John Loftus for PETA?

"Since human beings have evolved from the lower animals we would expect the lower animals to exhibit some of the traits we have developed more fully. There is plenty of evidence they can remember, have emotions, and feel compassion. They also know in limited ways that they are doing wrong. I see this in my cat every day. When we say no he throws a temper tantrum. Some dogs poop on the carpet when neglected to get our attention, if we're gone too long. This evidence bolsters the claim that morality evolved and it also presents theists with what I call "The Darwinian Problem of Evil.""

It just so happens that I've picked up on another trait of John's that is common with his DC articles, and this time it is a matter of self-referencing. In an effort to look smart and creative, John coins some fancy schmancy term that has been probably been used elsewhere in the past or is a rip-off of something he most likely found in a philosophy book. Anything to make himself look like he is actually a doctor in the subject. But that is neither here nor there...

The more enlightenment John has to shed about the Animal Kingdom the more and more convinced I become that John just might endorse the animal rights extremist group, PETA. What reasons do I have? Well...

• John advocates that a "perfect" hypothetical world would be one without any predation, where every living being (excluding plants of course) would be vegetarians.
• John obsesses on animals, and continually points to the Animal Kingdom as a source of argumentation against the theist worldview.
• John assumes that the emotional displays and gestures of animals are almost exactly the same as humans, hence:
• John comes up with some rinky-tink term like "The Darwinian Problem of Evil" with many several philosophical errors. First off, do animals have a concept of evil? Do they even view suffering in the same way that humans do? If they don't, then there is no "problem of evil" because it does not apply to animals who are without a concept of good and evil.

There is no beating around the bush that humans are animals just like non-human animals are animals. We share what are called sets of basic instincts. But beyond this, it is not surprising that our minds work differently because of our occupational niche'. Believe it or not, the niche' is what in turn molds us into how we look at the world. If this were not true than it would not be the case that the American economic system has been able to pick itself up even in the midst of crises, such as the one we are currently facing now. In America, people are allowed to build a career out of their passions, in turn offering vitality and strength to the American economy. When concerning matters of evolution, you must never disregard the niche', it is a powerful driving force.

On some common denominator animals can relate to us and foster connections even if we are a different species, such as dolphins having the altruistic ability to save drowning household pets. But again this is almost purely reliant on basic and natural instincts. Keep in mind as animals we share the same genetic code as everything else in life, but what makes the difference is how our genes are expressed, i.e., how they conform to our environment.

If we were to take John's philosophical argument seriously even for just a minute, what would stop us from feeling sympathy for flies and insects when we kill them? What about ants? Spiders? Ticks?

And just like PETA, John assumes that animals have a concept of morality in the same sense that humans do, despite that almost no non-human species out there uses reason or logic to their advantage. Just as PETA suggests that animals out to be treated humanely, without thinking of what it means to be humane.

"Why do they suffer so much if a perfectly good God exists?"

Oh, and, another thing, how do animals suffer in the human sense, John? Do apex predators suffer or something?

Take Biology Classes Online, With Debunking Christianity!

Joe E. Holman hits up this one as he goes into a nonsensical rant trying to get a valid point across to Christian fundamentalists. As with most of my posts, I give you the link to this grand stupidity which will soon follow:

Imagine you are hiking in the woods. As you pass by a pond, you get a glancing view of some scavenging birds as they fly off some ways away from you. You make nothing of it. You keep walking. Then you spot it in the distance—the reason the birds flew away. A deer comes ripping through the bushes as he’s being chased by a grizzly. You hide quickly as best you can. With any luck, you’ll go unnoticed and that deer will be the thing’s lunch instead of you.

As you've seen, not only is he big, but boy does he move! He's strong too. One good swat from him is equal in force to a small piano (about 450 pounds) being swung from the height of a second story window. You know that if caught, he could literally knock your head off! You’d need a good gun to fend him off if he had his mind set on rending your flesh like the skin off a thigh from Church’s Chicken. But thankfully, you don’t have to go up against him. He’s gone now and so you can forget about him just like humans do all the things on planet earth that God creates which are deadly.

So forget about the bear.

Now imagine you are at the same pond, seeing the same birds fly away. This time, you are startled to see a red beast with big red eyes, with scales instead of fur, and fangs and canines just like the bear. If you will, he has a pointed tale and horns. Hiding, you are hoping that this deer-chasing demon is no smarter or more observant than that bear.

The demon is so different from the bear, but strangely, he’s no more or less terrifying than the bear. Let’s switch them; let’s say the bear was the mythical beast and the demon was the evolved creature. Would the raging bear not be exactly as terrifying or more than the demon? Would not someone who was sheltered from nature’s harsh realities feel the same fear as if that someone saw a traditionally described demon? Of course that person would.

So, let’s say you did see that bear. And let’s say you happen to be a Christian, but then it dawns on you (if you’re a halfway thinking Christian) that all this time you’ve been afraid of the Devil when you should have been afraid of (and prepared to face) things like bears—of things that are real and that you have a much higher chance of encountering, of things that are deadly and everywhere, just waiting to bring your life to an end.

And then, for the first time, it starts to occur to you that you’ve been praising a God for building a world for his people that is full of unspeakable horrors. You are now starting to realize that anything you ever saw on Friday the 13th or Halloween or The Outer Limits is no more horrifying than what God has exposed his people to and that we take for granted on this planet.

"Ooooh boy, it sure is! We live in such a vicious cycle of nature!"

Once more, the chances of someone getting mauled to death by a grizzly is slim to nothing unless a person should cross the path of the grizzly, and almost in deliberate fashion. You still have better chances of getting struck by lightning, as popular statistics have shown and demonstrated. The Great White shark is not the beast portrayed in the movie Jaws. Most predatory animals are not out to get humans for the following: 1) We are organisms foreign to their native habitat, and consequently are not a typical or convenient food source for their dietary requirements, 2) Humans possess industrial and mechanical resources and it follows that most animals would rather stick to their business than go around walking the streets of Manhattan or New York 3) We are the most dangerous animal in the world. No other creature has been capable of what we have done to other humans in the history of the world, to include torture.

It strikes me as appauling that atheists would try to argue based on emotions rather than intellect, something they primarily accuse Christians of doing almost all of the time. In his own little way, Joe is arguing about just how "evil" nature is, especially evolution. Hypocrites, perhaps?

Alright, so it can be pretty much said that Holman, like Loftus, is ignorant of basic zoology. But ignorance is not perhaps the best word to describe this:

Better rocks than other lifeforms, but maybe plants would be a start. Even...hair grease..would be better than having a deity who has creatures killing and consuming other lifeforms for sustainance.

Sounds like Holman has a thing for P.E.T.A., or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I'm much more Ted Nugent inclined myself. And with that said, what I'm about to say will be addressed to both Holman and the idiots who support P.E.T.A.:

It's funny when animal rights activist complain of people eating other "lifeforms", or that animals have the same basic societal rights and priveleges as do humans (that might be even moreso if humans were allowed to defecate in public; oh wait...dammit). Those poor animals. Humans don't need meat as part of their food intake. Animals should just be left alone! We all need to refrain from the ingestion of animals and animal products. We should just eat plants. If that happened, we'd have no more political scandals, wars in the Middle East, or even human genocide. There you go. Problem solved.

I guess it never occurs to this crowd that plants are LIVING? Yes, living. They're alive. They grow, like humans and animals do. Why would you make such a fuss over the consumption of animals and not defend plants while you're at it? Maybe if PETA and Greenpeace got into a confrontation, their philosophies of non-violence would quickly dissappear, ya think? Exactly...

"Who wants to learn more from Debunking Christianity?"

My answer:

NO THANKS, I'll invest my money with employed professional professors, not internet bloggers...