It's not delusional to assign meaning to things that can be observed and measured (like pain) as a matter of fact that's the opposite of being delusional.

I don't think there is such a thing as 'absolute moral truth' but there are reasons to think that some things ought not be done. One of those reasons is that people desire happiness and dislike unhappiness which is rational and drawn from observation.

I didn't say that you could hurt others when it's your own life. I said you have to weigh your happiness against theirs and ultimately it affects you more than it affects them. So in the end you should do what makes you happy and causes the least amount of pain to other people.

The reason you ought not do certain things is because of the effect it has on others. You can't do anything immoral to yourself.

Living things avoid pain for a reason. It's unpleasant. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

You would have an obligation to inform them if you accepted the greatest happiness principal because by not informing them you could be causing unhappiness.This is the same reason why you would have an obligation not to stop them after you informed them.

Just because you value individual liberty that doesn't mean obligation disappears.

It is just the firing of neurons but that doesn't mean that you don't feel it or that you shouldn't place any value on it. You should care because that's what we got.

How do you know what's contrary to their happiness. Don't you think they are in a better position to know how they feel than you are? If the person is lucid then you would just be imposing your will on them and making them unhappy.

There are two things involved in bestiality and one of them is being abused. In homosexuality nobody is being abused.

When you say that homosexuality is contrary to nature I assume that you don't mean it breaks the scientific laws of nature. The laws of nature are descriptive so they can't be broken.

So you must mean that it's unnatural in the sense of being artificial. And in that case I don't understand why you would object. Artificial things are usually better than natural things. Houses, cars clothing, medicine, computers and almost everything you enjoy on a daily basis is counter to nature. It's all a result of human artifice.

If you object so much maybe you should throw your clothes away and go live in a cave.

Meaningless with respect to what?

Just because everything could be reduced to interactions of cells & molecules, doesn't mean everything is meaningless. There are emergent properties that come out of these brains firing away. You're not convincing anyone trying to force naturalism into nihilism.

LOL! StMichael is getting crunk.

No we would not know an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being. We would know only that there was something always present. That's it. It could be weak, stupid and hateful. You can infer nothing else of its attributes except that it was present, whatever it is/was. To infer anything beyond that is not an inference at all, but a tremendous leap of faith. And I know you have faith, but it doesn't cut it with us, and it certainly doesn't square with your promise of "clear and demonstrable evidence."

Please provide your evidence that it is not possible for matter with energy to be the first cause.  You say "if it had matter, it could not sustain material things." Textbook example of begging the question. Obviously if the self-sustaining thing were matter, then you could not make the claim that matter cannot sustain itself!  However, you don't know that and you haven't demonstrated that it can't be matter except to simply assert that it can't be matter.  Way to reason.

I could just as well make the naked assertion that the metaphysical sustainer and causer of the universe could not be God because he could not sustain himself without a meta-metaphysical sustainer meta-God. How do I know this to be the case? No more than you know it to be the case that matter cannot sustain itself without a God.

So provide your evidence that the first cause cannot be material please without simply asserting it.

You don't offer anything, you just make an assertion, demand that it must be true, but don't offer anything to actually support your assertion.  If a god must have done all of this then just present a god.  A scientist can present nucleotides and experiments where organic matter can come from non-organic matter, but you haven't presented anything but a naked assertion backed up by repeated assertions that it must be true because you simply made the claim. 

It's self-contradictory, I already mentioned that.  A being cannot create itself and there is certainly no record of any intelligent being spontanously generating out of nothing.  So unless you actually can present something to the contrary you have no point. 

I'm assuming you're just another creationist who will never present anything to support your claims.  I shouldn't expect this as anything new sicne creationists have never presented any scientific support of their claims.

Aww, poor kid don't have a clue. You ever seen a horse screwing a dolphin? Of course not. Grow up.

Then again, in your world, people capable of childbearing but choose not to for whatever reason are also in violation of what you call "natural law" (You've still not given a definition of that or how it is a higher law than human law, btw.)

 Should we remove these people from society also?  

St Michael

What the hell are you talking about?

Homosexuality could only be immoral if it was a choice. 

Our postion on biological issues is simple and doesnt require fictional sky daddies. Whatever causes something we dont make up fictional charactures in order to figure out why.

Just because something happens doesnt mean we support it. Tornados affect us but that doesnt make them a product of Superman, Zues or Allah. We dont know everything about tornados but because we study them we have developed warning systems to allert people about the dangers.

Whatever causes someone to think about sex with an animal is not a result of "sin" or superstition. It is a result of a natural phycology or wiring issue in that person's brain.

"Natural" to the believer is a utopian bullcrap made up fictional world where delusional people think that only good things happen in the world.

"Natural" to someone objective allows them to face reality, study reality and seek ways to cope with and prevent the things we dont want affecting us.

Keep your delusional fantacy that a sky daddy gave us "free will". Keep your delusion that we cant find answers for beastiality or pediophilia or any other biological occurance. People who study these problems find answers to them. People who pray for these problems to go away have their heads in the sand.

EITHER WAY, I will not let you paint atheists as sick or immoral just because you baught some ancient myth.

So, prove that your god exists but dont expect anyone here to have any sympathy for a person that sells a stereotype.

Blah blah blah, you need God to be moral....blah blah blah.....

 Yet isnt it amazing that billions of people outside your myth dont screw animals or rape kids. If your God was required so that we didnt screw a monkey then it would stand to reason the Japanese should be in their hot springs fucking snow monkeys because they dont believe in your Jesus. Care to explain to me why they dont do that even though they dont believe in Jesus?

I dont need your God.  You cant stand that. It bugs you so much that people dont need your myth to be moral. It bugs you that we can find answers to bad behaivor without making up words like "god" or "sin" to answer things.

I dont need your god. You lose. Get over it. 

My error.

I was under the impression that you wanted to punish people for violating this "natural law".

Your God is on record as enjoying that sort of thing - I thought you were following his precepts. 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

I can support it. I just want to lay out my position first. I never claimed that God Himself arbitrarily issues a decree and that is how morality is created. Morality is a derivitive of nature, which finds its ultimate source in God. I have already shown how nature is the basis of morality. God's statements in Sacred Scripture which condemn immoral behaviour is merely an explication of this already existing law of nature.

The discussion of whether God is the source of nature is a different discussion. I support this, for example, on my blog. I quote one argument for God's existence as source of all being:
"We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Theists are relativists in practice.  They only delude themselves into thinking they possess a singular, true moral absolute.  Then when they find themselves unable to agree on what that absolute is, they go into relativist mode and kill each other for disagreeing with their absolutes.  Those 9/11 hijackers held the moral absolute that it is acceptable to kill non-believers.  Most Christians in the West do not hold that absolute.  Who is right?  We're down to relativism anyway.  Don't fault us materialists/atheists for faults that are clearly present in your own paradigm.

In my opinion, bestiality - a sexual interspecies relation - is not inherently wrong but presents a personal choice that must be well informed and prudently practiced by people who are knowledgeable about it and suitable animals that have been specifically taught for this purpose. 

I take from many negative answers people provide on the bestiality issue that they are misinformed and prejudiced and base their rejection on little else than their private dislike.  I call it the “Yuk factor” and it’s perfectly fine, but since it is very personal, it should not lead to a blanket condemnation of those who think and feel otherwise. After all, its 2008, so, let's keep an open liberal mind and refrain from hasty judgements and assigning blame.

I can speak about bestiality only in terms of females having sex with dogs; any other variant does not interest me. If and only if an appropriate dog is expressly trained for sex with a hominid and the female has properly learned how to make safe and sane sex with him so both can have a maximum of carnal pleasure, I have no objections to the practice because no harm will be done. After all, sexual relations between a female and a dog should only happen between loving owner and loving pet. Any other form of such sexual encounter - forced or not and involving untrained participants – is wrong because it is not safe and likely to be abusive for the beings involved.  Sometimes we learn horror stories related to the practice of bestiality and involving the sexual abuse of a woman or an animal – this is exemplary for cases where the participants, females and dogs alike, were not properly prepared, exploited and abused.  As I said, this is wrong and must not happen. 

Apart from that, what is it for a woman to have a little carnal fun with her pet dog? It means to have a readily available live dildo to satisfy sexual cravings with no strings attached, without emotional complications, discreet, clean, and safe. And, if correctly executed, also the dog will have his sexual fulfillment as a canine and both are bound to develop a deeper and richer relationship that extends to the physical level. So, I ask, why not if some mutual and harmless fun can be had? Hence, in terms of females having sex with their pet dogs, I give it green light.

To those who object to bestiality on religious grounds, I can only respond to leave blind fanatical faith, superstition, and "God's Word" out of the picture - He has certainly more important things to tend to (and I suspect that, with his understanding and empathetic heart, also Jesus would let it pass).  In terms of bestiality’s legality in the occident, I see, as far as I am informed, no sound and unquestionable reasoning for the prohibition.  Particularly in remote rural areas, bestiality was frequent in ancient times but, upon the dawn of Christianity, got banned and persecuted as unnatural and against God’s will by the church (needless to sat that the church has little to do with God’s word). 

At the core of the secular legal issue is, I believe, an anthropological concern with the adequate mating and coupling patterns that are vital and desirable for a given society’s structural dynamics. 

And concerning the alleged possibility of a female giving birth to a 'monster' as a consequence of coupling with a dog - this is simply a biological impossibility!

For those who approve of bestiality, rejoice because the numbers of those endorsing it is rising. To me, this is a good sign because it helps to obliterate the anyway arbitrary and self-serving division between us, the hominid animals, and other animals.  In terms of species boundaries, I see the only difference between the hominid and other animals in that the former has a greater degree of cognitive complexity manifest on the emotional and material planes.  This is certainly no reason for self-aggrandizement, and whether or not it is truly a blessing is disputable.

Some people say that because an animal cannot consent, bestiality is wrong.  This is only half the truth.  Fact is that an animal cannot consent in human terms but this is also not necessary because you will indubitably get to know whether or not your dog, or another animal for that matter, consents to having sex with you.  Only a person who persists in spite of an animal’s unwillingness is guilty of rape.

I take from many negative answers people provide on the bestiality issue that they are misinformed and prejudiced and base their rejection on little else than their private dislike.  I call it the "Yuk factor" and it's perfectly fine, but since it is very personal, it should not lead to a blanket condemnation of those who think and feel otherwise. After all, its 2008, so, let's keep an open liberal mind and refrain from hasty judgements and assigning blame.

I can speak about bestiality only in terms of females having sex with dogs; any other variant does not interest me. If and only if an appropriate dog is expressly trained for sex with a hominid and the female has properly learned how to make safe and sane sex with him so both can have a maximum of carnal pleasure, I have no objections to the practice because no harm will be done. After all, sexual relations between a female and a dog should only happen between loving owner and loving pet. Any other form of such sexual encounter - forced or not and involving untrained participants - is wrong because it is not safe and likely to be abusive for the beings involved.  Sometimes we learn horror stories related to the practice of bestiality and involving the sexual abuse of a woman or an animal - this is exemplary for cases where the participants, females and dogs alike, were not properly prepared, exploited and abused.  As I said, this is wrong and must not happen. 

Apart from that, what is it for a woman to have a little carnal fun with her pet dog? It means to have a readily available live dildo to satisfy sexual cravings with no strings attached, without emotional complications, discreet, clean, and safe. And, if correctly executed, also the dog will have his sexual fulfillment as a canine and both are bound to develop a deeper and richer relationship that extends to the physical level. So, I ask, why not if some mutual and harmless fun can be had? Hence, in terms of females having sex with their pet dogs, I give it green light.

To those who object to bestiality on religious grounds, I can only respond to leave blind fanatical faith, superstition, and "God's Word" out of the picture - He has certainly more important things to tend to (and I suspect that, with his understanding and empathetic heart, also Jesus would let it pass).  In terms of bestiality's legality in the occident, I see, as far as I am informed, no sound and unquestionable reasoning for the prohibition.  Particularly in remote rural areas, bestiality was frequent in ancient times but, upon the dawn of Christianity, got banned and persecuted as unnatural and against God's will by the church (needless to sat that the church has little to do with God's word). 

At the core of the secular legal issue is, I believe, an anthropological concern with the adequate mating and coupling patterns that are vital and desirable for a given society's structural dynamics. 

And concerning the alleged possibility of a female giving birth to a 'monster' as a consequence of coupling with a dog - this is simply a biological impossibility!

For those who approve of bestiality, rejoice because the numbers of those endorsing it is rising. To me, this is a good sign because it helps to obliterate the anyway arbitrary and self-serving division between us, the hominid animals, and other animals.  In terms of species boundaries, I see the only difference between the hominid and other animals in that the former has a greater degree of cognitive complexity manifest on the emotional and material planes.  This is certainly no reason for self-aggrandizement, and whether or not it is truly a blessing is disputable.

Some people say that because an animal cannot consent, bestiality is wrong.  This is only half the truth.  Fact is that an animal cannot consent in human terms but this is also not necessary because you will indubitably get to know whether or not your dog, or another animal for that matter, consents to having sex with you.  Only a person who persists in spite of an animal's unwillingness is guilty of rape.

I conclude therefore: bestiality is not wrong if responsibly practiced and the beings involved are actually compatible.  It is wrong when the participants are not properly trained or forced to engage in it. 

Interested in learning more? Check out, for example, the excellent and commendable website of Zooskool, which is dedicated to responsibly educating females in the erotic art of having sex with their pet dog.

Now, enjoy whatever carnal pleasure you endorse and if you consider sex with your pet dog, don't forget: if you don't know how and the dog is not suitable nor accurately trained and sexually docile, DON'T DO IT because it is potentially dangerous for you and him!   

It's only January 1, and yet I predict that this will be the most bizarre post of 2008. 

My response to about 3 posts back:

WHAT THE FUCK???????

This OP sounds like some kind of delusional rant from the Jack Chick, Kent Hovind, snake handling, speakin' in tongues, faith healing, love-gift, seed of faith, God Hates Fags, Young Earth Creationists brand of Christianity!!!

It's just too bizarre to take seriously.

mating rituals, kinda rules out power rape.

Some animals do specifically mate by force. Not that it's relevant.

After reading some of the posts in this very unexpected thread I have just one thing to say: This thread is totally fucked up.

Now that I have that off my chest, I'm not entirely sure anyone should be engaged in serious debate on this thread, judging by the quality of posts from the theists arguing here, if it can be called arguing.  Isn't this all just a joke?  Should this really be in Theist vs. Atheist?

I agree with some sentiment I read on the previous page: This thread contains the first (and perhaps) most fucked up post of 2008.

What makes it wrong if it hurts the animal? Agriculture depends on systematically killing tons of miserable animals. I think your distinction is special pleading, as though one moral construct is absolute (harm is wrong) and another subjective (molesting animals is unseemly); even where we have established precedent of society contradicting the construct -- specifically that 'harm' is the sole factor, or even the main one. They're both social constructs.

Depending on persons you ask you get different answers.