well athiests?
>>18573192Why is it?
>>18573192Atheists actually can't answer that, they will give no reason. They will at best claim "it just is!!!" But never why. The why is God.
>>18573195Using an animal's corpse for sexual gratification treats it merely as an object for pleasure rather than with respect.
>>18573192This doesn’t really have anything to do with theism or atheism. An atheist can be a deontologist or virtue ethicist. The main problem is where morals derive their certification from (and whether they even need to be certified by anything other than human reason). Theists run into the same problem as atheists here. They’re not giving any particular reason why it would be wrong. They’re just saying God doesn’t like it so you shouldn’t do it. But why doesn’t God like it? Then they’ll have to use the same kind of reasoning available to an atheist
>>18573197Why do animals, specifically dead animals, deserve respect
>>18573192Because it's gross, you'll get diseases, and nobody wants to see that shit.>Hurrr by what logicThe will of the tribe (the state, the collective) that finds this behavior disgusting (illegal). The tribal council (government) has many spears (guns) and has said you're not allowed to fuck roadkill.
>>18573202Also another thing about this particular example is that people are disincentivised from saying there’s nothing wrong with it because they don’t want to face social disapproval
You could say the disease you get is God's punishment. If you fuck dead animals instead of reproducing with another human then your bloodline is fucked.
>>18573192>the only thing keeping me from having sex with roadkill is because it would make God upsetthis says way more about theists than atheists to be honest
>>18573192closethe best is to ask them why jacking off an animal is wrong
>>18573224It’s only ok if you want to breed smashed and slammed abominacions
>>18573229actually, even better, why is it wrong to let a dog lick peanut butter off of your genitalia? On a purely sensory level it's an absolute win-win
>>18573223If I decided to have sex with roadkill there would be nothing wrong with it according to atheism. That’s the point. You complete retards somehow miss the fact the point is about principles every single time.
>>18573238Atheism isn’t a belief system with dogmas about morality
>>18573244Yes it is, and that moral dogma is “anything goes!”
>>18573246Nazism is also an atheist belief system
>>18573249Exactly. You can be a tranny, you can be a nazi, you can kill babies in the street for fun because anything goes. That is atheism.
Atheist here: fuck all the roadkill you want.Also that's not what logical fallacy means
>>18573251There is no singular theist morality either.
>>18573255There is a singular Christian theist morality though.>>18573252Point proven
>>18573263>There is a singular Christian theist morality though.that's not trueChristians disagree on the morality of gay sex for one thing
>>18573279There are exactly 0 Christians who believe it is acceptable to commit sodomy.
>>18573263A modern trad Christian and a medieval Christian would still have totally different views on things like child marriage, torture, slavery, etc.
>>18573282And what exactly is this sodomy? You're just hiding behind a new definition without answering the question
>HURR BEING AN ATHEIST MEANS BEING A DEGENERATE
>>18573282There absolutely are people who believe in the genuine truth of Jesus's teachings and heaven and all that while still being fine with gays. I'm guessing you're going to write these people off as fake Christians, and fine, if your definition of Christian is "people who completely subscribe to this specific morality" then I agree there is only one singular Christian morality by your retarded definition.Leaving that aside, certainly you agree that different Christians disagree on how big a moral violation sodomy is. I'm sure there are Christians who think gay sex is worse than a man raping his wife, and other Christians who feel the opposite.
>>18573196Why do reigious people believe their morals come from god instead of words written down by men?
>>18573298because they think those words were either authored by God or divinely inspired by Himcould you really not figure that out?
>>18573283Are you sure about that?>>18573288>There absolutely are people who believe in the genuine truth of Jesus's teachings and heaven and all that while still being fine with gaysNo, there aren’t. Jesus said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” and “He who teaches you to break the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”. If someone is pro-gay, they are not a Christian.>if your definition of Christian is "people who completely subscribe to this specific morality"Where “this specific morality” is defined as “the morality of the holy bible”QED
>>18573192It's very simple: its immoral because animals and corpses can't consent.Wow that was hard.
>>18573333Wo theyre fucking retarded then
>>18573361Morality is made up an arbitrary religious people cant explain why doing any of that is bad either other than because a book says so.
>>18573192Having intercourse with a roadkill animal is strongly discouraged for severe legal, biological, and psychological reasons. Engaging in this activity poses extreme risks of severe zoonotic diseases and parasitic transmission, violates strict legal statutes against animal abuse and desecration, and generally signifies deeper psychological paraphilias that warrant professional intervention.
>>18573363It’s not wrong because a book so, it’s wrong because it’s against the law of God Himself. Thanks for admitting there’s nothing wrong with raping kids in your worldview.
>>18573376> it’s wrong because it’s against the law of God Himself.Theres no such thing god doesnt exist.
why do Christtards always admit in the end that belief in an imaginary sky wizard is the only thing stopping them from raping and pillaging?
My long running assumption is that these threads plague this board in some sort of misguided attempt at evangelizing. I have to wonder if OP actually believes a tweet from a knuckle-dragging 4chan reposter is going to compel anyone to change their ways, rather than invite mockery.
>>18573192i know this is completely beyond the point but how is this a logical fallacy
>>18573398I assume it's a Jew false flagging.
>>18573192It's not a matter of morality. It's just gross.
>>18573423This.
>>18573224if jack helps you on a horse, should you help jack off a horse?
>>18573398The divine truth will always invite mockery and hatred unless the Spirit of Truth works on the hearts of the wicked
>>18573192It's unhygienic. Also I don't think there is anything about that in the bible?
>>18573192It's morally wrong because you might spread diseases to the rest of your community. The best logical fallacy to give to a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew) is why did their God command them to cut off a harmless piece of skin protecting their penis for thousands of years?
>>18573192First it's a deer, then it's christian girls walking to bible study
>>18573615Sounds more like Islam than Atheism
>>18573192These antiatheist threads are incredibly pathetic. You're seething because someone doesn't worship your Jewish desert God lol
>>18573206>Because it's gross, you'll get diseases, and nobody wants to see that shit.So you're against homosexuality too?
>>18573223The morality argument to atheists is what the Epicurus paradox is to theists. You literally have no response to it besides this knee-jerk reaction of:>oh so without God you'd be le bad person according to the arbitrary moral whims of the society we live in? Figures!Which doesn't actually answer the theists' question
>>18573204>conveniently ignored
>>18573671yeah
>>18573671but lots of people want to see gay shit, ever hear of fujos?
>>18573686Lots of people are furries too
>>18573671Why are you singling out homosexuality? Having regular hetero sex in public is illegal with all the same health risks.
>>18573192Does the Bible say it is morally wrong though?It's not really morally wrong, it's just gross and stupid since you will probably catch some disease. Plus, someone doing that is very likely to be an animal abuser in general, which is morally wrong.
>Rock SolidSo this serboid has moved on from larping as a chud gamer to christfag grifting?
>>18573691false, insofar as "regular hetero sex" means penis in vagina and gay sex means buttsex
>>18573709Why does your mind instantly go for buttsex? Two gay women fingerbanging one and other is much, much safer than regular penis in vagina sex.
>>18573714literally nobody gives a fuck about lesbians fingerbanging each other, not even lesbians
>>18573717That's just you talking about yourself. You seem to be obsessed with buttsex. The lady doth protest too much, methinks
>>18573192So you're saying all that prevents you from having intercourse with roadkill is God? You're pretty disgusting
>>18573721>So you're saying [thing you're obviously not saying]?
>>18573726It follows from what you were saying. The reason people dont fuck roadkill is because it's morally wrong. The authority that makes it morally wrong is God. Ergo, in the absence of God, you feel you would be fucking roadkill. Which is absolutely disgusting - yuck!
>>18573726If it's not God's rules then why don't you fuck roadkill?
>>18573192Do you need God to tell you to not shit in your pants?
>>18573735no, the logical conclusion is "in the absence of God, fucking roadkill is not morally wrong". You're making the leap to "and you feel like you would do it." Do you do every activity you don't find morally wrong?
>ITT: a bunch of corpsefucking zoophiles discussing ways to cope with their degenerate desiresWhat does any of this even have to do with morality?
To summarize the thread for OP and other retards:It's morally wrong because it is unhygienic and spreads diseases.And people wouldn't do it anyway even if it was morally neutral, because it's disgusting./thread
>>18573192Why would the existence of a deity make that specific act moral or immoral?
>>18573192as an atheist I fornicate daily while inexplicably worshiping satan
>>18573192>>18573196>>18573204Natural law, inserting your penis which is a sensitive organ inside an animal let alone a dead one is extremely dangerous and is an action that actively harms your health. The logical conclusion is to not do it.
>>18573688correct, which is why you can't execute them in public(In most places that is). Was this supposed to be a gotcha?
>Hey, Erasmus, I have finally proven moral objectivism to godless people!>Oh, that's cool, anon from the future, how did you do this?>By asking them if they think fucking a dead animal is immoral!>mfw
>>18573736cause its naturally disgusting lol.
>>18573192>The only reason why Christians don't have sex with roadkills is because religion tells them it's wrong.Yuck. Why do they always self admit their disgusting perversions.
>>18573781inserting it into the mouth of a typical american woman carries more risk
>>18573817no it doesn't
>>18573739Isnt it the case that every activity we -shouldnt do- is morally wrong? Christians feel that in the absence of God there isnt really any reason not to fuck roadkill.
>>18573781Don't dolphins regularly rape dead fish?
>>18573848dolphins are horny fuckers who will rape anything including human divers if they're feeling particularly breedable, they're the second most intelligent life on this earth behind only humans themselves
>>18573674>Which doesn't actually answer the theists' questionWhere does morality come from if not from god? That's already been answered, probably in every single thread where this issue has come up. Morality is relative and completely socially constructed. Individual morals vary but we're all bound by law not to do certain things regardless of our morals.
>>18573783If only he were capable of saving himself.
Genuine question: is there a bit in the bible/other religious texts that specifies not to have sex with roadkill?
>>18573192I will them it's not morally wrong. It's harmless, the only factor to consider is if others will be repulsed by your act and that is all. If you want to bang that roadkill bad enough then just tank the social stigma.
>>18573892Morals vary individual to individual but not that much in terms of fundamental base values, e.g. people might disagree about when it's valid to use lethal force in self-defence, but almost noone believes that you have the right to randomly kill the first person you see. A serial killer might, but that's no different from someone born with schizophrenia, or 3 toes. Our moral intuitions are shaped by evolution, they are not completely arbitrary. This is why moral subjectivity is fine in practice.
>>18573924This was asked before and not answered.
>>18573192Not an atheist but it's disgusting and unhealthy. I know this through common sense, I don't need Jewish sky daddy to tell me fucking animals is wrong.
Well, christcucks? Why is it morally wrong?
>>18573904Still was a cool guy.
So why does the Bible says having sex with roadkill is wrong>it just does, OK?How is that any different from an atheist saying>having sex with roadkill is wrong because it just is
Would it be ok - whether atheist or christian - to have sex with roadkill if i'm drunk off my head and I mostly do it as a "fun thing" kind of prank to crack my homies up?
>>18573371This. If a person is sexually aroused by a decomposing animal carcass, it implies profound mental illness. Which of course makes the act immoral. Or at least implies the roadkill fucker needs help.>>18573340If you’re anti gay people, you’re not Christian because hating people is against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Depending on your reading of the Bible and the version used, even finding the spouse of a neighbor attractive could be considered sinful. Which is the problem with faux Christians. They don’t care about the message of love and compassion that Christ brought. They care about sifting through the Bible to attempt to justify their hatreds for whatever bugbear they choose to fixate on because ultimately they have absolutely zero faith in God.
>>18573892>Individual morals vary but we're all bound by law not to do certain things regardless of our morals.Okay but the OP scenario is relevant because a necrozoophile can do it without the law finding out about it. This isn't like robbing a bank or some other crime where you get caught immediately. How would you convince him it's immoral?
>>18573924Genesis 38
>>18573924no but there's a bible verse that specifies that women should not have sexual relations with animals, which is an oddly specific thing for ancient Jews to right down, so oddly specific in fact that it wouldn't surprise me if it happened more than once or twice in those days
>>18573970because it just does and if you disagree you will burn in hell for all eternity
>>18574027Nothing about fucking roadkill. Plus old testament. Jesus fulfilled the law, remember? ;)>>18574032Yeah, and it's only women. Because the sin isn't fucking animals, it's getting fucked by (and thus being the bottom of) an animal. Plus old testament. Jesus fulfilled the law, remember? ;)
>>18573380I feel it's almost a necessity for prevention. There are a lot of fucked up people in the world, and prevention such as fear, either that of God, or prison, or ostracization, helps protect some of the world from those acts. But also prevention for the love of god, the love of God's creations (humanity and the deer), and the ethical framework that republics and democracies teach us.I am not saying it works all the time of course, but has an effect which outweighs some more negatives.
>>18574046>>185740321 Thessalonians 4:4,5.
>>18573195Atheists don't know, because they can't reason.
>>18573192Anything that's gross is morally wrong
>>18573192Because it's gross & disgustingIt goes against instinctIt's bestiality & necrophiliaIt has worms, diseases or something similarIt's behavior that is so far removed from normal reproduction with another Human that the perpetrator is a monster in Human skin, who needs to be purged from our species
>>18574085Who gives a shit about that coping incel Paul? I'm asking what God thinks.
>>18573238the point is that there is no such thing as "according to atheism". we do not believe your fairy tale of talking snakes, talking donkeys, floods higher than Mt. Everest, etc., because they obviously are made up stories of primitive people. who, by the way, forgot to claim that their sky-wizard forbade sex with roadkill.
>>18573380Because for many of them it is.Studies have shown that most people act immorally when they think no one is watching and they won't be punished. They'd steal and rape and do anything really. The person who acts good even when its them alone and they expect no reward is rare. The genius of inventing religion (and why I think its a good thing mostly even if I don't believe in it and think its retarded) is that it creates in the minds of these degenerates an "Observer". Basically they always feel like they are being watched and this hijacks them into acting like a good person.
>an individual has no authority to dictate morality >unless that individual pretends the personification of the universe agrees with him >then that’s morality
>>18573192I'm catholic but this could be easily answered by simple utilitarianism or other enlightenment bullshit. Its dangerous which would make it unwise since it harms your health.
>>18573380Literally the only reason we have laws is because humans would be evil without them.Hell, many are evil even *with* laws in place.
>>18573204Abusing animal corpses is one of the early warning signs of a serial killer or at least antisocial personality disorders, which are pretty bad.
>>18573817ancient people considered oral sex an abomination on the level of sodomy
>>18574343Ancient people didn't know what soap is.
>>18574026>A necrozoophile can do it without the law finding out about itThis applies to any crime where there's a chance of evading justice, and it would apply to a perfect religious community that followed strict biblical custom as well. If they're caught they face legal repercussions and social shame. I don't need to convince them that it's immoral, they only need to be told not to do it and the consequences for not doing it. The people with the guns said you can't fuck that dead deer on the side of the road, whether you think it's just or unjust is irrelevant.
>>18574246Mathew 5:7 crazy how you keep moving the goalposts.
>>18574478*27
>>18574478That's about adultery, not fucking roadkill.
>>18574565Sexual immorality still falls under it since you aren't fucking your wife and you cannot marry a corpse or an animal
>>18573192i rely on my millions of years of evolution. the decaying smell repels me from it thus signalling that it is not safe to approach let alone use for fornication.
>>18573196So?
>>18573192First, it's not a logical fallacy. It's an ethical question, that a christcuck thinks is going to be challenging(when his christcuckery book says nothing about it either).Second, only psychopaths would think that doing anything with an animal corpse, human or otherwise, would be acceptable. We evolved to be repulsed by it, because the people who did things to corpses either spread diseases or caused other harms to the group. Having sex with corpses, regardless of the animal type, is anti-social behavior.Only christcucks think this is some difficult problem. I'm pretty sure you could open any ethics textbook and be able to derive a logical justification from any of the systems described inside the book.This question is just some dumb Andrew Wilson shit, that only trips up people who haven't ever thought about ethics before. Wilson's rhetoric fails against anyone who reads philosophy, which is why he has his minions screen who he should debate with.>>18573202Don't expect a christcuck to know anything about ethics.>>18573208Only a psychopath would think there's no problem with it.
>>18573192>if you disagree with me you're committing a logical fallacy
>>18574604>i rely on my millions of years of evolution.Okay. Evolution isn't real. Now what?
>>18574602Adultery means adultery. Try again, retard.
>>18574793Do you also think internet porn is also healthy and good even though the Bible doesn't say "internet porn" explicitly?
>>18573192That question does nothing for me since I don't think its' wrong. But for the sake of argument what's the issue in me claiming this is morally wrong while also being atheistic?
>>18574786>Evolution isn't realbut it is. why else would i have the natural aversion to avoid a rotting corpse? goddamn christkikes are embarrassing
>>18574814No, but Internet porn being healthy or not has nothing to do with a divine command.
>>18574793>brooo the bible needs to say having sex with roadkill is bad even though cars didn't exist!pathetic bad faith actor stop answering this loser
>>18574971Well people had chariots, so roadkill would still have existed
>>18573192It goes against Darwinian evolution
>>18573192Morals are a shared cultural hallucination but we share the same symbolic world structured through language that raping a dead animals corpse is disgusting, disgust at its purest is when something inside the body is out of it. This evolved for obvious reasons. It's pretty self evident. I think you will find that only with god is raping a deers corpse permissable in society rofl.
>>18574014>>18574014
>>18575353Only with gods divine command could me raping a deers dead asshole be permissable and holy that's why only with god all things are permissable, heinous acts are instantly justified
Well would you want roadkill fucking to become a universal law that everyone engaged in? Kant solved morality already, why even bother with this.
>>18575447Why would it become universal?Faggotry is also legalized, does that mean everyone is a faggot now?
>>18575447>Kant solved morality already, why even bother with this.If everyone acted like Kant, doing cringe philosophy instead of toiling in the fields, there would be no food.
>>18574296What if medicine and science advances to the degree that fucking dead animals will no longer give you diseases
My god says it's a virtue to have sex with the deceased, and because he has the same amount of evidence for his existence as any other, I'm going to believe in him since he allows me to satisfy my baser urges.>Your god's a demon, bro.No u.
>>18575457then it would still be fucking gross and I still wouldn't want to hear about it
>>18575480This strange god you just made up has only as much evidence as every god besides Yahweh
>>18575607Yeah, everyone feels like their god is the only one with sufficient evidence.Mine appears to me in dreams, and frequently responds to me sacrificing cats by gifting me beautiful, plump women to fuck.It happens with stunning regularity, but it's beyond strict experimental conditions, because it interferes with the faith connection.
>>18575618What people feel like is irrelevant, objectively and in reality everything is proof of Yahweh.
>>18575618Also, the rest of this shitpost is totally irrelevant, if for no other reason than because it’s a complete lie. It proves nothing other than the abject depravity of your degenerate mind
>>18575620Like evolution and childhood cancer?Do aborted fetuses go to Hell?
>>18575622You haven't even tried sacrificing a cat for a beautiful, plump woman, so how would you know?
>>18575624Evolution is a lie and childhood cancer is part of the curse.
>>18575632I noticed how you didn't answer the second question because you're a pussy kek
>>18575632>Evolution is a lie.Really? Because we've observed speciation within our lifetime.>childhood cancer is part of the curse.That's funny, because this would mean that a toddler can be absolved of the test of free will if they died from cancer.So, if you had a child, and by killing them you would ensure that they spend enternity in Heaven, would you take responsibility and condemn yourself to Hell for your child's sake, or would you just be content with being in Heaven for eternity while your child, who loved you throughout their life, but simply refused to believe in Christ, ended up burning in hellfire forever?
>>18573782>Was this supposed to be a gotcha?Yes?>yucky stuff I like le good, yucky stuff I dislike le bad
>>18574441Okay so the atheist morality is just>I need the law to stop me from rapingHow does this differ from the Christian morality of "I need God to stop me from raping"?
>>18573924It's not relevant because the Pope or some other head priest can interpret the text to make it immoral and this then becomes religious canon.
>>18575659NTA, but both are pretty unsavory, in that many people generally can't be expected to behave themselves without some coercive power strucure guiding their actions. I guess the primary difference is how they source authority. The atheist typically does so from collective agreement, and the Christian does so by divine command. If you can develop a sufficient rationale to rape someone that people find sympathetic or convincing, then likely the law will be altered to accommodate such instances, as unlikely as that particular example would be, but the Christian would need no other justification except an appeal to the Bible's authority, which, in the case of raping an unbetrothed virgin, just means that you have to pay the father and marry the victim.
>>18575661Kinda removes the objective morality claim when its just some guy saying it rather than the word of god
>>18574969Yes it does since God commanded to not look lustfully at another woman. But your entire argument in this thread is equivalent of saying porn doesn't count since the Bible didn't say "internet porn" explicitly.
>>18573192all rules have exceptions.
>>18575747Christians believe that guy (be it the Pope or the local pastor or whatever) is the spokesman of God so it's objective for them
Atheist answer:It is bad because it is gross and mentally deranged.Theist answer:Having sex with roadkill is bad because an ancient flying Jew in the sky exists. He never said it is bad in His Book, but His existence implies it is bad because it just does ok.Lol.
Science evolved us to have sex with humans, not roadkill. That is immoral because it implies your mental state is abnormal if you are attracted to roadkill it is likely that you have other mental issues as well, and a practice like this cannot be encouraged because it would justify other bad practices like intentionallu hitting animals with your car or humping them in public.Also, YHWH never says that having sex with roadkill is bad but YHWH did encourage the Jews to kill male children and to enslave and rape female children when they seiged goy cities lol.
The Bible and Quran actually imply homosexuality is worse than beastiality which is why Muslims would rather fuck goats than men and Christians in Africa are similar, God is made up by humans from a time when humans were less moral so most atheists have better morals than God, lol.
>>18573192It is not morally wrong because morality does not exist. Similarly, it is perfectly acceptable to kill necrophiliac bestiality enthusiasts simply because one has a personal distaste for them.
>>18573196It's socially damaging to have sex with roadkill because it will give people diseases and also serves no reproductive purpose therefore it's bad.
Has there ever been any society where fucking dead animals is normal and acceptable? Or just fucking animals in general? I know that a ritual that involved sex with a dead horse was in the Indian holy book Mahabharata
>>18574296>this could be easily answered by simple utilitarianismUtilitarians would claim fucking dead animals is a moral and good thing to do because it gives pleasure to the rapist and doesn't harm the animal.Peter Singer famously insinuated raping cognitively impaired people is permissible
>>18575818argumentum ad populum
>>18575830I'm not making an argument I'm asking a genuine question
>>18573192>IF IT WEREN'T FOR MY IMAGINARY FRIEND IN THIS BOOK HERE TELLING ME IT'S WRONG TO RAPE ANIMALS' CORPSES, THEN I'D BE DOING IT, BECAUSE I'M A DEGENERATE FREAK RETARD. AND NOW I'M GOING TO PROJECT THAT ONTO YOU!!!!Why are all religious retards like this?I have no desire to rape an animal's corpse because I'm not sick in the head, I don't need an imaginary friend's help to restrain me. You are deranged. Seek psychiatric help.
>>18575761>healthy means le hecking daddy jew rabbi said itIs chopping off your cock and guzzling wine healthy too? God said to do it after all.
>>18575850>Why are all religious retards like this?If society is so full of people with a burning desire for rape and only threats of hellfire can rein them in, why are you against religion again?Do you want them to unleash Rapepocalypse on the world, raping everything around them unrestrained?
>>18575879If you need your imaginary friend in order to not rape an animal corpse, then fine. But don't project that onto me. And you are deranged. A normal, sane person never has the urge or even thought to do something like that. And it's still not even good enough to restrain them - look at how many priests touch little boys. Never have I had the urge to stick my finger in a little boy's asshole, yet pedo priests do it even under threat of hellfire. You're just mentally ill freaks, is all.
>>18575879We should kill such people instead of giving them validation.
>theists think the only reason having sex with roadkill is bad is because of their specific ancient desert godNah, I think atheists can dislike roadkill sex without your desert book sorry. Nice try, though.Muslims believe in god and they fuck goats more than atheists do btw.Lol.
>>18575902>A normal, sane person never has the urge or even thought to do something like that.Alfred Kinsey's studies found that like 1 in 10 men has zoophilic urges.And the other 9 are creepy towards women presumably.
>>18575902>>18575910Nigga the only reason you act moral is because of the threat of state violence
>>18575850It's a hypothetical question. Whether you want to do it or not does not matter. What matters is why it's morally wrong to do so. At which point, a non-retarded atheist (not you) would say:>because it does not harm the animal and what a person does with their body is their businessWhich is fine, but then one could ask "what does it matter that the animal is harmed", and then the atheist would say "it doesn't matter", and then one would ask, "what's the difference with humans then?" and then that line ends either with "it's ok to do whatever with other humans" or with "it's not ok because it just isn't"; and same goes if the atheist would've said "it matters that the animals are not harmed because we want to reduce suffering", to that, again, "why would one reduce suffering". Which again would end with, "suffering done to others is fine" or "because suffering done to others is not fine because it just is not fine ok?"Basically one of the (many) problems with consistency of atheism is it's either psychopathic or "x is immoral because it just feels wrong", and then when you try to reconcile what the atheist considers morally wrong, you'd have very high coincidence rate with Christian ethics in all but sexual morals; but then if you probe further and the atheist doesn't break down into a melty it will be discovered that Christian ethics regarding sex are correct and sex behavior held by Christians to be unethical (but which is ethical in our society) stem from laziness and not "freedom".
>>18575919There are people who actually have morals believe it or not. Some people do the right thing.If you believe that god declaring roadkill sex wrong is the only reason it is wrong, that means you think there is nothing actually wrong with it on its own which really says a lot about you lol.
>>18575926I don't have zoophilic urges so it doesn't really "say anything about me" but none of the atheists ITT managed to form a response as to why it's immoral besides it being yucky.All you have is this dumb gotcha attempt "hur hur this says a lot about you" which doesn't really answer the question or say anything of substance really, it just shows you're a mindraped slave of society. If we lived in a society where furry necrophilia were the norm you'd be going: "you NOT wanting to rape dead animals says a lot about you, freak"
>>18575913>Kinsey's studieshad garbage methodology and were done in the US at a time it was much more religious.
>>18575933>none of the atheists ITT managed to form a response as to why it's immoral besides it being yucky.Which is a much better argument than "my imaginary friend thinks it's yucky".
>>18575933>you're actually the slave because you don't believe in the mind control slave religion>if everyone was an animal-raping furry then you would be the weird one, how about that huh?Powerful... Welp, I'm convinced. I believe in ancient deities now.
>>18575943I'm not religious
>>18575939Basically this.Atheists can't fully close the is/ought gap like theists can, but theists also neglect that you can just make up any sort of divine entity and say that commanded morality to be a certain way, so the belief structure is equally arbitrary.
>>18575945Then why are you arguing in favor of religion, you just like pretending to be retarded for attention?
>>18575933I believe that as humans with great intelligence, it is our duty not to defile the sanctity of animals, which do not have the priviledge of society. It is our natural duty as the top species on Earth to maintain order. With power comes responsibility and humans are responsible for being the role models. If we are above animals, we should act like it. Consent should be necessary before all sex, and animals can never consent, especially dead ones. But the Bible does not believe in consent so you may be unfamiliar with this alien concept. God is just ancient humans imagination btw so God is similar to atheism. Lol.
>>18575950Where did I argue in favor of religion?
Well atheists believe God is just made up by humans, so atheists think that theists are just blindly following commands from other humans but theists believe it is coming from an allegedly perfect entity. Lol.
>>18575951>God is just ancient humans imagination btw so God is similar to atheismSchizos don't even bother making sense anymore, they just type random shit
>>18575960At least people who say "yucky" follow their gut, while divine-rule-following theists and society-consensus-following atheists are like raped robots.
>>18575967You can follow your gut and find the rotting anus of a dog to be pretty sexy.Some people are just built differently, and I think they're the ones that are truly free.
>>18573192It's not *morally* wrong.It's physiologically unhygienic and socially stigmatizing.Doing it might still be done by some oddball, as part of signalling theory.(just like, some Christians castrated themselves for lulz, because anything goes -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy)
>>18573192Morally wrong to whom?>>18573196That isn't an explanation.
>>18573246>Yes it is, and that moral dogma is “anything goes!”Alright, you caught us. How else then are we supposed to quench the fire of our loins then, genius? Anyone who hasn't desired to unleash the liscentious fury of his turgid member upon a freshly hit deer, is not a true atheist, merely a dissappointed slave.
>>18575878Show scripture then
>>18573244Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.
>>18574251Oh so you're racist
>>18575767Peter Singer thought intercourse with animals was better than eating them.
>>18575913"Creepy" coming from a woman doesn't mean anything. Women don't operate on logic, just vibes.
>>18576024Genesis 17:10-12Matthew 26:27-28So it's healthy to mutilate your cock and drink wine, yeah?
>>18576067>GenesisOld testament. Jesus fulfilled the law, remember? ;)>drink wineNothing unhealthy with having a glass or two of wine. You made the claim that God allows people to guzzle wine. This scripture says nothing about overdrinking. So where is the scripture saying it is okay to overdrink on wine then huh?
>>18576097>Old testament. Jesus fulfilled the law, remember? ;)You mean basic biology was retconned?>Nothing unhealthy with having a glass or two of wine. You made the claim that God allows people to guzzle wine. This scripture says nothing about overdrinking.Oh so now there's a limit on how much blood of Christ you must drink? How lukewarm can you get away with being before the magic Jew casts you into the magic lava?
>>18576114Are you seriously asking what are a person's limit on alcohol is? I guess it depends on the person. A really fat person could drink several glasses and feel nothing while a skinny petite person may only need one before feeling tipsy. Hope that helps. Figured this was common knowledge people have different tolerances to alcohol but good you were able to learn something.
>>18576135???So is wine healthy or not?
>>18573192Atheist here. It's not morally wrong. It's disgusting and poor form. Not everything has to be about morals. The argument is civilizational - you know it's something only a savage would do, so are you a civilized person? Same thing as - is there a moral argument against regularly spitting on the ground? No. So should you do it?
>>18576138Depends entirety on the person and their body. Is this really a hard concept for you to figure out that people have different bodies?Also love how you moved the goal posts of how you made the claim "God demands people to overdrink" to "is wine healthy or not." Lmao
>>18576142I think it actually exposes a lot of chriggers and their mudslime relatives who make everything about morality. Do you think a civilization can be built on morality? Lee Kuan Yew built Singapore on harsh penalties for everything up to chewing gum in public. Is there anything immoral about chewing gum? No, but Singapore is now one of the cleanest and richest places in the world.The idea that you can build civilization on "what's moral" is fundamentally wrong. Forget raping and spitting - what about pissing and shitting on the street? These are necessary bodily functions, so a moralist might even argue it's immoral to not let someone piss on the street if it's an emergency. There's nothing immoral about pissing or shitting after all, these are things everyone has to do.So now we see the outcome of morality based civilization vs higher civilizations. It's India vs Singapore.
>>18576143>Also love how you moved the goal posts of how you made the claim "God demands people to overdrink" to "is wine healthy or not." LmaoRetard my entire point is that "healthy" has nothing to do with whether it's a divine command, and you're literally conceding I'm correct right now.
>>18576155>"healthy" has nothing to do with whether it's a divine commandJust ignore how the command was made to keep people healthy then sure.
>>18575913So 1 in 10 people are insane? I guess that tracks. Glad I'm part of the 90% who aren't.>>18575919>the only reason you don't fuck a dead animal is because... it's illegal!I guess this is a bizarre concept for you, but the thought of doing that makes me feel sick to my stomach. It's probably because I'm White and not some subhuman shitskin like you that's closer to an animal than a human anyway. I don't even think most feral dogs would want to do that.
>>18576258I'm not talking to fucking dead animals specifically. It also goes for small misdemeanors
>>18576262talking about*
>>18575925>It's a hypothetical question. Whether you want to do it or not does not matter.It does, because who even comes up with this? If a religious retard's argument is "You would rape a dead animal if not for God!" then that says a hell of a lot about who you are as a person and automatically makes me morally superior, because it's not a thought or urge I would ever have in the first place.>What matters is why it's morally wrong to do so.Because I think it is.>At which point, a non-retarded atheist (not you) would say:>>because it does not harm the animal and what a person does with their body is their businessI disagree with this line of reasoning. I am not a liberal. I don't think everything that doesn't cause bodily harm is good by default. Your strawman is actually the retarded one here.And the rest of your post is too long to quote, but it's essentially just a big strawman. I'm not the epic atheist in your head you're arguing against. I'm an atheist who doesn't get the urge to rape an animal corpse, and I think the people who do that are sick in the head. That's it and that's all. I need no further justification, I need no complex moral arguments or a false deity/imaginary friend to threaten eternal torture. I just think it's sick and disgusting and you're a deranged freak if you do it. Because I'm sane.
>>18576262Such as what, for example?
>>18573223LOL this
>>18573674Why is morality the only framework with which you can conceive of in the world? Is this why most Christians support open borders - because there's no moral argument supporting enforcing immigration law?
>>18576270Literally everything? The very reason why we have laws is because people would be (even more) evil without them
>>18573238The only person missing the point here is you. Obviously theists have reasons not to have sex with roadkill that doesn't involve their religion but they are incapable of applying the same principles to atheism because they're hypocrites
>>18576284>um... literally like... everything!?Raping a dead animal is included in "everything" and is the topic of the thread, now if you'd like to actually discuss something in particular then stop being reddit and bring up something specific you have in mind that I would supposedly do if it weren't illegal, and I'll explain to your nigger brain why I actually wouldn't do it and my reasoning for not doing it. Otherwise fuck off.
>>18573192Lots of things aren't morally wrong but still gross and shouldn't be done. Also, this probably has a lot of potential to spread disease.
>>18576292>bring up something specific you have in mind that I would supposedly do if it weren't illegal,Idk man, some men would rape, others steal, others would engage in defamation, murder, battering, jaywalking, whatever. Idk which crime best fits your psychological profile
>>18576043absolutely so. live close to gypsies, you'll be racist too.but this has nothing to do with what I said. most ancient people were primitive as fuck.
>>18575925>Basically one of the (many) problems with consistency of atheism is it's either psychopathic or "x is immoral because it just feels wrong"You've completely missed the obvious solution:Morality does not exist (there is no such things as oughts) and people merely act according to their preferences and shun people whose preferences are at odds with them.>but that's psychopathicOnly if your preferences are psychopathic. Some people's are, some people's are not.
>>18574251>the point is that there is no such thing as "according to atheism"Exactly, so anything goes.>>18576291The question isn’t “is there some reason not to?” but “is it wrong?” And the answer of atheists in all cases whatsoever is logically necessarily “no”. As a result, you may give “reasons”, but you cannot give moral objections (and consequently those “reasons” reduce to personal preference and absolutely nothing more)
>>18577175>Exactly, so anything goes.With God anything goes because he's the ultimate judge of your character upon your death, so you don't need to worry about scary evil atheist boogeymen anymore, just let God take care of them. After all, if he were real (you do believe in him right?) then everyone you don't like is going to hell and everyone you like is getting into heaven already, in fact God is all-knowing which means he already knows who is and who isn't getting into heaven before it even happens.
>>18577180What are you even babbling about now?
>>18577188Am I making too much sense for you?
>>18577190Too little, I’m afraid
>>18577195I'm afraid your mental retardation is inoperable then
>>18573192>well athiests?muslims are called goat fuckers for a reason anon.
I actually do fuck roadkill, and I am in fact an atheist. It's gross but it's a victimless crime.
are you telling me if your skydaddy doesnt specifically forbid it youd fuck a dead rabbit you just ran over?what is wrong with religious ppl
>>18578684You can repeat this snarkslop a trillion more times but it'll never be an actual counterargument
>>18578693It is though. Sane people don't need the threat of torture to not fuck a dead animal. They just don't want to do it in the first place. Seek help.
>>18573196Simple, having sex with a corpse will.hive you a disease, so don't do it. Adding a layer of "God said it, so you mustn't do it" is needed to convince inbred hicks who don't understand basic biology, so you need an appeal to authority to make them behave. Hope this helps.
>>18578697Sane people do immoral stuff all the time.
>>18578700When medicine advances to the point that zoophilia won't give you diseases, will it still be immoral then?
>>18575974This is the actual answer. Christians clearly don't like the idea of subjective morals but until they can demonstrate there is anything else that's what they've got.It's a little odd for Christians to pretend they even have an issue with this example. If God commanded them to fuck a dead animal there worldview would be that fucking dead animals is good sometimes and they would be morally wrong to refuse.
>>18573192>If you can't think of a moral reason to not do something it means you support doing said thingYou don't fuck roadkill because it's fucking disgusting, I don't need a moral justification not to do it just like I don't need a moral justification to not slice off my son's foreskin.
>>18578701Sure. They do stuff like stealing when they can't afford something or shoving someone when they get angry. Maybe even tell a fib to avoid trouble. But what sane people don't do is stick their dick in a maggot-ridden, smelly dead animal.
>>18573192My argument is "I think it's morally wrong because I said so."Your argument is "I think it's morally wrong because my imaginary friend said so."
>>18573192That is not a morality question, at best it is a public sanitation/health question
>>18579086exactlyevery time one of these comes up it feels like an admission of lack of empathy, poor intelligence, and possibly extreme autism that is being kept in check by their fear of godI don't need to fear divine retribution to understand that a fellow living being experiences fear and pain and anxiety and thus I avoid causing it unless it's necessary for my or anyone else's survival (we can debate the extent of that necessity if you want to talk about eating meat, but that's another can of worms)and I absolutely do not need it to not be sexually attracted to a rotting animal carcasswtf is this even?
>>18579370>and I absolutely do not need it to not be sexually attracted to a rotting animal carcass>wtf is this even?How else then do we extinguish we fire of our loins, if we cannot spill our spunk into the freshly-cut holes of a rotten carcass~?
>>18573192At best your retarded ass gets an infection so your retarded ass needs to be cured at taxpayers expense (no way your retarded ass has insurance)at worst your retarded ass doesn't get cured before it's too late and that'show you get a new human extermination epidemicdon't fuck things without the proper hygiene, retard
>>18573196Are you brain damaged? It would be wildly unhygienic.That's a perfectly cromulent reason.
>>18579516tfw no roadkill carcass...
PSA: fucking animal carcasses as well as live animals is how you get Ebola outbreaks like in Africa.
>>18573196Would you do it if God told you to?
>>18573192The only moral consideration here is the spread of disease. Don't touch dead animals. Otherwise, it's just disgusting, not really evil. I'm curious what this has to do with religion though. religious people always say that god gave men dominion over animals, no? that's how they justify factory farming
>>18580395>god gave men dominion over animals, no?https://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/2008/11/erotic-animals-ii-adam-in-paradise.html"We've several problems here, perhaps chiefly the opening clause of 2:23, *zot ha-pa'am*, "this now": does this mean that God had provided a previous unsatisfactory Eve? That Adam was disatisfied in some way with what had happened before and thus that there was dissension in Eden from the very beginning?Following earlier commentators, and to solve these problems, Rashi wrote "this time'—it teaches that Adam mated with (*she-ba' adam*) every [species of] domesticated animal (*behemah*) and wild animal (*ḥayah*) but his appetite was not assuaged (*lo' nitkarerah da'ato*) by them" (qtd Lawee 50). <...> So it is recorded that in the Talmud disputation of 1240 in Paris, one of the Jews "concessit quod adam coiit cum omnibus bestiis et hoc in paradiso" (confessed that Adam had sex with all the beasts in paradise), and no doubt this confession helped justify St. Louis's Talmud-burning.The question at this stage is: what can I do with this? Note that the interpretation disgusted both Christian and Jewish exegetes. One semi-sympathetic response suggested that bestiality was an important step in Adam's emotional and mental paideia."
>>18578702If the majority decide it then it will become moral. Every moral issue follows this line of reasoning. Christianity at one point allowed, and even championed slavery. As time passed, this view became unpopular so Christians became anti-slavery while pretending that all the parts of the Bible that talk about how slavery should be managed aren't actually about slavery.
