be sentient and are capable of communicating with humans their thoughts and opinions, you cannot have sex with one without it being rape. If you want to stick your ass up in the air and wait for a dog to figure out that you want it to fuck you, well that’s fine by me, but you can’t do anything to the dog or any animal because you can’t reliably convince me that it’s consensual.

    One final note. Your basic argument seems to be that without God all morality is completely relative. That may be true, but it’s a problem philosophers have discussed for millennia without making any real headway, so you shouldn’t assume your stance to be true. For one thing, morality may be a genetic trait, or a part of the structure of our brain. If those, or something similar, are true then there very well may be an absolute moral code built into us, or at least some moral absolutes from which we can extrapolate the rest. Regardless, a godless world is not necessarily a morally relative world. Furthermore, a morally relative world is not necessarily a world where you can do anything. Morality is a societal construct because morality defines the behaviour between members of a society. Which means the members of society need to agree on the basic terms. Agreeing on the basic terms of a morality, relative or not, will lead to certain limitations. Always.

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    First of all, you say that you reject any philosophy based reasoning which is possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said.

    By philosophy, I mean non-theistic beliefs such as Buddhism.

    As for your first point, there’s a difference between euthanasia and what you propose. Euthanasia is about ending the suffering of people who wish death. You’re talking about killing people against their will because they are no longer useful to society.

    You cite theory where the victim decides. I cite practice where the doctor or the state decides.

    Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer’s, it’s all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent. – If Abortion is Legal, So Should Infanticide and Child Murder Be

    Secondly, regarding bestiality. I have a very specific opinion about sex: you don’t do it without consent. Until animals can be proven to be sentient and are capable of communicating with humans their thoughts and opinions, you cannot have sex with one without it being rape.

    Okay, argument conceded to.

    Now tell me why consensual incest between adults is morally wrong.

    That may be true, but it’s a problem philosophers have discussed for millennia without making any real headway, so you shouldn’t assume your stance to be true.

    Isn’t ‘millennia of no solution’ an argument FOR my stance that morality not based on a deity is relative?

    Regardless, a godless world is not necessarily a morally relative world.

    What unchanging source of morality is put forward other than a timeless and eternal deity?

    Morality is a societal construct because morality defines the behaviour between members of a society.

    Meaning society can choose anything it wishes, thus making its moral code purely relative?

    Agreeing on the basic terms of a morality, relative or not, will lead to certain limitations. Always.

    However, the limits themselves are open to debate and definition, making them relative as well.

  29. Blair Mitchelmore Says:

    “By philosophy, I mean non-theistic beliefs such as Buddhism.”

    Well that’s not philosophy, but seeing as you already abused the word euthanasia, I should expect terrible abuse and misuse of vocabulary. Also, you have now defined philosophy as non-theistic beliefs like Buddhism, which now means you will only accept atheistic arguments, but not non-theistic arguments.

    “You cite theory where the victim decides. I cite practice where the doctor or the state decides.”

    Actually I cited someone (the useless clay sculptor) who was being killed by the state because he was deemed useless. That would be murder. Obviously, you’re attempting a bad analogy to abortion and euthanasia of mentally incapable people. Regarding abortion: I’ll never convince you that a fetus is not yet alive and thinking because you use some religious source to make that decision for you, so that’s an intractable problem. Regarding euthanasia of mentally incapable people: it’s not as easy to justify as self-desired euthanasia because consent is not as easy to determine; that’s why it should be decided on a case-by-base basis, and if a living will of someone in that situation states that euthanasia is not wanted then that decision should be respected. It’s not an easy problem to solve, but that doesn’t mean we should give up and take one arbitrary position which doesn’t even solve the problem.

    “Now tell me why consensual incest between adults is morally wrong.”

    I never argued that incest was morally wrong, though your argument that first cousins’ offspring leads to little chance of defect doesn’t follow to direct siblings.

    “Isn’t ‘millennia of no solution’ an argument FOR my stance that morality not based on a deity is relative?”

    No. It means that it’s a tough problem to crack. Just because a problem is tough doesn’t mean you simply give up and take one arbitrary position which doesn’t even solve the problem.

    “What unchanging source of morality is put forward other than a timeless and eternal deity?”

    Absolute morality doesn’t mean unchanging morality. Absolute morality means there are things which are inherently immoral, which is possible using either of my two propositions and possibly others.

    “Meaning society can choose anything it wishes, thus making its moral code purely relative?”

    A society choosing anything it wishes doesn’t mean everything will be chosen, which is the fallacy you offer.

    “However, the limits themselves are open to debate and definition, making them relative as well.”

    Even in religiously based moral codes, the limits of behaviour are open to debate and definition, so that’s a moot point.

  30. Scott Thong Says:

    Regarding abortion: I’ll never convince you that a fetus is not yet alive and thinking because you use some religious source to make that decision for you, so that’s an intractable problem.

    So just because the fetus is incapable of ‘sentient and self-aware thought’ its life can be ended?

    By that same standard, a mentally crippled patient on permanent life support can also be ‘euthanised’.

    The only difference being, give them both another few months, and the fetus would be fully functioning and on its way to full sentience. Whereas the mental cripple would likely not.

    Yet abortion is still legal, and putting comatose vegetables to sleep isn’t. I thought atheism and humanism were supposed to be logical?!

    How is killing someone a day or two before they manage to become ‘citizens with full legal rights’ somehow make it more excusable?

    In fact, the stance that ‘nonawareness = can be killed without repercussion’ is used as justification for ‘post-birth abortion’ of babies by atheist Peter Singer.

    “My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”

    “The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness.”

    “Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness…make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings.”

    Atheism and Child Murder

    Could you kindly tell me why their position that 27-day old humans can be killed before they become fully self-aware is morally wrong, if -27 day old humans can be legally aborted with a knife into the skull?

    I never argued that incest was morally wrong, though your argument that first cousins’ offspring leads to little chance of defect doesn’t follow to direct siblings.

    Therefore, humanists atheists have no basis for, and should not be, feeling that consensual homsexual incest between adult brothers should provoke any disgust response?

    No. It means that it’s a tough problem to crack. Just because a problem is tough doesn’t mean you simply give up and take one arbitrary position which doesn’t even solve the problem.

    Yet the difficulty of solving said problem should lend weight to the theist’s argument that non-theistic morality is relative.

    Absolute morality doesn’t mean unchanging morality. Absolute morality means there are things which are inherently immoral, which is possible using either of my two propositions and possibly others.

    If something is inherently immoral, it is always immoral forever and ever, yes? So how is that not equivalent to unchanging morality?

    A society choosing anything it wishes doesn’t mean everything will be chosen, which is the fallacy you offer.

    You’re absolutely right. To choose everything means to choose 100% of all choices. And choosing mass purges of sections of the populace (USSR), legalizing zoophilia (Denmark), and involuntary euthanasia (Netherlands) isn’t even 90% of ‘everything’.

    Similarly, because proving that God does not exist means that one must know that God does not exist in 100% of spacetime and reality – which is humanly impossible – therefore atheism is a faith-based belief, yes?

  31. Blair Mitchelmore Says:

    There’s a difference between aborting a fetus and killing someone who is already alive because they are mentally incapable. And the laws of the Netherlands are very strict to ensure that the sstem they have put in place is not abused. Aborting a fetus is a serious decision, because you will hold responsibility and no pro-choice group supports rampant abortion; they support it when the circumstances call for it. Your problem is your worldview is far too absolute. And that doesn’t mean you have an absolute morality, it means you have a morality blind to circumstance.

    “In fact, the stance that ‘nonawareness = can be killed without repercussion’ is used as justification for ‘post-birth abortion’ of babies by atheist Peter Singer.”

    Just because one guy who was an atheist has a deplorable opinion about killing children doesn’t mean it’s an “atheist” stance. That another fallacy of yours; you seem to think of atheists as a block of people when in reality there are countless variations. Just as there can be a spectrum of saints and sinners in the religious world, not all atheists are equally moral. That has nothing to do with their atheism.

    “Therefore, humanists atheists have no basis for, and should not be, feeling that consensual homsexual incest between adult brothers should provoke any disgust response?”

    Clearly that’s not what I argued. All I did was point out your logical fallacy. You claim that the genetic argument is invalid because first-cousins are only marginally more likely to have genetic defects in their offspring. All I pointed out was that direct sibling incest was not equivalent. Secondly, you don’t need a moral code to be disgusted with something, nor do you need to approve of something for you to support its legality. Quite frankly, I don’t care if two brothers want to fuck each other. That’s between two consenting adults. That doesn’t mean it’s not a distasteful concept to me.

    “Yet the difficulty of solving said problem should lend weight to the theist’s argument that non-theistic morality is relative.”

    No, it shouldn’t. Like I said, theistic morality doesn’t solve the problem anymore than killing people who disagree with you solves an argument; the problem still exists, you simply force it out of awareness.

    “If something is inherently immoral, it is always immoral forever and ever, yes? So how is that not equivalent to unchanging morality?”

    Inherent means this: “existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute.” Because its definition applies to a single person, morality could change over time through evolution, by changes in brain chemistry or something similar. So yes something inherently immoral could change over time. (Of course, you apparently don’t believe in evolution, so my argument would imply an unending morality in your mindset because humans won’t further evolve over time.)

    “mass purges of sections of the populace (USSR)”

    Yet again you attempt guilt by association that because the USRR was an anti-religious state, Stalin’s crimes can be attributed to that. First of all, most atheists don’t want an anti-religious state, they simply don’t want a religiously-agnostic government which allows any faith, or lack thereof, within its realm. Secondly, guilt by association is a tactic which you should see is invalid, but given your responses thus far, you clearly have no tolerance for anyone without your particular mindset.

    “Similarly, because proving that God does not exist means that one must know that God does not exist in 100% of spacetime and reality – which is humanly impossible – therefore atheism is a faith-based belief, yes?”

    Atheism, along with the scientific method, does not require 100% verification. It simply needs a certain level of evidence along with no evidence which refutes your hypothesis. I’m an atheist but that doesn’t mean that if I were given incontrovertible proof of God’s existence I would refuse it if it were well founded. That also doesn’t mean I would worship that God. I made a decision a long time ago that even if the Christian God did exist, something for which I could find no support, I wouldn’t worship it. So atheism is not a faith-based belief, it’s a scientifically driven belief.

    I won’t be replying to any more replies you offer up because quite frankly I don’t care if you continue overreacting to the freedoms of people you don’t want them to have. It’s your right to have those opinions, and I fully endorse the right of anyone to say anything no matter how wrong or stupid or bigoted it is because I can chose to not listen to it. Take care.

  32. Rick Brentlinger Says:

    Scott-

    You make some interesting arguments and get some interesting responses. I enjoyed reading this.

    The beastiality taboo seems to be rooted both in religious views (like Leviticus 18 and 20) and in cultural mores (which are frequently based on religious views).

    I don’t believe there is ANY rational correlation between a committed, faithful, noncultic, same sex partnership and beastiality.

    To equate the two, one must employ a false assumption about the meaning of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, that these verses proscribe loving, committed, consensual, faithful, noncultic same sex relationships when in reality and in context, they proscribe shrine prostitution, (worshiping Ashtoreth, Molech’s fertility goddess consort, Leviticus 18:3, 24-25, 27-30; Leviticus 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 23).

    Then one must make a false analogy, that committed, consensual, faithful, noncultic gay and lesbian relationships are morally equivalent to having sex with an animal.

    One must then analogize (falsely) that therefore homosexuality is wrong because its the same as having sex with an animal.

    I’m definitely against beastiality and very much for gay and lesbian relationships being recognized by church as society as equally valid with heterosexual relationships.

    Rick Brentlinger
    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html

  33. Scott Thong Says:

    Aborting a fetus is a serious decision, because you will hold responsibility and no pro-choice group supports rampant abortion; they support it when the circumstances call for it. Your problem is your worldview is far too absolute.

    No sir, the problem is that pro-choice groups DO support rampant abortion, because they champion extremely lenient standards for deciding if an abortion should be permitted. Heck, Planned Parenthood makes millions in profits from its business of giving abortions!

    If the mother’s life is in danger, DIRECT DANGER, then I even as a pro-lifer would support the abortion.

    As it currently is, the vast majority of abortions are carried out merely to ‘protect the emotional health’ of the mother. Not their physical health. Not their very life. That is the legacy of Roe vs. Wade.

    You tell me how justified and ‘call for it’ those kind of circumstances are.

    Just because one guy who was an atheist has a deplorable opinion about killing children doesn’t mean it’s an “atheist” stance. That another fallacy of yours; you seem to think of atheists as a block of people when in reality there are countless variations.

    You don’t get it – I am asking WHY his stance is deplorable.

    He is saying that babies who are 27 days old should be permissible to kill, because they have no self-awareness yet.

    You have been saying that fetuses in the womb should be permissible to kill… BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SELF-AWARENESS YET.

    What’s the difference then? Why is he deplorable, but not you?

    No, it shouldn’t. Like I said, theistic morality doesn’t solve the problem anymore than killing people who disagree with you solves an argument; the problem still exists, you simply force it out of awareness.

    If only doesn’t solve the problem if you do not accept that God can be a valid answer. You assume a naturalistic worldview from the get-go.

    Yet again you attempt guilt by association that because the USRR was an anti-religious state, Stalin’s crimes can be attributed to that.

    Wasn’t Stalin himself the state? That’s what a Communist Dictatorship means.

    won’t be replying to any more replies you offer up because quite frankly I don’t care if you continue overreacting to the freedoms of people you don’t want them to have. It’s your right to have those opinions, and I fully endorse the right of anyone to say anything no matter how wrong or stupid or bigoted it is because I can chose to not listen to it. Take care.

    Ah, the standard atheist’s parting remark. “You are stupid and a bigot, I don’t care so I win, goodbye.”

  34. J. R. Miller Says:

    Overall, I agree. The only distinction I would make is that this kind of reasoning would not be limited to atheists, nor would all atheism lead to this same conclusion. This kind of thinking comes from a philospical world-view that is bigger than atheism. It is the same kind of thinking that where Reasonable People Eat Their Children.

  35. Simon Thong Says:

    Atheists have a tendency to believe that they are rational, which may or may not be justified, depending on the individual. Collectively, it’s another story. They label others irrational, superstitious and stupid. That makes them indistinguishable from the rest of us. We are liable to get angry and, after using epithets for our tormentors, go off in a puff. So are atheists.

  36. hutchrun Says:

    After finishing a 13-month prison sentence, he had the audacity not only to enroll in Arabic classes on our campus in April 2007; Burnette also penned a column I and many others interpreted as inciting physical violence against white Dukies in his student newspaper.

    Unfortunately, however, 2008 marks a new low… even for NCCU.

    Just this month, the university graduated Crystal Mangum, the drug-addled, mentally unstable prostitute who falsely accused three lacrosse players of raping her two years ago.

    Mangum is an accomplished liar and criminal, and a credible school shouldn’t have allowed her within 50 miles of its graduation ceremony.

    Indeed, this is a woman who has maintained for more than two years that 20, five, and finally three Duke lacrosse players violated her orally, vaginally and anally in a bathroom the size of a broom closet. In her final version of the “assault,” Mangum claimed this was possible because she was magically suspended in midair (by hooks and pulleys, perhaps?) as the three men attacked her.
    http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/05/15/Columns/Summa.Cum.Loony-3371900.shtml

  37. j Says:

    1) Weather or not people can contribute something to society is a matter of opinion. Therefore it is immoral to euthanize them based upon a person’s opinion. The only persons who can be determined to be no longer useful to society without doubt would be those whom are already dead. And even then, arguments could be that some are still useful to society even after death. Cases in point: Jesus of Nazareth or Anthony Merino.

    2) A few decades ago, a man died of AIDS after he had anal sex with a Chimpanzee. Subsequently this virus was spread very rapidly via anal sex and IV drug use. (Though there are some motivated by politics who deny the science)
    Millions and millions have died and millions more to come will die as a result of this act of bestiality.

    Atheism is amoral. Atheism, in an by itself has nothing against “euthanizing” any member of society regardless of a person’s medical condition or usefulness.

    Atheism also has nothing against necrophilia, cannibalism, the death penalty, pro-life, pro-choice, homophobia, Nazism and so forth.

    As stated above, atheism, in and by itself is amoral and thus very dangerous to society.

    Atheists usually get their morals from their favorite politics. To an atheist, right and wrong is only a matter of right and left. And the neo-political internet atheists tend to be FAR left. Keeping their political agenda secret is of utmost importance to them.

    What these atheists do not realize is the dangers of atheism. Many gays and zoophiles for example might find atheism politically expedient now, don’t realize that atheism could come back to haunt them. Think STALIN!

    There are some neo-political atheists who claim to believe in “innate morality.” But their moral arguments tend to be confused and incoherent.

  38. j Says:

    Chris said: Your values fail to justify themselves as “right”.

    Chris uses a lot of big words and language to finally say,

    ‘right and wrong are abstract concepts which can can be manipulated over time by propaganda.’

  39. J. R. Miller Says:

    J, Regarding the last quote from Chris, I wonder if he could tell us if he is absolutely right in his assertion.. or is his statement a reflection of atheist propaganda.

    Christ, if you are absolutely convinced that there is no right or wrong, can you tell me.. how do you know you are right and not wrong?

  40. Simon Thong Says:

    yea, Chris, let’s have yopu answer to J.R.Miller’s query.

  41. After Homosexuality, Sexual Revolutionary Frank Kameny Moves on to Making Bestiality ‘Normal’ « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT Says:

    […] What was I saying about liberal, atheist, humanist, relativistic morality meaning that bestiality is next in line to become an ‘inalienable ethical and moral right’ after homosexuality […]

  42. lilly Says:

    What makes you think the Bible/God is right?
    Please answer this question without an reference to the Bible/Christian beliefs.

    Also you guys have got one thng right on this page…

    “neo-political internet atheists tend to be FAR left”

    hahaha are you guys still suffering from a bout of McCarthyism?
    I don’t understand how people can think equality is wrong??
    Please explain why you have the right to exploit people?

    Bye🙂

  43. Scott Thong Says:

    How does one defend Biblical or Christian beliefs without at all referencing which beliefs are being defended???

    I think what you mean is, you’re asking us explain why we think the Bible is correct without using the circular logic of “Because the Bible says so”.

    For me personally, I like to cite the historical, textual and archaeological evidence for various parts of the Biblical narrative.

    Extending from that, I logically conclude that if the Bible is correct about proveable, Earthly matters (such as human history), then it is also likely correct about unproveable, heavenly matters (such as God).

    Apart from that, I personally give weight to personal testimonies – such as very specifically answered prayer, which I experienced myself to quite an exacting degree.

    From this, my belief Christianity branches off to two lines – why I believe it over other religions, and why I believe in theism over atheism.

    For the first, the evidence which I mentioned is far stronger for the Bible and the existence of Jesus Himself than for other religions (available on further request).

    For the second, various logical arguments can be made against atheism – such as how atheism is a humanly impossible conjecture to prove, or how the universe itself seems to defy random chance as the sole organizer (and indeed, life itself).

    (To say nothing of the moral, ethical and emotional arguments against atheism.)

    How about yourself, what makes you think the Bible and Christianity are wrong – without relying solely on naturalist suppositions? (i.e. don’t begin by automatically assuming that God, miracles and supernatural events cannot exist)

    hahaha are you guys still suffering from a bout of McCarthyism?
    I don’t understand how people can think equality is wrong??
    Please explain why you have the right to exploit people?

    McCarthy was a true hero who was later demonized by the Liberal Democrats he exposed as truly hardcore, treacherous Communist moles.

    Equality is right, but who defines what its definitions, limits and inclusions are? Does a convicted serial rapist+killer have an equal right to life as an innocent baby? (According to Liberals, the Lakeside Butcher has MORE of a right to life than little unborn Suzie!)

    No one has the right to exploit others, which is why Socialism is such an abomination.

  44. hutchrun Says:

    It`s a pity and most unfortunate that McCarthy was not able to get ahold of Jimmy Carter. That would have spared much later pain.

  45. wits0 Says:

    Bombastic Hussein Obama is Carter’s second term. McCain is right on this. Only difference is, Hussein is gonna do far more harm.

  46. wits0 Says:

    “neo-political internet atheists tend to be FAR left”

    I would agree with Jesus who said something to this effect, “He who haft eyes, let him see…”

    This is generally true because American LLL will rebel against anything from the establishment or seemingly associated with it. Hence Bush being a Christian is uncomfortable with them. However the LLL never lived in the third world and and really experienced life there. They know only the USA and when they don’t get their mores, like gay marriage, e.g., Amerika is evil!

  47. GP Says:

    Ok, well, you like to but secks with Rotties and have (what I would describe as a) “Strong distaste” for the elderly and the retarded? Well at first glance I would simply say “you’re nucking futs”. But then… thennnn I look a little deeper at your post and realize I am 100% spot on.

    Few things to consider here first.
    Terminally and painfully sick
    Unemployed and alcohol-addicted street vagrants.
    Serial criminals.
    People to old to contribute anything meaningful.

    ^ all of these people, without question, contribute more to society then a puppy fucker. Although, honestly, I would go so far as saying that someone that has sex with dogs fits into the latter half of category “1” (I know, I know, they are “your dogs” so it’s “ok” right? WRONG.). Which is, at a base level, illogical BECAUSE this would cause you to be calling for your own death.

    And maybe that’s what you are doing here, maybe you’re getting the mental ammunition you need to pull the trigger next time your head is clear (cause you blew a fresh load up Fidos ass) and your sitting in a pile of your own feces, nursing the berrel of your S&W .38spcl hoping to god you have the curage to pull the fucking trigger that day.

    Fucking liberals.😦

  48. Scott Thong Says:

    Eh, are you sure you looked deep enough into my post…

    Because I’m actually anti-bestiality, anti-euthanasia, and definitely anti-liberals.

    F-ing a dog would be more dignified than f-ing a liberal!

  49. jesse Says:

    Hey, have all the animal buttsecks you want. I will give you the a-okay.

  50. John Says:

    Mythprogrammer, there is no such word as beastiality. The topic is bestiality.
    The higher animals do communicate with humans. If animals can’t consent to sex all sex is rape.
    I think Christianity is a filthy mental disease that makes people think and act in irrational ways. Christians should all die so that normal people can live better lives.
    GP is irrational. It must be a Christian.

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    Well then John, good luck making the world a huggy lovey place using just the jihadists, holodomor-toting Stalinists and liberal abortionists.

  52. Wilson Says:

    As long as animals are painfully grown up and slaughtered by millions for food, I see nothing unacceptable about bestiality.

    Do you think that they consent to dying? By my morality, slaughtering animals is far larger evil than a possible rape. Zoophiles, at least, seem to take good overall care of their pets. It would be hypocritical to condemn all bestiality if you’re a meat-eater. I am, so I’ll re-evalute my stance on bestiality when (ie. likely never) meat is banned.

  53. Less Heavenly Says:

    Non Muslims are worse than animals
    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2008-07/msg00408.html

  54. data Says:

    When the old men do the fighting, and the young men all look on.
    And the young girls eat their mothers’ meat from tubes of plasticon.
    Be wary, please, my gentle friends of all the skins you breed.
    They have a nasty habit – they eat the hands that bleed.
    — Memo From Turner
    http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/goodbye_to_all_1.php

  55. John A Says:

    ‘Bestiality. If you could prove the animals like it, I say have a good time.’

    ‘… regarding bestiality. I have a very specific opinion about sex: you don’t do it without consent. Until animals can be proven to be sentient and are capable of communicating with humans their thoughts and opinions, you cannot have sex with one without it being rape.’

    So if a ‘Talking bird’ speaks out “Sodomy for a cracker” there’s the green light! Heck, I’ve even heard dogs sound words out (funniest home videos), or for that matter, a monkey which performs sign language to welcome the advances of it’s evolved descended, would this be sufficient to legalize bestiality, let alone practice it?

    ‘Just because one guy who was an atheist has a deplorable opinion about killing children doesn’t mean it’s an “atheist” stance.’

    Correction IS an atheist, and please explain ‘deplorable’ in reference to your lofty standards?

    ‘That another fallacy of yours; you seem to think of atheists as a block of people when in reality there are countless variations. Just as there can be a spectrum of saints and sinners in the religious world, not all atheists are equally moral.’

    So which camp are you in? If moral, than how do you sway the immoral atheists to your ‘standards’?

    ‘That has nothing to do with their atheism.’

    I’d only believe that when an atheists admit that they are amoral. I’ve heard defenders of atheism declare that no one should live by any rules or regulations (anarchy).

    ‘That also doesn’t mean I would worship that God. I made a decision a long time ago that even if the Christian God did exist, something for which I could find no support, I wouldn’t worship it.’

    I respect that decision. But how did you prove evolution is evident? I’m still trying to find living COMMUNITIES with distinctively different biological make up such as hoping on one leg, one eye, 6 eyes, one ear, no ears, two heads, wings, etc… Show me where in the world these transitional homo sapien species exist.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/08/DI2007110800528_pf.html

    Even the doctor identifies this as abnormal.

    ‘So atheism is not a faith-based belief, it’s a scientifically driven belief.’

    You are dealing with absolutes (guilty of the same charge made toward Christians). I’ve met plenty of atheists who know nothing of science, let alone finishing 3rd grade to enlighten them to any so called ‘lack of proof about the existence of God’, and yet by their own admission they believe all that atheistic scientists say (evolution, etc…) without any investigation. Isn’t this faith. You cannot make such a blanket statement about all atheists even by your own admission:

    ‘… in reality there are countless variations.’

    ‘I won’t be replying to any more replies you offer up because quite frankly I don’t care if you continue overreacting to the freedoms of people you don’t want them to have. It’s your right to have those opinions, and I fully endorse the right of anyone to say anything no matter how wrong or stupid or bigoted it is because I can chose to not listen to it. Take care.’

    Freedoms? When atheistic organization take Christian institutions to court for teaching about God and creation, what do you call this?

    ‘It’s not an easy problem to solve, but that doesn’t mean we should give up and take one arbitrary position which doesn’t even solve the problem.’

    Since no atheist holds to any any standard above another, forget about solving problems brought about, originally, by institutionalizing the evolutionary dogma.What’s left is consensual morality achieved by numbers and/or clout. So by your own reasoning, if and when sufficient influence is achieved in mandating laws to legalize infanticide, will you still find it ‘deplorable’?

    ‘I think Christianity is a filthy mental disease that makes people think and act in irrational ways. Christians should all die so that normal people can live better lives.’

    So this is the epitome of atheistic rationality and morality. Keep up the unquestionable proof!

  56. J Says:

    JohnA said ” I have a very specific opinion about sex: you don’t do it without consent. Until animals can be proven to be sentient and are capable of communicating with humans their thoughts and opinions, you cannot have sex with one without it being rape.”
    This is the ” atheist talking points ” on the issue of bestiality. This reasoning can be easily exposed as the rhetorical garbage that it is. So then animal breeders are accomplices to rape each time they breed animals.(as there is no way of knowing if the animals are consenting to the sex until they learn how to talk to their breeders . lol) And I suppose animal owners should be charged with slavery, as the animals most certainly cannot consent to being OWNED and or required to heard cattle and sheep all day every day. Wouldn’t it be nice if atheists could just think for themselves instead of regurgitating the same old nonsensical garbage??? as they gnaw on a pork rib.

  57. T.J. Says:

    Here’s my view…I believe homosexuality to be biological, not a choice. I have spent at least a hundred prayers asking God to make me not gay, yet I still am only sexually attracted to males. I can’t even get an erection around the presence of a naked woman, but hard as a rock around a cute guy. I am going to give you my opinion from a biblical sense though that’s not what you wanted. Because of my Christian beliefs and societal pressures I’ve always believed homosexuality to be a sin, thus I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with another man though I would really like to. Because of this deep pressure I feel about disappointing my friends and family, I have chosen not to reveal my sexual orientation to them.

    When I was 17 and old enough to get my own place I got a dog…a gorgeous 12 week old male Siberian Husky whom I still have today, 10 years later. I have always had a profound love for animals and wanted to be a veterinarian growing up.

    When I was about 13 and starting to go through puberty, I became mildly obsessed with the size of my penis and wondering about my similarly aged male friends. The more I began to care about this, the more I decided I really liked guys, but I felt afraid to profess my love and admiration for the cute guys I lusted after, as I did not want to be persecuted for being gay. I often played with myself as boys begin doing at that age, but I never was able to experience the pure pleasure of an ejaculation.

    On my walks home from school as a teenager there were a couple of male dogs I always passed walking down the alley. One was a husky/wolf, one was a rottweiler as I recall. I never had pets due to our living situation back then, but I always loved them. I could go up to any dog, never feeling any fear, and they always accepted me. I loved to pet the dogs on the way home. I noticed that the large rottweiler who would always come up to his backyard fence to get attention from me would get a raging hard-on everytime I petted him. One day I was curious and I began rubbing his sheath and he seemed to absolutely not mind one bit. This began a similar experiment on the husky/wolf mix who also loved being massaged there. I soon found out that every male dog loves this kind of attention!

    Feeling up the neighborhood dogs became a way for me to experience a deeper bond with the animal and to release my sexual frustrations. So naturally, when I got my own dog at 17 I began to develop this same deep, sensuous relationship with him. My cousin, who was my roomate at the time had adopted a 2 year old male Akita the same day I got my husky. Though I did not feel the same bond with him as I did my husky, I still felt the need as I do with all dogs to give him affection.

    One day, when I was alone, I had both of the boys in the room with me and I began massaging their sheaths. I consequently began rubbing myself as well. Something prompted me to let the Akita’s penis all the way out of his sheath. As I began stroking him, he started to ejaculate all over the place and he got hard as a rock. This intense sexual excitement I experienced led me to have my first ejaculation at 17 years old. Ever since then, I have been hooked on dogs. I still like guys, but I can have sex in the privacy of my own home with my dog, with no one being any the wiser about my sexuality.

    Obviously my canophilic behavior is a choice…I was originally inclined toward male humans…it was the pressure I felt from society to not express these feelings, and my deep love for animals that led into the natural transition I still practice today.

    Not all people who have sex with animals are bad. I still think of myself as a devout Christian, and though I don’t necessarily think my actions aren’t sinful, I know Christ has accepted me for what I am. I do not abuse my dogs; I don’t engage them in unwanted sexual acts. In fact, they initiate the sex the majority of the time. I treat them like I would a human sex partner. I love to cuddle with them in bed and I love to caress and kiss them–they love to kiss back. If I ever feel that something I’m doing is hurting them I stop. I do not wish to be dominant over them; I want to be an equal with them in a loving relationship. I don’t understand how a person can rationalize a heterosexual relationship as a loving relationship or even a homosexual relationship as a loving relationship and see how many people in this country deeply love their pets as family members, yet then get completely appaled by the talk of a human and an animal engaging in a mutual sexual relationship.

    When I bend over and let my dog mount me, believe me the sex is consensual, and I get so tired of hearing people say that animals can’t consent to sex…How would they know? Have they ever tried letting their dog express his sexual feelings? It’s no secret that male dogs hump all of the time…don’t you think they are consenting to sex when they do that? These are the same sick bastards who think we should test drugs and painful treatments on animals who time and time again have a response to a treatment that doesn’t correlate to the same response in humans (often being fatal in humans). It doesn’t make any sense to me that people are accepting of harming animals in this way so that a drug can be developed, but yet think that bestiality is some form of high animal abuse.

    I stand firmly behind what is written in the Bible, but people need to realize that the Bible was written in Aramaic, not in English, and a lot of words don’t directly translate. God’s version of the Bible is infallible, but the King James Version is not. The more literal translation of the scripture referring to “bestiality” is that man should not force unwanted sex on a man or an animal or be dominant over them. There is no solid scriptual evidence stating that a man can not have a consensual sexual relationship with another man or an animal for that matter. Even the word translated into beast is open for interpretation. A bestiary in biblical times was a compilation of exotic and often imaginary creatures in a book. Bestiaries (at least none I’ve seen contain images of dogs or housecats or any other commonly domesticated animals). So when the bible says a man engaging in a sexual act with a beast should be put to death and that animal shall be slayed as well, what is the true definition of beast? I see beast as being an animal which can or cannot be controlled by man, but is not friend to man.

    Dogs however will treat their master with the utmost love and respect and will give their lives to protect him. A sheep won’t do that; heck a cat won’t do that. Any animal, such as a dog, who has such a deep capacity to connect with humans should be allowed to connect in any way they choose. I don’t find it a coincidence that my dog’s penis is the same size as the average man…maybe there is a higher power that made it possible for us to engage with dogs in the same deep way as we do with humans. Every time I have sex with my dogs I reaffirm my deep soul bond with them. We truly love each other and will do anything to keep each other fulfilled and safe.

    I was never sexually abused as a child and was raised quite normally, so this is not some psychological form of deviant sexual behavior I exhibit. I believe God created all of us for different reasons. My purpose was to be a shepherd and protect all of the animals on this Earth. My reluctance to accept my homosexuality as a teenager has I believe led me to an even greater appreciation for all animals as they fulfill me in ways I could never otherwise be fulfilled.

    God obviously allowed us to domesticate dogs for a reason and they are one of the very few animals besides humans that will exhibit altruistic behavior toward a human. I don’t see a problem with having your soul mate be of a different species, and if you truly love each other as I do my husky, it seems perfectly natural to me to profess your love in the deepest possible way you can…sex.

    Even if zoophilia is a sin, those who condemn zoophiles, I guarantee are just as much of a sinner as I. I follow the Ten Commandments much better than most of them. It amazes me that you can be charged with a felony in many states for engaging in sex with an animal, but yet there is no penalty for using the Lord’s name in vain…something I almost never do, and feel absolutely horrible about if that type of language ever slips out. Last time I checked using G.D. or J.C. in your language constitutes a sin of the highest proportions, but funny, no commandment about “Thou shalt not commit a sexual act with an animal”. I wish people would stop being so hypocritical of others when they are sinners just as much. A sin is a sin, no matter which one, and I happen to believe violating the Ten Commandments should be punished the fiercest, yet since society breaks these rules so commonly, some of them aren’t even enforced by man anymore. Instead we focus our attention on the few people who engage in an unpopular act who aren’t really harming anybody.

    I believe God should be the judge of man not man. The only laws I think should be enforced by man are those acts committed by individuals that strip freedoms away from another person, like murder or stealing. I think people should have the right to do anything they wish so long as they are not taking away someone else’s freedoms or causing harm to another person or animal. There is a big difference between bestiality and zoophilia and people need to learn it. I firmly believe, despite the openness for interpretation in the Bible that bestiality (the exhibition of sexual dominance toward an animal) is a sin, but I do not believe zoophilia (a loving relationship between a human and an animal with or without engaging in sexual activity) is.

  58. T.J. Says:

    Here’s my view…I believe homosexuality to be biological, not a choice. I have spent at least a hundred prayers asking God to make me not gay, yet I still am only sexually attracted to males. I can’t even get an erection around the presence of a naked woman, but hard as a rock around a cute guy. I am going to give you my opinion from a biblical sense though that’s not what you wanted. Because of my Christian beliefs and societal pressures I’ve always believed homosexuality to be a sin, thus I have not engaged in sexual intercourse with another man though I would really like to. Because of this deep pressure I feel about disappointing my friends and family, I have chosen not to reveal my sexual orientation to them.

    When I was 17 and old enough to get my own place I got a dog…a gorgeous 12 week old male Siberian Husky whom I still have today, 10 years later. I have always had a profound love for animals and wanted to be a veterinarian growing up.

    When I was about 13 and starting to go through puberty, I became mildly obsessed with the size of my penis and wondering about my similarly aged male friends. The more I began to care about this, the more I decided I really liked guys, but I felt afraid to profess my love and admiration for the cute guys I lusted after, as I did not want to be persecuted for being gay. I often played with myself as boys begin doing at that age, but I never was able to experience the pure pleasure of an ejaculation.

    On my walks home from school as a teenager there were a couple of male dogs I always passed walking down the alley. One was a husky/wolf, one was a rottweiler as I recall. I never had pets due to our living situation back then, but I always loved them. I could go up to any dog, never feeling any fear, and they always accepted me. I loved to pet the dogs on the way home. I noticed that the large rottweiler who would always come up to his backyard fence to get attention from me would get a raging hard-on everytime I petted him. One day I was curious and I began rubbing his sheath and he seemed to absolutely not mind one bit. This began a similar experiment on the husky/wolf mix who also loved being massaged there. I soon found out that every male dog loves this kind of attention!

    Feeling up the neighborhood dogs became a way for me to experience a deeper bond with the animal and to release my sexual frustrations. So naturally, when I got my own dog at 17 I began to develop this same deep, sensuous relationship with him. My cousin, who was my roomate at the time had adopted a 2 year old male Akita the same day I got my husky. Though I did not feel the same bond with him as I did my husky, I still felt the need as I do with all dogs to give him affection.

    One day, when I was alone, I had both of the boys in the room with me and I began massaging their sheaths. I consequently began rubbing myself as well. Something prompted me to let the Akita’s penis all the way out of his sheath. As I began stroking him, he started to ejaculate all over the place and he got hard as a rock. This intense sexual excitement I experienced led me to have my first ejaculation at 17 years old. Ever since then, I have been hooked on dogs. I still like guys, but I can have sex in the privacy of my own home with my dog, with no one being any the wiser about my sexuality.

    Obviously my canophilic behavior is a choice…I was originally inclined toward male humans…it was the pressure I felt from society to not express these feelings, and my deep love for animals that led into the natural transition I still practice today.

    Not all people who have sex with animals are bad. I still think of myself as a devout Christian, and though I don’t necessarily think my actions aren’t sinful, I know Christ has accepted me for what I am. I do not abuse my dogs; I don’t engage them in unwanted sexual acts. In fact, they initiate the sex the majority of the time. I treat them like I would a human sex partner. I love to cuddle with them in bed and I love to caress and kiss them–they love to kiss back. If I ever feel that something I’m doing is hurting them I stop. I do not wish to be dominant over them; I want to be an equal with them in a loving relationship. I don’t understand how a person can rationalize a heterosexual relationship as a loving relationship or even a homosexual relationship as a loving relationship and see how many people in this country deeply love their pets as family members, yet then get completely appaled by the talk of a human and an animal engaging in a mutual sexual relationship.

    When I bend over and let my dog mount me, believe me the sex is consensual, and I get so tired of hearing people say that animals can’t consent to sex…How would they know? Have they ever tried letting their dog express his sexual feelings? It’s no secret that male dogs hump all of the time…don’t you think they are consenting to sex when they do that? These are the same sick bastards who think we should test drugs and painful treatments on animals who time and time again have a response to a treatment that doesn’t correlate to the same response in humans (often being fatal in humans). It doesn’t make any sense to me that people are accepting of harming animals in this way so that a drug can be developed, but yet think that bestiality is some form of high animal abuse.

    I stand firmly behind what is written in the Bible, but people need to realize that the Bible was written in Aramaic, not in English, and a lot of words don’t directly translate. God’s version of the Bible is infallible, but the King James Version is not. The more literal translation of the scripture referring to “bestiality” is that man should not force unwanted sex on a man or an animal or be dominant over them. There is no solid scriptual evidence stating that a man can not have a consensual sexual relationship with another man or an animal for that matter. Even the word translated into beast is open for interpretation. A bestiary in biblical times was a compilation of exotic and often imaginary creatures in a book. Bestiaries (at least none I’ve seen contain images of dogs or housecats or any other commonly domesticated animals). So when the bible says a man engaging in a sexual act with a beast should be put to death and that animal shall be slayed as well, what is the true definition of beast? I see beast as being an animal which can or cannot be controlled by man, but is not friend to man.

    Dogs however will treat their master with the utmost love and respect and will give their lives to protect him. A sheep won’t do that; heck a cat won’t do that. Any animal, such as a dog, who has such a deep capacity to connect with humans should be allowed to connect in any way they choose. I don’t find it a coincidence that my dog’s penis is the same size as the average man…maybe there is a higher power that made it possible for us to engage with dogs in the same deep way as we do with humans. Every time I have sex with my dogs I reaffirm my deep soul bond with them. We truly love each other and will do anything to keep each other fulfilled and safe.

    I was never sexually abused as a child and was raised quite normally, so this is not some psychological form of deviant sexual behavior I exhibit. I believe God created all of us for different reasons. My purpose was to be a shepherd and protect all of the animals on this Earth. My reluctance to accept my homosexuality as a teenager has I believe led me to an even greater appreciation for all animals as they fulfill me in ways I could never otherwise be fulfilled.

    God obviously allowed us to domesticate dogs for a reason and they are one of the very few animals besides humans that will exhibit altruistic behavior toward a human. I don’t see a problem with having your soul mate be of a different species, and if you truly love each other as I do my husky, it seems perfectly natural to me to profess your love in the deepest possible way you can…sex.

    Even if zoophilia is a sin, those who condemn zoophiles, I guarantee are just as much of a sinner as I. I follow the Ten Commandments much better than most of them. It amazes me that you can be charged with a felony in many states for engaging in sex with an animal, but yet there is no penalty for using the Lord’s name in vain…something I almost never do, and feel absolutely horrible about on the extremely rare occasion that type of language ever slips out. Last time I checked using G.D. or J.C. in your language constitutes a sin of the highest proportions, but funny, no commandment about “Thou shalt not commit a sexual act with an animal”. I wish people would stop being so hypocritical of others when they are sinners just as much. A sin is a sin, no matter which one, and I happen to believe violating the Ten Commandments should be punished the fiercest, yet since society breaks these rules so commonly, some of them aren’t even enforced by man anymore (i.e. Commandments I, II, III, IV, V, VII, X, and often IX). Instead we focus our attention on the few people who engage in an unpopular act who aren’t really harming anybody. Just because something isn’t common doesn’t make it wrong, and conversely, just because it is common doesn’t make it right!

    I believe God should be the judge of man not man. The only laws I think should be enforced by man are those acts committed by individuals that strip freedoms away from another person, like murder or stealing. I think people should have the right to do anything they wish so long as they are not taking away someone else’s freedoms or causing harm to another person or animal. There is a big difference between bestiality and zoophilia and people need to learn it. I firmly believe, despite the openness for interpretation in the Bible that bestiality (the exhibition of sexual dominance toward an animal) is a sin, but I do not believe zoophilia (a loving relationship between a human and an animal with or without engaging in sexual activity) is.

  59. j Says:

    T.J., who is obviously an Atheist attempting to bash Christianity by blaming his alleged acts of bestiality on God, makes a valid point. In that there are a variety of perversions of Christianity, Nazis, KKK, Jim Jones, Obama’s Church, etc. Even Charles Manson could claim to be a “devout Christian”.

    Of course the bible prophesies this and tells us to test our faith with the sum of Gods word. The truth is that we all have desires, weather it be for a man who can’t get an erection with his wife anymore but gets hard looking at younger more beautiful women, or gays wanting to have sinful sex. No one is exempt from this. Gay or straight, zoophile, single or married there is a cross to bear for all. When you rationalize sin then you become as T.J. (assuming that his story is not fiction) or Jim Jones or Charles Manson.

    The point that T.J. unwittingly makes is that we must all examine our faith with the sum of Gods Word to be sure that we are walking through the narrow gate, rather than the very large gate which which many Christians have become addicted to. Remember, it will only be a remnant of Christianity which will be saved.

    Thanks T.J.

  60. j Says:

    T.J., who is obviously an Atheist attempting to bash Christianity by blaming his alleged acts of bestiality on God, makes a valid point. In that there are a variety of perversions of Christianity, Nazis, KKK, Jim Jones, Obama’s Church, etc. Even Charles Manson could claim to be a “devout Christian”.

    Of course the bible prophesies this and tells us to test our faith with the sum of Gods word. The truth is that we all have desires, weather it be for a man who can’t get an erection with his wife anymore but gets hard looking at younger more beautiful women, or gays wanting to have sinful sex. No one is exempt from this. Gay or straight, zoophile, single or married there is a cross to bear for all. When you rationalize sin then you become as T.J. (assuming that his story is not fiction) or Jim Jones or Charles Manson.

    The point that T.J. unwittingly makes is that we must all examine our faith with the sum of Gods Word to be sure that we are walking through the narrow gate, rather than the very large gate which which many Christians have become addicted to. Remember, it will only be a remnant of Christianity which will be saved.

    Thanks T.J. for the bible lesson

  61. T.J. Says:

    I am deeply offended that you think I’m an atheist. Contrary to your narrow-minded views about being a Christian, it is possible to sin and still be connected to God. I pray every day. I ask God for the strength to make me stop having these feelings of lust. Sometimes, I willingly engage in a sexual act with my dog knowing its wrong, but I do it anyway. I am so weak and often give into temptation. But I’m not any sicker than anyone else who claims to be saved. I don’t use the Lord’s name in vain. I don’t believe in any other gods. I do my best to respect my father and mother. I try my best not to idolize anyone or anything. I admit to coveting, if coveting is lusting (which it probably is), but most people do this constantly. I’ve stolen things before, but I certainly haven’t made a habit of it. I don’t think I even have the capacity to kill a human, even if my life depended on it, and I even try my hardest not to kill animals, including insects (except for mosquitos…die you little wretched bastards!). I don’t make up lies about my neighbor. I respect the sabbath day the best I can (no sex of any kind at all…otherwise punishment). And I’ve certainly never committed adultery, unless cheating on my dog with another dog counts. These are the ten most important things to live by. If zoophilia was an abominable crime, God would have written that on the stone tablets as well. Can you honestly say that you’ve never sinned? Do you consider yourself saved? If so, have you still sinned since you considered yourself saved? Exactly. Thanks for the compliment I think, but you are still being a huge hypocrite. Hopefully I’ll meet you one day in Heaven and you can apologize to me for being just as big of a sinner as I. I would never, ever, ever be sarcastic or cynical about anyone’s Christian beliefs, and I’m even pretty tolerant about people who don’t believe Jesus Christ is our savior, even though I believe they’re going to need more help than I. Ask anyone who knows me…they’ll tell you I don’t believe in that evolutionary crap they try to force down my throat in college. God loves me. Jesus loves me. I love them both. I’ve asked Jesus to be my savior and I’ve asked God for forgiveness. I fully believe they will grant it to me, despite what members of society think about my attitude towards sharing intimate feelings with the animals I love so much. Please be more open-minded and understand that it is possible to think differently about things once you’ve experienced them. God bless you…you seem like a nice person, just one who needs more enlightenment.

  62. T.J. Says:

    Dr. Kent Hovind helped to reaffirm my faith in God, by the way, and to show me that all of the evolutionary crap we get taught in school can be explained just as logically with his theory. If you haven’t already, please check out his videos on creation. They are awesome. Unfortunately my youth was spent as a Catholic…they don’t even read the bible I think. How can you believe in evolution and creation at the same time? That doesn’t even make sense to me. The Catholic church is so messed up…maybe I can blame my animal lusting on the Catholic church, hah! Just being a Christian is good enough to get you into heaven; that day came for me at age 17 while reading Revelation and weeping like a baby for Christ to see. I hope this helps reaffirm to you that I am a Christian, and not someone making a mockery of your beliefs. I just want to be loved like everyone else and do as good as I can by God, even though I can’t seem to shake this one recurring sin.

  63. Scott Thong Says:

    How can you believe in evolution and creation at the same time? That doesn’t even make sense to me.

    Potential explanation: God created all life as Creation says, but used step-by-step evolution over millions of years to achieve it (a theory known as theistic evolution). This would be akin to how God used the big bang and physics to gradually create the stars, planets, etc of the universe.

    Perhaps you mean certain brands of Creationism, which are more strict and say that God created all life instantaneously and without relying on physical/natural processes.

    Just being a Christian is good enough to get you into heaven; that day came for me at age 17 while reading Revelation and weeping like a baby for Christ to see. I hope this helps reaffirm to you that I am a Christian, and not someone making a mockery of your beliefs.

    Okay, but what does ‘being a Christian’ actually entail? That’s the tricky part!

  64. Nature and Religion Won’t Suffice As Good Defenses. « The Racing Mind Says:

    […] V. All cuteness of penguins aside, should the sexual and familial behaviour of animals be at any time used as an example or a guide for human behaviour? We are, after all, PEOPLE – the very definition of which excludes being beasts controlled solely by base and bestial impulses. (Well, people and not animals as far as liberal definitions are NOT involved, nor moral relativist definitions.) […]

  65. Robert Says:

    Tell us, Scott, is what you are attempting your idea of what Jesus meant when he said, “You must be a fisher of men.” or something like that? You’re still out here amusing yourself with these outlandish scenario’s you come up with in some vain attempt to corner atheists or some such nonsense? Do you teach philosophy by chance? You should know by now that even Ayn Rands Objectivist Utopia as are all other philosophical utopias never attainable for the simple fact that we are all different. Some people lean one way and some the other. The humans of this planet will never march in lock step with one thought, one religion or one philosophy so you must be doing this simply to amuse yourself, correct?
    Whatever turns you on, Scott.

  66. T.J. Says:

    Why would God use evolution as a process for creation? He is almighty and has no need for such a process. The problem lies in man and his overall unwillingness to accept the unexplained. Instead of believing the bible as the literal word of God, many wish to be humanists and look for “scientific” explanations to explain the creation. I do believe that God equipped us with the genetic variability to survive a changing earth, but there is no way that a fish ever became a man. Genetic mutations rarely ever lead to an advantage and even more rarely get passed on to offspring. Millions upon millions of years does not make this any more likely. It’s just an excuse by scientists to attempt to explain the unexplained. Carbon-dating is also extremely inaccurate and assumes carbon in the atmosphere and on earth follows a predictable pattern. A great worldwide flood can just as easily explain features found on our planet as can evolution. Funny how the oldest living thing found on earth now (bristlecone pine) is about 4400 years old, the same time as the bible recounts the great flood’s recession. The big bang also does not explain how two of our solar system’s planets spin in the opposite direction. The laws of physics do not support that theory whatsoever. These possibly damning evolutionary beliefs are probably only going to get worse as man gets “wiser” and one day truly believes he is God. It is a shame scientists believe we are deserving of the title homo sapien sapien (wise wise human) because I believe this naivety will ultimately lead to the downfall of mankind.

  67. Robert Says:

    Why would humans still worship a god that has no proof of existence? Especially when the physical evidence of the Universe and our planet continues to debunk dogma?

    The error is in your assumption that the theory of evolution requires ‘belief’. It does not, as it simply is, as is gravity. And your attempt to imply the Big Bang relation to the rotations of Venus and Uranus is ludicrous. Planetary rotation is a physical aspect and their anomaly relative to the other planets was caused by physical means, as are all things physical in this Universe. A RickK at Yahoo!Answers put it together quite well and I will share this with you.

    “The story of Genesis was the best that humans could devise 2000 years ago to explain how we all got here. By the standards of its day, it was a grand story.

    But it’s foolish when people think it is an absolutely factual account of creation. It has no more merit than the creation stories of the Navajo or the Bantu or the Yanomami.

    Besides, compared to what we NOW understand, Genesis is a pretty sad, small story.

    “In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” — Carl Sagan

    A literal reading of the Bible tells us that God conjured the world out of nothing, then conjured man out of mud, and conjured woman out of a man’s rib. Nothing in the story was beyond the understanding of even the most humble people over 2000 years ago.

    Science tells us that the universe came into existence through a cataclysm of immeasurable power, so strong that the heat from the event still warms the universe 13.5 billion years later. Science tells us of stellar birth and death, events so powerful they could strip the atmosphere off a planet from 1000 light years away. Science tells us of minerals created in the vast atomic forges in the center of giant stars. Science tells us of a massive, glorious dance of the heavens over billions of years, and of the creation of our precious planet among trillions of other stars and planets. Science tells us of an incredibly simple, elegant process of gradual change driven by the imperative to survive, leading to stunningly varied, adaptable, resilient life – life so vibrant and sweeping that it changed the very nature and composition of our planet.

    The creation story of the Bible takes a few short verses, and hasn’t changed in 2000 years. The creation story of science consumes entire libraries, is supported by warehouses of samples and evidence, and is growing every day. The creation story of science challenges the comprehension of even modern, educated man, and science freely admits the story is not yet complete or fully understood.

    Biblical literalists limit their god to a few 2000-year-old campfire stories. They need to let science into their faith, view science as the quest to better understand their god, and embrace and learn science rather than denying it. Treat the Bible as a moral lesson, as an allegory, not as a textbook. If they look at the glories beyond the Bible, and they can truly appreciate what their god has done.”

    And men, with an idiot’s simplicity, dare define the existence of a preposterous creature that does not exist in our physical world, has all knowledge of all events past, present and future. The latter being the greatest flaw of their (il)logic.

  68. Scott Thong Says:

    Why would God use evolution as a process for creation? – T.J.

    Why would God use evolution as a process for creation?

    Why would God use the big bang to create the universe instead of snapping His metaphorical fingers?

    Why would God create the world in stages instead of loading a hacked saved game of Earth?

    Why would God start off the human race from two individuals instead of creating enough of humanity to fill the world right off the bat?

    Why would God use the Israelites to purge the Promised Land of evil and idolatry instead of directly sending plague, hail or fire? (For that matter, why use those methods at all instead of simply making the pagans all cease to exist?)

    Why would God use the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ instead of wiping our sin slates clean for nothing?

    Answer: He doesn’t need to do any of those things. But if He wills it, He can. (Except maybe for that last one, as He needs to be fully just as well as fully merciful and loving, so someone must pay the price for our sins.)

    I suppose I’m influenced by CS Lewis’ Miracles, where he conjectures that God uses very ‘natural’ seeming miracles – turning water into wine (grapes do it every day), multiplying bread and fish (wheat and fish do it in their life cycles)… Instead of fantastical, nonsensical acts like transforming people into swine like in the myths of old.

    It’s my personal opinion (but by no means proven) that God uses step-by-step, ‘natural’ methods to achieve His goals.

  69. Scott Thong Says:

    “In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” — Carl Sagan

    – Robert

    Oo, astronomer quote!

    I don’t have any Carl Sagan quotes, but I have some from these other smart guys. Tell me what you think of them:
    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/physicists-believe-in-god-or-at-least-a-creator-or-designer-a-collection-of-quotes/

  70. Robert Says:

    Pretty thin, Scott and not even close. I can give you over 100 quotes and a hell of a lot more evidence but, like my local friend here who simply can’t accept the fact that our President was born in Hawaii, no facts and no truth to those facts will convince you. So be it.

  71. Robert Says:

    To add to the “Why would…” questions:

    Why would this god do everything claimed by men if it knew the future?

  72. Scott Thong Says:

    I think the same goes, Robert. If God Himself in all His glory were to appear before your very eyes, point His divine metaphoric finger at you and say “Robert! You have denied My existence long enough!”…

    You’d probably dismiss it as a hallucination or a trick. Am I mistaken?

    Meanwhile, you’re throwing around oft-repeated criticisms – ‘Why would this god do everything claimed by men if it knew the future?’ Again, we haven’t withstood 2000 years of philosophical attacks by sitting around doing nothing. If you’re interested in an answer, and not just winning an argument, it’s easy enough to Google it.

    It’s always so easy to be the polemic on the attack, isn’t it? You don’t have to think or search for the answer.

    Here are some more for you to ask: If God can do anything, can He make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it? If God is all good and all powerful, why is there suffering? If God is omnipotent and wants everyone to go to heaven, why doesn’t He just make them believe in Him right now?

    But why should I waste time providing the answers? I already know you won’t change your opinion even if I do. The same goes, Robert.

  73. Robert Says:

    Great Scott!, Scott, I didn’t think you would waffle in defeat so easily.
    “You’d probably dismiss it as a hallucination or a trick. Am I mistaken?” You most assuredly are. Since this entity appeared in the physical universe that we inhabit, my first observation would be that it was of this dimension and universe, and subject to its physical laws. It would face a barrage of questions which would show itself to either be of divine origin or not and whether it fits the mold imagined by men, and what it’s thoughts of that mold is.
    Playing on what I would consider to be one of your assumptions “What sort of egotistical arrogance do I possess to dare question god?” to answer “What level of divine effrontery does one possess to foist their notion of some preposterous ghost story that has been hashed and rehashed for over 10,000 years in some ridiculous form or another? Each vehemently claiming to be “The Truth” and using all means necessary, including war, to force its acceptance upon those who don’t believe it?
    True, Scott, true. You should not waste your time projecting your personal tribulations of existing dogma. They really don’t qualify as “answers” and the same doesn’t go. Atheists are way beyond your scope of understanding. You have nothing to offer, we have everything to gain.

  74. Scott Thong Says:

    So let me get this straight… You come over to my blog, avoid the question I pose entirely yet deem to take offense at my personal opinions, launch various criticisms and follow up with insults and ad hominems,

    You’re right though… I won’t bother debating with you, so you may claim victory by default if you wish. I have had plenty other atheists come here, with plenty good points to debate, and see no need to prove anything to you.

    Seriously, look at the tone of your comments – who is in need of lightening up?

  75. Robert Says:

    Touchy touchy! “…my blog…!” Right now I’m pressed for time. My dog is giving me ‘that stare’ so I need to take it for a roll in the hay right after I put my mother to sleep because she is blind and deaf, but I’ll get right back to you after that…..

    The point is. You’re questions are preposterous and not worthy of honest debate. They insult the intelligence of any civilized society and especially atheists because we care more for the life we have and hence respect the lives of others and what they may potentially contribute to society.

    Animal instinct drives them to use sex to procreate and to demonstrate domination but I must admit I have never considered asking any animal if it would like to go out, maybe for a quiet evening of fine dining and candle light followed by a night of burning passion. I’ll go out now and start with the neighbors cat and ‘work’ the neighborhood. I’m sure to come back with a load of credible information for you to ponder.

  76. Scott Thong Says:

    See? You CAN be amusing rather than just aggravating.

    So can I, but you happened to stumble onto the aggravating-type post.

  77. Robert Says:

    Actually, my Mom is legally blind from macular degeneration and nearly deaf. She is also a devout Catholic of whom I do not attempt to dissuade. I am hoping that the stem cell research being conducted to cure MD will experience a breakthrough soon enough for her to take advantage of it. We’ll see.

    My “aggravating-type post” was 100% intentional because I find the nature of your questions equally so though I suppose your objective is to sink the hook to generate a response with a topic that is more apt to ‘jump out’ versus something philosophically bland or esoteric.

    By the way, the neighbors cat said ‘Meow’. The dog across the street said ‘Woof!’ after peeing on my leg and I didn’t think it safe to jump the fence and question the Brama bull outside of town. But I haven’t given up. Do insects or reptiles count?

  78. Scott Thong Says:

    As they say in the human dating world… There are still plenty of fish in the sea!

    This guy seems to have had better luck. He might be willing to share notes.

    And adult stem cells hold plenty of promise for a cure, having already been proven to treat various diseases. Hopefully, more money can be put into this line of research instead of the time wasting debate on embryonic stem cells.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_stem_cell#Clinical_Applications

  79. Adelle Says:

    Animals have choice whether they won’t to substitute to these behaviors. They do not know right from wrong as humans, being metro sexual, bi sexual, or what ever els you may come up with is acceptable. You are expressing your feelings, emotions and what not through inter course. What are you suppose to express to an animal? Use don’t have a proper understanding of each other. If anything all you are doing is confusing the poor animal. Your disgusting.

  80. Here Says:

    i totally agree with you views on facism. and i think our world would live much better. and the way you do zoophile. umm well. whatever floats your boat i suppose.

  81. Robert Says:

    No! Ve shood march on de vorld unt exterminate everyting dat is not christian! Den kill all christians who not tink de vey ve do! Only den vill dere be Truth!

  82. Bipo Says:

    Couldn’t get why an atheist should approve fascism, when he doesn’t accept the unquestionable authority of god.

  83. Robert Says:

    So which day was it that god made all the fossils?

  84. Scott Thong Says:

    The same day He decided to hide all the transitionals while keeping the soft-bodied jellyfish ones.

  85. Robert Says:

    Lucky for you that organic tissue disintegrates. Especially those whose subtle transitional stages span millions of years. Then again, if one is too stupid to understand science, try religion. So if we were made in god’s image then why aren’t humans invisible too?

  86. Scott Thong Says:

    So let’s see… Millions of years of billions of individuals with changing forms, and yet not one half-formed, nonfunctional eye managed to be preserved… Even while thumbnail-sized jellyfish managed to become fossilized en masse…

  87. Robert Says:

    The religious shaman of the time probably worked his tribes into a frenzy and slaughtered and burned the unfortunate transitional to death because he or she looked different from the rest.

  88. Simon Thong Says:

    You would need EVERY religious shaman of EVERY tribal community in ALL parts of the world to work their respective tribes into a frenzy every time it happened to ensure that over the MILLIONS of years, no transitionals could be found. They would have to be buried EXTREMELY deep to ensure they would never be found? If all this were possible, the question would be, WHY DO ALL THIS?

  89. Robert Says:

    In an attempt to hide the truth, why else? But I am glad to see that even you admit that they could not find them all. The fact remains though, the transitions are yet to come seeing how religion still plays a huge role in humanity demonstrates that we are still not that long out of the jungle and reason touches only a few.

  90. Simon Thong Says:

    meaning that reason touched you? lol

  91. Robert Says:

    The laughs on you.

    “Today’s religion will be the future’s mythology. Both believed at one time by many; but proved wrong by the clever.” – Steven Crocker

    Oh dear! I copy pasted again!

  92. Simon Thong Says:

    Quoting Steven Crocker…a statement of FAITH if ever there were one…

  93. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I’m still waiting..to see if the so-called evolution gives us more human FROM monkeys..and reduces the monkey population..

    Sorry..that was not the case. Monkey population keeps growing..instead..

  94. Robert Says:

    “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

    “Intelligent Design” Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987

  95. Simon Thong Says:

    Though a Chritisan, I never had much time for Bible-spouting Christians. Now, I’ve come across a “faith in so-called intelligent saying-spouting what-have-you” in Robert.

  96. Robert Says:

    Kind of like your scriptures? Just giving you all a taste of a lifetime of listening to you preach your nonsense. You love to throw it out there but woe be to those who throw it back? Classic.

  97. Simon Thong Says:

    Nope, I don’t throw scripture around. Neither does Scott Thong. He reasons things out. It’s your WARPED perception that makes you think that, blocks you from reason and truth. “When people perceive a situation to be real, it is real in its consequences.” W.I. Thomas.

  98. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Better we learn something from man like Robert..instead of attacking or ‘teasing’ him etc.

    For example..I do not really comprehend Robert’s or atheists’ idea abou themselves. If God is not Robert’s creator..his parents are? or cell is the creator? Evolution is The master creator that created many things including Robert’s brain..and his eyes..)

    Pls tell us..I’m skeptical and unclear of what Robert has in mind exactly..

  99. Robert Says:

    My “WARPED” perception? Funny to hear what amounts to an archaic witch doctor accuse a modern man of science having a “warped perception”. Is that what you implore your flock to believe, on pain of death and eternal torment, after you’ve all danced around a midnight bonfire, banging dry sticks together and gibbering invocations at the moon? I would recommend you read and study the definitions of both the words “reason” and “truth” and exactly how fully they do not apply to any myth ever conceived in human history before you embarrass yourself any further.

    Hello there Nasaei. Yes, if one is alive one must attribute their existence, at least up to now and the foreseeable future to their parents. I am one of those people who are not afraid to say “I don’t know.” It is a phrase that drives scientists to explore and observe and try to understand exactly how even the smallest of particles interact within the universe. Scientists make no claims that they “know it all”. They themselves know that the learning process is ongoing. New discoveries uncover new mysteries.

    And it is a phrase that causes the conceited among us to invent unrealistic fantasies to rule the lives of the weaker folks among us. Make them believe you possess or understand the power that will reward or punish them for eternity and they will give you the clothes off their backs and the food they’ve toiled over. The Roman Empire figured this new idea of rule out with the Christian myth. Don’t kill and punish the slaves with force of arms, rule them with guilt and fear and they will give you their money for forgiveness…but keep your swords and lances handy, just in case!

    Evidence suggests that what we perceive to be our entire universe came into being with the Big Bang; first hypothesized by a Roman Catholic priest mind you. And are you aware the scientists think that the edge of our observable universe is an event horizon? An “event horizon” is that area or boundary surrounding a black hole from which, once crossed, there is no return. What if our “Big Bang” is actually a new stellar evolutionary event that went Black Hole? Is that a ridiculous idea? Not if one considers that there is physical evidence that lends plausibility to its conception. All of the religions ever contrived by humans have none. Most are stories that were built and borrowed from other stories without a shred of physical evidence whatsoever.

    “The creation story of the Bible takes a few short verses, and hasn’t changed in 2000 years. The creation story of science [or theory of Evolution] consumes entire libraries, is supported by warehouses of samples and evidence, and is growing every day. The creation story of science challenges the comprehension of even modern, educated man, and science freely admits the story is not yet complete or fully understood. ‘In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” — Carl Sagan”

    Remember, just because Simon says, or Moses, Leviticus, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Mohammed or Scott, or millions of Romans who lived during the Pax Romana [and prior to the new kid on the block for that matter] doesn’t make it so. When you understand why you yourself consider the archaic myths, and reject them and modern infidels to your faith, then you will understand exactly why I reject yours. It really is that simple.

  100. Simon Thong Says:

    a self-proclaimed modern man of science who still clings onto the theory of evolution when it is now clear that it is no more (or less) than a philosophy? a man who thinks he knows what “reason” and “truth” are? sorry, not impressed..

  101. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    It is okay..It is “on-going” or continuous process of learning..and we shouldn’t say scientists “know all things”.. And people say “I don’t know for sure..” but..let’s see..let us search (learn)..

    If science is not absolute truth..and unable to expose or reveal us the absolute truth..from thousand of yrs. ago ..till today.. still doesn’t seem to be absolute..

    …personally I guess we CANNOT conclude absolutely.. even the retired NASA scientist’s Carl Sagan comment himself (above) was also misguided cast of personal ideas..(Sagan did NOT study scripture I guess..he studied space science..stars..nebula etc)

    I did ask before if Robert studied scripture EXTENSIVELY before he concluded… Did you ..Robert ? .. since the scientific knowledge he gained at hand currently (thus far) are not final..on going..continuous. And scientists keep amending their previously “established” hypothesis..theories..

  102. Simon Thong Says:

    if you say to Robert that you have studied science extensively, he would just dismiss you…”your mind is closed, you didn’t use your reasoning”..to him, even those who have studied science extensively and come to the opposite conclusion are not of science and truth..he must be right, he insists he is right, he believes he is right. O what great faith he has! A true believer…

  103. Robert Says:

    Oh dear. Looks like I touched a few nerves. Let’s address Simon first, shall we? Your command of the English language leaves much to be desired apparently. Or you simply lack reading comprehension skills. The term “what amounts to” indicates I am making a third person comparison to illustrate a point. It is also lacking in your response to Nasaei where you are attempting to impose your opinion of me in contrast to what I actually wrote. While you are looking up the definitions of “reason” and “truth”, add “delusion” to the list and that will bring you much closer to understanding yourself.
    Well Nasaei, I need to tell you that your opinion of what you consider to be “true faith” and those of all of your predecessors of the last million years of human history have a serious problem with conflict. “Truth” and “Conflict” do not share the same stage in reality in relation to a specific topic. Where there exists one, the other cannot exist by claim and man, oh man, the god myths of history are loaded with conflict; hence, lack truth.

    Well, it is apparent that both of you have absolutely no idea as to what I said or your relative cognitive dissonance forbids you to apply reason to consider what I said. Keep this in mind. What I said are exercises in reality. Evolution exists whether you believe in it or not and contrary to what you assume or contrive to fit your level of denial, Simon, it continues to compile evidence supporting it on a continuous basis. Not because I say so but because it does.

    And, alas, I have studied scripture for 20 years and find it to be rather monotonous and boring. Poorly written and predictable. Standard life stories and epitaphs repeated once more in a newer, old theme. I have studied science much longer for the reasons I have already mentioned, basically; in short, every discovery is a new adventure in learning and understanding this amazing and diverse universe.

  104. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, you are such an egoist, yet too small to ever reach egomaniac proportions. As for your reading and comprehension skills, it is superficial. Why? Let me give you a hint: don’t know the difference between evolutionary science and evolutionary theory as philosophy? What a pathetic thinker…

    Only 20 years of reading scripture? 45 years for me. Exciting reading. Being able to comprehend what is read, helps…which doesn’t say much for YOUR comprehension, does it?

    Truth and conflict cannot share the same stage in reality in relation to a specific topic? Who are you parroting this time? Heard of marxist theory, where truth emerges from conflict? Go and learn some more, boy…

  105. Robert Says:

    “…boy” My, you are touchy! That in itself has cost you the argument. Go look that up while you’re at it as well.

    Egoist? That I am, and proud of it without any claim to proportional significance. Just one of millions walking this planet. A concept I know you will never understand, evidently.

    Well in those 20 years out of 56 of my life to date, it doesn’t take much to recognize redundancy and plagiarism when one sees it. Nothing new and a total bore. Forty five years to date for you? As I implied, you’re evidently a slow learner.

    “a self-proclaimed modern man of science who still clings onto the theory of evolution when it is now clear that it is no more (or less) than a philosophy?” Let’s expand on the lesson you have been instructed to complete. While you’re looking up and attempting to understand the words “truth” “conflict” and “delusion”, add “theory” and “philosophy” and at least make some attempt to understand the difference between the two? And if you really care to know, Evolutionary Philosophy is postured to accept Evolution as fact or Natural Law though it is still Theory. With that in mind, every myth conjured by humans to this day do not possess any evidence to even come close to qualify as a hypothesis, let alone theory. That and best to learn a bit about sentence structure if you wish to not be consistently called out for foolishly attempting to put your words in anothers mouth to suit your agenda.

  106. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I’m not qualified to debate. I just like to sincerely exchange views with knowledgible people like Robert, Scott or Simon here. Purely to see things from the other side of the coin..

    Reading religious scripture is simply ‘monotonous’ and boring Robert says. Could be true. For some people reading another kind of book like fictious story ..or nature like National Geographic is much much exciting compared to reading Bible or Quran..

    There is a verse in Quran that depicts the universe was initially one unit (then splitted). Quite MANY statements in the Quran that are not contradict to modern science. So, consider Quran is an “ancient” book,
    written 1400 yrs ago..at times our ancestor still lived in caves.. yet the scripture’s statements did not go against science facts but they are true facts. Do you think this kind of ‘coincidence’ might have taken place in many accasions Robert? Same to the Bible I think..The scripture precedes science thousand of yrs..1000 years ago..scientists knew very limited things..1000 years ago..impossible for prophets to have the ideas themselves..at that particular times…

    Even to common peopled, ordinary man, better to ask some basic questions..if they are not sure enough about anythings (..mind..we live in shrouds of many mysteries..unseen things which even scientist do not have the knowledge or answers to many things..) So that we would try to find answers in order to understand them. Of course we have differents ‘answers’ and different approaches.

    One good question to ask is (though they may sound childish or stupid..):

    “Did I ask to be born (by my parents) ?”..

    and “Why my parents gave birth to or born me..since they themselves DID NOT ask to be born also (like me..”

    My parents did not ask to die.. yet they died. They did not control their lives ? Then who is / was in control ?

    I have many marvellous, wonderful organs..brain, eyes, ears, heart. They are rightly mine..really. My heart, my eyes, my brain. DO I CONTROL THEM ?

    I control my car..but not my organs?

    “My body is very very sophisticated..fully automated. Not to mention my brain that stored about 125 trillion memories. But I have no control of my brainn? Who control it.

    (I KNOW ONE WRONG ANSWER> IT CONTROLS IT SELF !)

    Then who controls the universe ?

    Anybody sure 100% the universse is controlled by it self ?? Tell me if this so called answer is true .. it is false answer..

    If I never ever asked to be bern..right here.. then why am I here..? Where am I heading for ? Of course..grave.. but.. but..

    Shroud of mysteries that even people like Robert (and me) do NOT have the absolute answer…I guess. Thousand..millions more questions to be asked by kids..and adults as well..

  107. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Recently we enqiured also..but no absolute answer from any well know scientist. The question is: Is it possible for an inanimate matter to tur animate (to start the FIRST EVER LIFE) billion of yers ago when at that particular time..the was NO other living thing ever exist ?

    Haw do you think Robert? Can a dead rock, mixed with water, oxygen, hydrogen etc..then suddenly it turns a living creature ? I don’t know from science principle point of view..

    Let us forget a while bestiality, homosex etc. Very filthy things! Let animal do it ..

  108. Robert Says:

    Those are excellent questions Nasaei to which most humans do not know the answer since none of us returned from death to report on what lies ahead. One thing we do know. Life continues and within we build our livelihoods and relationships and become molded by our surroundings until we reach a point where we must think for ourselves. And though there are many philosophies conceived by humans out there, none of them can ever be achieved to its ideal. Why not? All it takes is one human who does not agree with that philosophy. Wholesale killing of those who oppose one philosophy only weakens that philosophy as the Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians have learned and now Islam is learning. Philosophy can not be forced. The closest philosophy that I think makes sense is relatively modern being Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, hence when Simon thought he would insult me as an “egoist” he did not realize that was actually paying me the highest compliment.
    I do not have time to continue at this moment but thank you for your attention and I hope to take this up further at another time…my wife beckons at the moment!

  109. Robert Says:

    I have often wondered why the christian god has a problem growing back limbs to amputees?

    In short response to your question about inanimate matter becoming animate I say yes by the simple fact that we exist. The universe is full of the amino acids, gases and chemical compounds known to be the foundation for life requirements, and especially an abundance of power sources to ignite that spark. We do not really need to look any further than in a cave, under water, under a rock or at the sky to see a nearly countless quantity of life forms alien to humans. There are creatures living in the crushing depths of the oceans at the separation of the tectonic plants near sulfur vents that are never exposed to light.

    Ask yourself this. Why must there be “Someone” in control? Life performs quit well under its own control. The great mysteries of the universe are always those yet to be discovered. That is the nature of our journey and Nature is its cause.

  110. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Amputee’s failure to get back his limbs is NOT the proof of God’s absence, since nobody knows if God really wants to give back the amputee’s limbs..(or NOT) to give back. Never think God to work like what you believe or think ..God may..or may not do something/anything .. It is a fallacy for us to believe God must do this or that..or must NOT do this or that.. it is an error..a flaw (by religious’s point of view).

    God doesn’t work like what we think..

    I agree with you Robert, the universe is full of amino acids, gases, and chemical compounds that are needed to make a life possible. WE believe all of them were made available by God (you may not agree..).
    I don’t know if anyone is 100 percent sure..to say..all those things made themselves available BY THEIR OWNSELVES..

    Why must there be “someone” in control? ..Because you don’t control them ! And they themselves DO NOT also control themselves.. unless if you WRONGLY believe they control themselves..

  111. Simon Thong Says:

    Only 56 years old? A man, surely, physically, but a pygmy in mental development. Not as old as I am…physically and …As for sentence structure and construction, you get about B, not much more. Many of my students write better. Can’t deal with the personal insinuations? Welcome to bloggers’ paradise where you may make claims…

  112. Robert Says:

    Speak for yourself, Simon. Have you completed your assignments as directed? Probably not. I fear for the future of your students.

    And Nasaei? You laid out the bait and I fell for it. You are as dishonest as your host and his petulant brother, or cousin?

  113. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I am not “dishonest”..I’m just trying to discuss things and attempted to see things from somebody else’s view point.. that is all. I’m not a scientist nor a scholar. We all are ‘truth seekers’ to certain extents..

    Obviously anybody’s view points, ideas, opinion (or mine as well) are NOT necessarily the valid or absolute one. It may be flawed..(sometimes it maybe right also).

  114. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert, can you please make it short or concise..and list down the reasons why do you believe there is NO God.. for instance..because nobody has seen God, and God never appeared..etc.

  115. Robert Says:

    Actually the list is quite long. So while I am compiling my list of many, many reasons including the obvious, would you be so kind to prepare a list of reasons you believe there is no Zues, Jupiter, Isis, Apollo, Mithra,
    A’akuluujjusi, Aakuluujjusi, Abaangui, Achi, Achiyalabopa, Achomawi, Adekagagwaa, Adlivun, Aguara, Ahayuta, Ahayuta Achi, Ahea, Ahe’a, Ahmeto Lela Okya, Aholi, Ahsonnutli, Airsekui, Aisoyimstan, Akba Atatdia, Akna, Aleut, Alignak, Alk’umta’m, Alk’unta’um, Alkuntam, Allowat Sakima, Alowatsakima, Amala, Amitolane, Amotken, Anarkusuga, Anaye, Angak’ Chin Mana, Angak Chin Mana, Angalkuq, Angokoq, Anguta, Aningan, Apikunni, Apotamkin, Apoyan Tachi, Arnakua’gsak, Arnakuagsak, Arnarquagsag, Asagaya Gigaei, Asgaya Gigagei, Ataensic, Ataentsic, Atahensic, Atius Tirawa, Awanawilonais, Awitelin Tsta, Awonawilona, Bakbakwalanooksiwae, Baxbakualanuchsiwae, Bikeh Hozho, Binaye Ahani, Black God, Bokwus, Bototo, Capa, Chacomat, Chacopa, Chakekenapok, Chehooit, Chibiabos, Chinigchinich, Chipiapoos, Chulyen, Dajoji, Dawn, Dayunsi, Dohkwibuhch, Doquebuth, Dzelarhons, Dzoavits, Eeyeekalduk, Ehlaumel, Eithinoha, Eototo, Esaugetuh Emissee, Estanatlehi, Estasanatlehi, Estsanatlehi, Ewah, Ga’an, Ga Gaah, Ga Oh, Gaan, Gahe, Gaoh, Gendenwitha, Gendewitha, Gitche Manito, Gitche Manitou, Gitchi Manitou, Gitchie Manitou, Gitsche Manitou, Glooscap, Glooskap, Gluscabe, Gluscabi, Gluskab, Gluskabe, Gluskap, Gudratrigakwitl, Guguyni, Gunnodayak, Gyhldeptis, Hahgwehdaetgah, Hahgwehdiyu, Haokah, Hastseoltoi, Hastshehogan, Hemaskas, Hino, Hinu, Hisagita Imisi, Hisagitaimisi, Hisakitaimisi, Human Maker, Humanmaker, Huruing Wuhti, Ibofanga, Ictinike, Igaluk, Ignirtoq, Ikto, Iktomi, Inktomi, Ioskeha, Irdlirvirisissong, Isitoq, Issitoq, Iya, Iyatiku, Kachinas, Kaiti, Kananeski Anayehi, Kanati, Kapoonis, Karwan, Kat’sinas, Kioskurber, Kitche Manitou, Kitchi Manitou, Kitshi Manitou, Kivati, Kloskurbeh, Koko, Kokopelli, Koshere, Koyangwuti, Koyemsi, Kumokum, Kumush, Kushapatshikan, Kutnahin, Kwa Kwakalanooksiwae, Kwatee, Kwatyat, Kwekwaxa’we, Kwekwaxawe, Kwikumat, Kwikwilyaqa, Logobola, Magician, Maheo, Malsum, Malsumis, Malsun, Mana, Manabozho, Manabozo, Manabush, Manetto, Manibozho, Manisar, Manit, Manito, Manitoa, Manitoo, Manitou, Manitu, Marten, Michabo, Mising, Moar, Momo, Na’pi, Nagaitcho, Nanabozho, Nanabozo, Nankil’slas, Nanook, Napi, Nataska, Nayanezgani, Negafook, Nerivik, Nerrivik, Nipinoukhe, Nocoma, Nokomis, Nokomos, Nootaikok, Nukatem, Nuliajuk, Nunuso, Ocasta, Odzihozo, Olelbis, Ololowishkya, Onatah, Oshadagea, Otter, Owiot, Pah, Palhik Mana, Pamit, Payatamu, Pipinoukhe, Poia, Poshaiyankayo, Pukkeenegak, Qamaits, Quaayayp, Quaoar, Raven, Rhpisunt, Sanopi, Sedna, Selu, Senx, Shakaru, Shakuru, Siarnaq, Sint Holo, Sisiutl, Skan, Skili, Snoqalm, Sosondowah, Sotuknang, Spider Woman(2), Sussistanako, Szeukha, Tabaldak, Taiowa, Tamit, Tarhuhyiawahku, Tawiskara, Tekkeitserktock, Ten Corn Maidens, Theelgeth, Thelgeth, Tirawa, Tirawa Atius, Tobadzistsini, Tolmalok, Tonenili, Tornarsuk, Torngarsak, Torngasak, Torngasoak, Totem Poles, Tsohanoai, Tukupar Itar, Txamsem, Umai Hulhlya Wit, Umai Hulhya Wit, Uncegila,Unelanuki, Unktehi, Unktome, Untunktahe, Utset, Wabasso, Wabosso, Wakan Tanka, Wakanda, Wakinyan, Wakonda, Waukheon, Wenabozho, Wendego, Wendigo, Wetiko, Weywot, Wheemeemeowah, Wheememeowah, , Winabozho, Windago, Windego, Windikouk, Wisaaka, Wishpoosh, Wonomi, Xelas, just to mention a few. There are many, many more.
    Could you please give reason’s?

  116. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks Robert. Of course there are plenty of names of pagan”Gods” in the vernaculars’ /dialects..etc.. for peoples of current ..and the past.. etc. You know in Islam alone we have one name of God (Allah), and 99 other names of Him. I name a few here..”Ar-Rahman” (the Most Merciful); “Ar-Rahim” (the Most Passionate); “Al-Malik” (King (of all kings); “Al-Kholiq” (The Most Wise Creator/Inventor); “Al-Mutakabbir” (The Most Proud)..many more different names (mentioned in Quran).. Therefore..from Muslim view point..when we mention “the most merciful”..no one else is..but Him alone can be considered as ‘the most merciful’).

    However, plenty of names, does NOT anyhow reduces the chance of the existence of God..whether you believe in Him or not..He will not gain or lose anything..because He is God. The one who likely lose..or would face His wrath is you..not God.

    Dear Robert..frankly..pls. tell me why do you think there is no God ? Reason out please..

    As I said, if I were you, I like to enquire or ask myself questions.. in order to ‘come to reality’ and to avoid wrong believe..fantasies, hearsays, supersitions etc. I dont care if peoples call me ‘kiddy’ or stupid or whatever.. Among the remaining questions are:

    – “Is this life..that I’m experiencing right NOW the real life, physical or..imaginary, dreaming..or….”

    – “Why am I alive, able to walk, talk, thing, consume foods/ drink etc.. Am I alive..or dead NOW??” NOW??..”

    – “Am I aware..fully aware that I am experiencing life NOW…? Is this life IS my creation, my wish, my planning, my very personal OR ver own destiny??”

    – “I am 100% aware..that I did NOT plan to be here today..living with my family..my company..in the environment, right on the palanet Earth..I say again..I did NOT chart to be here, I did not ask to be present and experiencing life..as it is now.. BUT I AM HERE ANYWAY…”

    – ” Some peoples rubbishly talking about ‘hellfire’.. well.. it is nowhere to be found. Err…well..I know fire already exists in the environment..anywhere.. Did any man among us created it ..some million of years ago?” How can I be sure if it created itself..for example from solar energey or such a thing ? And where did Sun/ Solar come from..
    It created itself ? Every single things around..they created themselves ? How can I be 100% be sure..absolute sure of all these things ??”

    In fact, by keep asking..perhaps we could think, or get a better understanding..of many things..

    Wheter we have the answer or not…forget it. We just “enquire” and ask. I don’t have the answers…frankly..

  117. Ron Says:

    Re belief one:

    Society can be defined as a voluntary association of individuals seeking to promote common interests and secure mutual benefits. Since self-preservation is usually every person’s highest priority, killing individual members would clearly subvert those goals.

    Re belief two:

    If “given the same legal rights” means impunity from the law, then I would agree.

    If it means marriage rights, then not… your canine partners are incapable of entering into contractual relationships.

  118. Robert Says:

    Yes, but Ron, when, how and why indeed did the expression “C’mon, bark like a dog for me!” originate? It is imperative to all christianity!

    Don’t worry, Nasaei, I haven’t forgotten you. Been busy on a project but here’s a quick start. We are all a part of Nature and Nature is the Universe. Humans have only been in existence for a very short time and our scientific knowledge is only limited to today’s discoveries. You think in terms of a “creator” and I don’t and yet I am not at all afraid to say “I don’t know.” when pressed with questions where the religious allude to the delusional myths as their answers to all things in existence. But science plods on every day to find the answers to “I don’t know.” and I am satisfied with what we know already and confident and excited about future discoveries. And truthfully, I don’t think that science will ever know everything as surely as you hold your faith. And that’s okay. You can do that in the USA. Our difference is I use words like “think” “knowledge” and “reason” where theists use words like “feel” and “believe” or “faith”. The way we see it is that we reason based on all we observe where theists conjure the supernatural out of fear instilled in them as children. That is horrible.

  119. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Brother Robert..whether we (theists) fear the “supernatural torments” or God’s punishments etc..one sure thing is that you and I do not control our life, and..we are NOT the creator of our body; nor we control our destiny..

    Yes..our body..like any living things are made up of cells, however..cell is not the creator. And I don’t think DNA or semen from our parents are ‘the creator’ as well.. So..

    So..obviously we are wonderers..and wanderers without SURE knowledge but ..with many guessworks, wrong believe or “heresays”. Even science cannot confirm for us thet “God is NOT the Creator”…

    Either we lost or not..we wander..till getting nearer..and nearer to our graves.

  120. Robert Says:

    You see, Nasaei. That is where we part ways. You believe a supernatural entity created everything and I don’t and I am not willing to even attempt to make up any new stories to add to the thousands of god stories that humans made up over time because I think they are all nonsense. To me, the term ‘creation’ doesn’t exist in Nature.

  121. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Okay..very interesting side of story of yours. “Creation” idea is nonsensical, unacceptable.

    If you do not want to listen to me..I am willing to listen to your side’s of “story” instead..tell me of our roots, our begining etc..if it make sense.

    Just tell us..maybe you have someting in mind which is ABSOLUTELY right.
    Anyway..if possible..please don’t tell us any hearsays, gibbersih things too.. we want the valid, right ideas only. TQ

  122. Robert Says:

    Your roots? Your beginnings? Geneticists have traced our DNA back to Africa. Modern man had originated in Africa and migrated from there. But don’t listen to me when you can take actual college courses and find all the facts you need supporting Evolution and you can find all the nonsense religions attempt to use to ridicule and degrade Evolutions. Religions mock their own existence.

    Who is “we”? Those evil looking posters of your Muslim leaders? How can anyone trust a turbaned old man with a scowling face and a long dirty beard? Why do you wish to kill free westerners? Are you all that jealous of our lifestyle? Why are your women nearly totally shrouded? To cover the scars inflicted by their cowardly husbands? Are you aware that you have no right at all to bring destruction down on those who do not believe your nonsense? No religions do.

    This world would be a better place without all religions, especially Islam and it’s evil teachings of hatred, death and destruction. Cowards who send their children to kill themselves because they do not possess the courage to do it themselves? Pigs who are best at sneaking up behind someone and cutting their throats in the dark. Cowards who kill innocents to further their agenda. And the American muslims say nothing. Too bad there is no hell because they should be the first to roast in it.

    Science fly rockets to the moon and Religion fly jets into buildings.

  123. Donkey Kong Says:

    Do animals want to have sex with humans, can they “consent”?

    The consent crap is what everybody pulls it seems, probably made up by “Concerned Women For America” or the likes of them. If we require consent from animals i don’t think they would approve to being castrated and collared and leashed, used in circuses, eaten etc. Sex is a lovely beautiful thing, the laws are meant to satisfy the prude a$$holes who make them and not to protect the animals or whatever!

  124. Robert Says:

    This planet will not have “advanced civilizations” until religion is globally eradicated. At the moment, we are not that long out of the cave; and like those ancient humans who would dance around midnight bonfires, bang sticks together and gibber at the moon for a good hunt the next day. current religions mimic the same delusional ritualistic nonsense with their prayers and invocations, suspicions and “end of days” scenarios now to fulfill their life wasting death wish.

  125. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Comments anybody ? Scott ? When dealing with atheist’s “ideollogy”, I’m tired..(to comment).

  126. Robert Says:

    # Nasaei Ahmad Says:
    February 9, 10 at 2:15 pm

    Okay..very interesting side of story of yours. “Creation” idea is nonsensical, unacceptable.

    If you do not want to listen to me..I am willing to listen to your side’s of “story” instead..tell me of our roots, our begining etc..if it make sense.

    Just tell us..maybe you have someting in mind which is ABSOLUTELY right.
    Anyway..if possible..please don’t tell us any hearsays, gibbersih things too.. we want the valid, right ideas only. TQ
    ———————————————————————————
    “Even science cannot confirm for us thet “God is NOT the Creator”…” Science never claimed that it could nor has dedicated any field of study to attempt to prove that which has no proof of existence exists.

    Our roots? Our beginnings? I guess I must repeat myself. “Geneticists have traced our DNA back to Africa. Modern man had originated in Africa and migrated from there. But don’t listen to me when you can take actual college courses and find all the facts you need supporting [The Theory of] Evolution…”

    You are using a computer to argue your points, Nasaei. Why don’t you use it as a learning tool to better understand what it is that you are challenging?

    “…something in mind which is ABSOLUTELY right.”

    Fine. There are thousands of creation myths of completely different scenarios which conflict with each other. That is absolutely right. So you tell me, Nasaei, which one is “True.”

  127. Robert Says:

    My neighbors cat still shies away from my amorous advances.

    If any of you are familiar with Ray Comfort’s blog you will know that he claims that Atheists claim that, in essence, everything or something came from nothing, in reference to the Big Bang versus Creation. That is not true and Mr. Comfort knows it. Like many theists, he likes to make assumptions of what and how Atheists think and then publicly assert those claims as an authority.

    We are something. Very physical, very real. The Big Bang concept has credence by our ability to plot the existing directional motion of galaxies which indicates, by retro plotting their trajectories to a single point in space and their speed demonstrates that a force of extreme magnitude has hurled them rapidly on their way in all directions. An explosion.
    What it unknown is where did that originate from? As it is something, then something indeed caused it’s sudden explosion. As surely as something has caused that material to coalesce. Keeping that in mind, something came from something that came from something, etc., we simply have not discovered it yet. What is so difficult to understand about that?

  128. Simon Thong Says:

    Whence the first something?

  129. Ron Says:

    Whence the deity?

  130. Ron Says:

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  131. nasaei123@yahoo.com Says:

    Thanks Robert , Ron. Healthy discussion. Exchange of personal views/ believe.

    Sometimes when I have ample time, I ‘verify’ peoples’ words..or their statements. By doing that, we can clearly pinpoint it -whether what is being said is true, or otherwise (false.)

    I like to have one ‘random sample’ from Robert’s personal statement last February (among the many statements that he made – that if I were to verify all, will cost me a bit ‘waste of my precious time (may be).

    His statement was:
    “Science fly rockets to the moon and Religion fly jets into buildings.”

    I will not be a judge. Let others verify it. I’m just asking everybody (of the wise company here) to verify it instead: Is the statement in fact true, wrong or false (or right) statements anyway ?

    If it false..then unfortunate for Robert to believe in falsehood (though he might have sincerely believe to be true (of something which is NOT true.
    If that was the case..(maybe yes, maybe not, I don’t know)..then peoples’ personal believe made them wrong. They have problem with their own mind/ believe – not because of other reasons. AS for a small boat that travels in the high ocean, we need to check its compass whether it wors properly or not.. don’t blame the boat, wind etc.

    I just offer my view.

    Is it not dangerous if a person ‘deadly’ believe to be true, which something in fact is NOT true?

  132. Scott Thong Says:

    This planet will not have “advanced civilizations” until religion is globally eradicated. – Robert

    Well I could answer what I always answer when ‘get of of religion’ is cited as a solution to all the world’s ills… Cite ‘utopia of Communist rule’ as a historical answer.

    Or I could try the other track, whereby the philosophical worldview comes into play – Robert’s view is that all problems stem from superstitious, illogical beliefs and a denial that such beliefs are fallacious. Whereas mine is that all problems stem from sin and the denial that such sin exists. Our respective solutions are equally at odds.

    Whence the deity? – Ron

    God existed since eternity, so He never had a beginning and thus was never created. This is acceptable to a religious believer, as acceptable as the idea of omnipotence. But as a fallback for a naturalist scientist, it is unacceptable – since everything must have had a beginning.

  133. Simon Thong Says:

    An inquiring mind excludes nothing, but seeks to know all…including the possibility of the supernatural. Inquiring minds seek to know, Ron? How could such a claim be entertained?

  134. Simon Thong Says:

    Whence the first something? Evasion of an unanswerable question by twisting, squirming, simply becoz you can’t answer the question…

  135. Robert Says:

    And therein lies the rub. Where does the circle begin or end? If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed then existence always existed. Proof of existence is all around us, proof of a deity is not.

  136. Simon Thong Says:

    You’re going around in a circle; and you can’t break out. Your circle of “matter cannot be created or destroyed” is contained within an infinite circle that is God. But like a frog in a well, you can’t see beyond…

  137. Robert Says:

    And the same can be said of your view. You wish to attribute existence to a supernatural creature which, coincidentally demonstrates the same conceited attributes of humans, and only exists within the imaginations of the weak and the lazy. “Science is too hard! Let’s just say some fairy just poofed everything into existence. It’s easier!”

  138. Ron Says:

    “Cite ‘utopia of Communist rule’ as a historical answer.”

    So the only other option to theocracy is communism? BTW, religion and totalitarianism share similar traits: proffessions to absolute truth, strict adherance to a dogmatic creed, intolerance to opposing viewpoints, authoritarian control over the individual, refusal to incorporate new facts as they present themselves, a strong hatred towards reason, and the employment of violence to enforce compliance… to name just a few.

    “Or I could try the other track, whereby the philosophical worldview comes into play – Robert’s view is that all problems stem from superstitious, illogical beliefs and a denial that such beliefs are fallacious. Whereas mine is that all problems stem from sin and the denial that such sin exists. Our respective solutions are equally at odds.”

    Superstious beliefs hinder rational discourse and foster emnity. History shows again and again that much of the world’s strife stems from intollerance to others, often under the guise that such intolerance has been sanctioned by supernatural entities.

    Stating that the universe requires a first cause but God is exempt from such considerations amounts to special pleading. Even if God were eternal, from whence did he gather the non-existant matter and energy required to create the universe?

  139. Scott Thong Says:

    Last I checked, the universe does not exist as sentient spirit with omnipotent powers. It’s not really ‘special pleading’ to say, for example, that people require valid immigration documents to enter a foreign country but sunlight does not.

  140. Ron Says:

    Your explanation provides no compelling reason why God should be exempt from the first cause principle espoused by theists.

  141. Simon Thong Says:

    God is not the first cause. He is OUTSIDE the circle. You are INSIDE.

  142. Robert Says:

    You refer only to what you believe, Simon. Not what is.

  143. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Science ONLY studies and investigates creatures that already available. Science never made a single things like God does. Science will NEVER create anything such as God’s DNA, foods stuffs that we eat and human beings itself that eat. God made man, science made wax; God created created oxygen for us to breath and stay alive; science took God’s things and mixed it ! God made flower, science made plastic flowers! Is there anyone who have seen science created for us food stuff – any food stuff?
    NONE. IT WILL NEVER CREATE ONE !

    God give us brain, hopefully we use it to ponder and think. Don’t be like atheists..they maybe approaching Hellfire if not sooner, later. They will know it (for sure)..when they die. Hellfire is also for bad peoples- of any religion.

  144. Robert Says:

    Science studies all that is, not delusional myths unless of course the science happens to be theology or archeology.

    And god never made anything, Nasaei, because there is no god.

    And you seem to be fairly verbose on a product of science, your computer, that god also did not create.

    You see, Nasaei, the concept of “Creation” is only that…a concept that has no practical association with everything that is real. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

    It’s all about Evolution, a topic you wish to scoff at and insult but, like the majority of theists, have no practical understanding of nor any desire to explore.

    Hey Ron, Simon reminds me of the old Abbott and Costello “Who’s on first?” routine! Talking in circles.

  145. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert needs your support, Ron. R & R: the new Abbott and Costello.

  146. Ron Says:

    “[God] is outside the circle. You are inside.”

    Do you mean outside the “circle of trust” à la ‘Meet The Parents/The Prestige’… or outside the “circle of life” à la ‘The Lion King’?

    Either way, Hakuna matata.

  147. Ron Says:

    “Robert needs your support.”

    Robert’s doing just fine.

    If anything, it’s the theists who are having problems. While Nasaei pleads for a bailing bucket from the Thongs, Simon offers up his usual mix of ad hominems and one-liners, and Scott focuses on safe topics like “teacher inequities” and “ninja robbers” to avoid serious debate.🙂

  148. Scott Thong Says:

    I have to maintain the 49% non atheists/homosexuals/liberal/Obama-bashing ratio somehow…

  149. Ron Says:

    No dobut it’s a heavy cross to bear.

  150. Simon Thong Says:

    robert’s so narrow, he would fall off the track if he were a train…but he’s just a slow coach; no chance of catching up with the latest developments in the study of thought. Still stuck in early darwinism, still churning out atheistic chants.

    scott has a wide-ranging mind and far larger interests than a one-track mind like yours; we live in the REAL world where teachers and crime are facts of life; do you live in a well, with only atheism’s negative ideas in sight?

  151. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Last time I had asked him (our friend Robert) about the evolution and the origin of life. But he just told me to read about abiogenesis – that the only explanation he could give. And I did ask him two simple questions – just two..namely “if it science confirmed life can start from non-life matter(s) ? Itold him to help me by just “yes” or “no” only.

    NO concrete scientific answer from him. He can just believe in hearsays or what others (scientists) have said. Obviously he believe in something which he himself is not sure of… a fallacy, falsehood or so..

    My qestion was very simple. If science says it is possible a non living ..or non life matters could turn life (e.g become a bacteria for example)..then that is it. In fact scientist do not, and could NOT confirm..they just put up a suggestion, hypothesis or unproven so-called “theory”. Then people like Robert (and maybe Ron as well) mistaken believe – believe in something which has NOt been confirmed. A brain “mistake” I think !

    My question is based on logic – just logic only. Say (as science agrees)..18 billions yrs ago nothing exists..then on a later time non living
    things exist (planets, stars, earth etc). At this particular time there was NO life yet (for example). Then…SUDDENLY a frst ever life came into being …from non life matter (eg water..or whatever). Is that possible from science point of view ? Simple question.

    Robert seemed to me went further – ahead of the world prominent scientists..(because scientists have yet to confirm it). That is why he is like living in a well in modern age?

    We respect our friend Robert..he is not robot..and that he capable or reasoning out without brain “slip-off” or fallacy.

  152. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Sincerely I believe, every ones need to learn more and more. Even professors keep learning. And in fact, what scientists are doing is study, study many things – they keep studying !

    Don’t you think you need to learn more as well Robert? Or do you think your knowledge is all suffice ?

    As for me, my knowledge is far lagging compare to many people.

    There are at least 10 tapes on Youtube by the prominent French Surgeon Dr. Maurice Bucaille entitled : “Creation of Man: Creation or Evolution ?”
    (Just go by that title (type it on Youtube), I’m sure you’ll get it.

    Maurice Bucaille is NOT Nasaei, he is a prominent scientist ! Who am I and you Robert compared to him?

    Some peoples claimed that he converted to Islam after writing the book
    “Bible Quran and Science”, but no formal confirmation on this. He maybe still a Christian or already converted. Pls listen to his lectures on Youtube. Don’t quickly make a judgment untill you listen to many of his statements. Thanks.

  153. Simon Thong Says:

    After accusing me of one-liners, Ron indulges himself and spout a one-liner. As for ad hominems, Ron is an expert.

    Robert, not a robot? Sure, he isn’t but he’s far from one. He is preprogrammed like a robot, though: attack anything and everything that has to do with faith.

  154. Simon Thong Says:

    How would Robert or Ron explain the difference between micro and macro evolution?; or why they cling onto Darwinism and the primitive religion of Evolutionism. You may respect him; good luck to you then.

  155. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert isn’t a robot, but he’s like one, prepogrammed to attack, attack, attack. He can’t recognise that other aspects of life are important or that the topics of teachers, the sibu election and crime are part of the fabric of life elsewhere. Remember, he’s an ugly american and proud of it? One quality of that is self-centeredness; another is an extremely large ego.

  156. Simon Thong Says:

    Do I sense envy in robert? scott has such wide-ranging interests (including Kenwood Icecream maker and How to stop Chilli burning) but robert has only one interest; scott has close to 2million hits but robert keeps hitting scott’s blog but gets nowhere.(Does robert have a blog somewhere, with few visitors; but who would want to visit such a negative post?). I sense petulance there also…robert is like a spoilt child: play with me or I’ll never visit your blog again; why aren’t you listening to me? why are you writing about other things? listen! hey!

  157. Robert Says:

    Should I pity poor Simon? So many assumptions, so little knowledge. Outside of being amused by the obsessive fixation of your son’s unusual sexual proclivities with family members and animals and his disdain for American liberals, Atheists and our current president, Simon, I do live a very full life with my wonderful wife, family and work. You’re just a side show that obviously consumes most of his time pumping up his little boy’s ability to copy, paste and make snide assumptions to draw attention as feed to his feeble pappy, who appears to be so utterly discontented with his lot in life that he needs an outlet to lash out. Perhaps your means of sexual gratification? One thing is certain; Scott does have a much greater understanding and command of the English language than you do.
    Your frustration and ignorance of others is reflected in your snide insults. One can always tell when another has lost the argument, they resort to personal attacks and insults. But that’s nothing new and I’m already used to your blind attacks.

    What do you want me to say, Nasaei? Do you want me to rewrite every biology textbook in a manner that you understand? I thought I was helping you to NOT take my word only and to branch out and discover these things for yourself. It appears you expect a definitive answer from me so you can turn it around and say it’s bogus. Okay, will do.
    “And I did ask him two simple questions – just two..namely “if it science confirmed life can start from non-life matter(s) ? Itold him to help me by just “yes” or “no” only.” No. And I will follow up with “Not yet, but we’re working on it.” It’s just like saying something you theists have the biggest problem saying yourselves, “I don’t know.” That very phrase just rubs against your psyche like sandpaper on a fresh wound to the extent that you conjure supernatural tales of fairies and ghosts who poof things into existence with magic, or voodoo, or “creation” rather than say, “I don’t know.” Because to say that means is to admit ignorance and to acknowledge that further study and investigation beyond the scope of ones abilities to comprehend must be exerted. Yet you mentioned Abiogenesis and I wonder why you, of all people, would scoff? I may be mistaking your use of the word “theory” in the manner that you did and I will not hold you to the error most theists make when they spout, “It’s only a theory!” to their embarrassment. When they do that, they just admitted that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about nor what the significance of what the term “theory” implies.
    Now, before I begin, please note that I am simply exercising my personal imagination and opinion here. I don’t want you to think I am making assumptions in order to put words in any one’s mouths and expect you to believe me. With the existing knowledge that all heavy elements and molecular structures in existence today were forged and formed from nova and supernova stars, which coalesced from the gravitational attraction of hydrogen atoms being first to form post Big Bang; is it too far fetched to deduce that “Evolution” occurs on the cosmic scale which includes the mix of later evolved and naturally occurring amino acids? That chemistry and life chemistry is a normal process of cosmic evolution under the proper conditions?
    And I have often wondered why theists don’t embrace every definitive scientific discovery that would lend greater credence and awe to the expanding intellect of their deity, rather than reject it in a muddle of confusion and superstition?
    Oh well, I guess then that would force them to expand their studies of the universe rather than cling to and repeat the plagiarized verses of archaic humans that didn’t even know what fire was, let alone a star.

    So what was the second question? You didn’t bother to illustrate that in your response?

  158. Simon Thong Says:

    Oh my, touchy touchy… Must have rubbed the puthy phcat the wrong way! And such poor language skills. No wonder you still avoid dealing with micro and macro evolution..couldn’t cope, right? Can’t tell the difference? Can only repeat what you see on the net? Insults to the family? Sorry, ad hominems are about all you get from me, poor little robert

  159. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert and Simon, no more friendly trading barbs please. Get back to the issue of discussion – come up with facts, evidences, logic or even reasoning..pertaining to the issues..not attacking one another but let the issue remain unsettled. Both of you are well versed I think but sometimes
    you both tend to ‘swerve’ the path. Are you serious enough ?

  160. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Atheists have never lost an argument. Never!

    Are not they arrogant? Egotism??

  161. Robert Says:

    Actually, Simon, I’m quite familiar with both. What do you wish to discuss about micro or macro evolution? Or did you just throw that out there in some vain attempt to impress me?

    I just enjoy brushing you off like a little biting fly on my rear end. Ha! You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.

    Okay Nasaei. Was my answer sufficient or does your arrogant ego refuse to allow you to think about anything proposed by an Atheist? I answered your question. What is the other?

  162. Ron Says:

    Nasaei asked what science has created.

    How about agricultural advances that provide us with cheap and plentiful food, transportation to deliver that food anywhere in the world, clean drinking water, vaccines and medicines, dentistry, hospitals and surgeons, comfortable clothing, climate-controlled shelter to protect us from the harsh elements, electric light so we don’t have to huddle in the dark, instantaneous communication, prolonged lifespans and an overall improvement in the quality of life.

  163. Robert Says:

    Just wanted to share –

    http://slatest.slate.com/id/2254535/?wpisrc=newsletter

  164. Anonymous Says:

    Isn’t bestiality animal abuse? You can’t say its actually consensual cause they’re animals. Just saying.

  165. Fester Says:

    AIDS became a hot topic when Michael Jackson was sleeping in the same bed with his chimp. The chimp must have approved, they looked a real loving couple.

  166. thejamminjabber Says:

    Damn, son, you write about bestiality more than I do (and not for humor, either.)

  167. Aaron Crouse Says:

    wwtf hoomosexuality is different from beastlity. beastilit animals cant consinite and beastility is crime. i believe in animal rights and say thats what we should do to the homeless since we do that to homeless animals. according to jane goodall the animalist the bible mistanslated it does mean domain but caretakes

  168. Zack T Says:

    Aaron… you fail to address the issue of Scott’s post and intention for writing this post.

    “Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong”

    If you believe in animal rights, where does that right come from? Who decides what’s an animal’s right? Majority opinion? Minority?

  169. isis solar Says:

    isis solar…

    Fascism and Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON…

  170. Real Carpadium Says:

    I shall leave it to Hades to explain it to you after you die. Till then, do as your heart desires.

  171. sammich Says:

    “If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed then existence always existed”

    Any proof of this? Also, science has proven our universe had a beginning. It did not always just exist.

    Science vs. religion is also a false dichotomy. The whole “Science fly rockets to the moon and Religion fly jets into buildings” is a meaningless statement meant to appeal to emotions. It’d be like someone saying “Science leads to nuclear bombs, religion leads to charity.” You don’t need to be an atheist to be a scientist and be interested in how the world works and you don’t have to be religious to be a suicide bomber or kill people. Likewise, you don’t have to be religious to donate to charity.

    The vast majority of people committ violent acts over resources, power and politics, not religion. Anyone who believes people would suddenly get along and be less violent if nobody had spiritual beliefs is either incredibly naive or a delusional moron. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II, Jeffrey Dhamer, gang/drug violence, school shootings, etc. prove that people have no problem killing for non-religious reasons.

  172. Some Guy Says:

    From an atheist, humanistic point of view I cannot make a logical argument against bestiality. Provided the animal is not being raped, it is not inherently wrong. However, I can make a logical argument against certain other sexual deviances:

    -Incest is wrong because is produces genetic illnesses
    -Pedophilia is wrong in 1st world countries because it limits a woman’s potential. In a society where a woman can achieve a greater status than marriage, it is wrong. This is because it locks the woman into being a housewife with early on in her life. Even if consensual, it can be considered wrong because of this. In a third world country, pedophilia is hard to prove as being wrong because in many 3rd world countries, marriage is the highest status a woman can achieve. Before puberty, pedophilia is always wrong because the child is not mentally capable of making such a decision. After puberty (13 years or older in some), then the child has reached maturity and in many societies is considered to have come of age.

    I can also make a logical argument against your euthanization standpoint:

    It may SEEM that old people and people in vegetative states are not contributing to society, and that would be true but only directly. Think about it. If we had government mandated euthanasia, what effect would that produce? Would society become more efficient as a result of less resources used on the useless members? Or would it become less efficient because of the negative outcry from the useless members’ loved ones?

    A mentally retarded person cannot directly contribute to society, but the mother, father, or siblings can be motivated to contribute more on their behalf. It is difficult to measure the outcome, but the euthanization of useless members as a solution seems myopic and childish at best. You must consider all variables. If you start euthanizing “useless” people, you’re going to piss a lot of “useful” people off. Euthanization is not logical unless the entire world is willing to accept it as necessary. That doesn’t seem like it’ll happen anytime soon.

  173. karis Says:

    yeah its good to rape animal who cant defends himself ? and dont say that they like they love you as their owner thats why they dont do anything . you are sick nothing more to say

  174. Scott Thong Says:

    Yeah, on that note, https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/irreligious-why-is-animal-rape-wrong-but-animal-slavery-imprisonment-murder-okay/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: