# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 48
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/941 "2010-09-14T02:49:10Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Truth isn’t determined by majority. Scientific consensus is. You are ignoring things that are very, very well supported. > > > > You also ignorantly think that somehow science provides proof. This isn’t true. Science provides evidence. And when evidence for something is overwhelming, our confidence is high. > > > > You ignore things that have high amounts of evidence, and you do it so that you can believe in something that has no evidence. That’s just silly. > > Can you provide me with an example of where I have ignored things “that have high amounts of evidence”? Okay, Macro evolution. What do I win? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/942 "2010-09-14T02:50:52Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> If there is no creator, evolution must account for everything about us. How then can you say “we can do a lot of things that aren’t evolutionarily related”? As always, consider that specific manifestations of general traits can be decidedly _ **wretched** _ for evolutionary purposes so long as other manifestations of that general trait net good enough results. So “gullibility” or “deferential respect for authority” or whatever can net good results if folks often get filled with good advice, even though an impressive number of people wind up getting wiped out by following bad advice for the same reason. And, at that, ditto for the _ **reverse,** _ for what religious types would maybe call “free will”: figure humans evolved an unparalleled ability to think for themselves and consciously reconsider the impulses that lower animals would follow unthinkingly – which, actually, gets plenty of humans killed when they willfully ignore the sensible impulses they’re overruling, but also provides tremendously useful benefits for assorted humans who thereby reason their way to intriguing solutions. And so on. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/943 "2010-09-14T02:56:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let’s simplify this. > > > > 1\> The dog humps the table leg for pleasure, therefore it is has a direct and immediate motivation. There is NO motivation for an act of benevolence, indeed there is cost. There is NO benefit (of sensation or genetics) for a ‘stranger’ adoption, indeed there is cost. > > It’s called “sympathy”. Or “compassion”. Or something about powerful drives and the mothering instinct. Whatever it is, it’s pretty much pleasurable by definition, as CurtC aptly points out. > > Again, evolution could of course explain it: such a feeling would result in more adoptions, which more often result in good outcomes than bad. > > The problem for your analysis is that benevolence _ **does** _ bestow a benefit. If, after all these pages, you still don’t get that, then maybe there’s no point in continuing this discussion. > > > [@](#): > > > > _On the contrary, in almost all cases I would argue the opposite._ > > No, you wouldn’t. > > I’d asked whether you think benevolent behavior leads to good results, and you said “yes” – adding that the question isn’t value, but origin. I added that reciprocal altruism is found in the jungle, along with raising offspring and hunting in packs and so on, and you agreed – in CAPITAL LETTERS, for some reason – that altruism is observable in the wild now. Where is this “in almost all cases I would argue the opposite” weirdness suddenly coming from? 1\> You are arguing in circles. Sympathy is just another form of altruism. Your answer, therefore, is the same as saying “altruism came from altruism”. It’s nonsensical. 2\> How do more adoptions provide a positive outcome to the individual? 3\> SOME benevolent behaviour does lead to good results. Most does not. And what is relevant here is that adoption of a non-family animal does not. Yet it happens. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/944 "2010-09-14T02:57:55Z")
is there a reason you skipped over my post earlier and just decided to go back and respond to it now, yet only partially? > [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> I define creationism as the position that he natural universe is the creation of a supernatural being. There are young earth creationists, and old earth creationists (of which I subscribe, and which can embrace theistic evolution). I’m not interested in your definition of creationism. > [@](#): > > 2\> If Dawkins is using the term to mean only young earth creationists, that’s fine, but he should say so. Most people know what is meant by ‘creationist’. When someone describes someone as a creationist, it is inferred that this person does more than simply believe that a god created the universe. Here’s a definition from Wikipedia for you: > [@](#): > > However the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth (the creation-evolution controversy).[2] As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative.[3] At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called “advocates of creation” but they were occasionally called “creationists” in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term “anti-evolutionists” became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term “creationism” first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups who believed in various concepts of creation.[4] > **[Creationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism)** > > Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation, and is often pseudoscientific. In its broadest sense, creationism includes various religious views, which differ in their acceptance or rejection of modern scientific concepts, such as evolution, that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena. > The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation: the cla... > [@](#): > > In any event he is dishonest, because he also refused to debate Stephen Meyer in late 2009 for the same reason, yet Meyer is not a young earth creationist. He’s a creationist. From the Wikipedia article on Stephen C. Meyer: > [@](#): > > Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American scholar and advocate for the pseudoscientific, creationist concept of intelligent design who helped found the Discovery Institute (DI) and its Center for Science and Culture (CSC), which is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. Previous to joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Winthrop University. Are you going to tell me which arguments will be exposed by debating Palntinga or Craig that hasn’t been brought up by others he’s debated? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/945 "2010-09-14T02:59:09Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> If there is no creator, evolution must account for everything about us. How then can you say “we can do a lot of things that aren’t evolutionarily related”? > > Evolution never intended you to use a computer. But you’re using one. You’re taking advantage of a set of abilities that were evolved for other things. Your wonderful human color vision is interpreting the screen. Your capacity for language is translating the icons into concepts and your fingers, the ones that have evolved for you to grasp a spear are clicking away. As it happens your gifts are wasted on producing the inane drivel you’ve been posting, but whatcha gonna do? > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> I am not interested in what you SAY. I am interested in what you can argue or substantiate. So far you have done neither. > > Sure I have. You’ve ignored it. Possibly because you’re too invested in your silly ideology. 1\> The subject was benevolent actions, not using a computer. You obviously feel evasion is your best tactic. 2\> Put up a case and I’ll consider it. You haven’t done so. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/946 "2010-09-14T03:00:01Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > Can you really not understand this? The lioness would get pleasure from adopting an oryx, otherwise why would she do it? > > Ah, Curt, we are debating ‘why she would do it’, remember? Get with the program. Did you not read what I posted, the part you quoted? The “why” is because she would get pleasure from it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/947 "2010-09-14T03:00:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Can you provide me with an example of where I have ignored things “that have high amounts of evidence”? > > Okay, Macro evolution. What do I win? Nothing, because there is not a high amount of evidence for macro evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/948 "2010-09-14T03:04:38Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Okay, Macro evolution. What do I win? > > Nothing, because there is not a high amount of evidence for macro evolution. That’s an ignorant comment. There is so much evidence for macro evolution that only an idiot or someone utterly ignorant could doubt it. I’m sure you’re on the ignorant side of that equation. Honestly, you simply don’t understand what you’re talking about because you’ve taken in information from liars. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/949 "2010-09-14T03:05:53Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> You are arguing in circles. Sympathy is just another form of altruism. Your answer, therefore, is the same as saying “altruism came from altruism”. It’s nonsensical. It’s an answer to your question. You say there’s a sensation of pleasure for a dog that humps a table leg, but no sensation of pleasure in performing assorted benevolent actions; I postulate a sensation of pleasure for the latter, in part because that’s what I feel when something evokes a sympathetic response from me and prompts a benevolent response. I feel a different kind of pleasure when enthusiastically humping away, but that’s between me and my wife. > [@](#): > > _2\> How do more adoptions provide a positive outcome to the individual?_ When you’re adopting your sister’s kid, or your brother’s kid, or an orphaned cousin or whatever, you’re bringing about a positive outcome for your genes by helping someone who shares those genes. A generalized willingness to adopt and nurture orphaned kids will thus lead to plenty of positive outcomes if you often hang out around your kin, though it’ll occasionally lead to negative results when you wind up adopting someone who doesn’t share your genes. The question thus becomes whether the positive outcomes outweigh the negative ones. > [@](#): > > _3\> SOME benevolent behaviour does lead to good results. Most does not._ Cite? > [@](#): > > \*And what is relevant here is that adoption of a non-family animal does not. Yet it happens. No, what is relevant is whether such adoptions are outweighed by adoptions that _ **do** _ lead to good results. Are they or aren’t they? Show your work. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/950 "2010-09-14T03:06:19Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Ah, Curt, we are debating ‘why she would do it’, remember? Get with the program. > > Did you not read what I posted, the part you quoted? The “why” is because she would get pleasure from it. I’ll spell this out for you. You are arguing she will undertake an altruistic act because she gets ‘pleasure’ from it. This pleasure is intangible. This is NOT the pleasure of the humping dog. So where does it come from? How do you know she would get pleasure? How do you reconcile that with the fact she will KNOW the survival risks in the decision? You’re just clutching wildly at straws. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/951 "2010-09-14T03:07:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Nothing, because there is not a high amount of evidence for macro evolution. > > That’s an ignorant comment. There is so much evidence for macro evolution that only an idiot or someone utterly ignorant could doubt it. > > I’m sure you’re on the ignorant side of that equation. > > Honestly, you simply don’t understand what you’re talking about because you’ve taken in information from liars. OK, so call my bluff. Provide me with five evidences for macro evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/952 "2010-09-14T03:08:11Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> The subject was benevolent actions, not using a computer. You obviously feel evasion is your best tactic. This is what you do. Because it scares you, you run away. I directly answer your question and you pretend I didn’t. You aren’t interested in debate. You want to keep going until you’re the last one posting in the thread so as to feed your delusion of being right. It’s pathetic. > [@](#): > > 2\> Put up a case and I’ll consider it. You haven’t done so. Yes I have. You’re just not able to admit it. Probably because you’ve tied up your belief with God with the idea that you have to be correct about this. Which is silly, plenty of people can face reality about evolution existing and still believe in God. You’re the one choosing to live in ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/953 "2010-09-14T03:11:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > Did you not read what I posted, the part you quoted? The “why” is because she would get pleasure from it. > > I’ll spell this out for you. > > You are arguing she will undertake an altruistic act because she gets ‘pleasure’ from it. This pleasure is intangible. This is NOT the pleasure of the humping dog. Pleasure is by nature intangible. It is a property created by your brain and glands. People can suffer brain damage and lose the capacity for pleasure. > [@](#): > > So where does it come from? The brain. > [@](#): > > How do you know she would get pleasure? He’s offering a reasonable guess. Maybe she did it for the money. > [@](#): > > How do you reconcile that with the fact she will KNOW the survival risks in the decision? First off facing risks is a matter of personal bravery. People will risk life and limb to fuck a hot chick. Second off, what risks? > [@](#): > > You’re just clutching wildly at straws. No, you’re just unable to face reality. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/954 "2010-09-14T03:23:05Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > OK, so call my bluff. Provide me with five evidences for macro evolution. How’s this?: > **[29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)** > > This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that... Please watch this short video clip: [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zi8FfMBYCkk/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AG-AoAC8AGKAgwIABABGH8gRCgwMA8=&rs=AOn4CLBhYtT7-FHsFZYn_kN0BPdGlh5gGA "Ken Miller on Human Evolution") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk) How do you explain scientists knowing exactly where the fused chromosomes would be on human genes based on looking at chimp chromosomes if it’s not because we share a distant ancestor? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/955 "2010-09-14T03:24:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> You are arguing in circles. Sympathy is just another form of altruism. Your answer, therefore, is the same as saying “altruism came from altruism”. It’s nonsensical. > > It’s an answer to your question. You say there’s a sensation of pleasure for a dog that humps a table leg, but no sensation of pleasure in performing assorted benevolent actions; I postulate a sensation of pleasure for the latter, in part because that’s what I feel when something evokes a sympathetic response from me and prompts a benevolent response. I feel a different kind of pleasure when enthusiastically humping away, but that’s between me and my wife. > > When you’re adopting your sister’s kid, or your brother’s kid, or an orphaned cousin or whatever, you’re bringing about a positive outcome for your genes by helping someone who shares those genes. A generalized willingness to adopt and nurture orphaned kids will thus lead to plenty of positive outcomes if you often hang out around your kin, though it’ll occasionally lead to negative results when you wind up adopting someone who doesn’t share your genes. The question thus becomes whether the positive outcomes outweigh the negative ones. > > Cite? > > > [@](#): > > > > \*And what is relevant here is that adoption of a non-family animal does not. Yet it happens. > > No, what is relevant is whether such adoptions are outweighed by adoptions that _ **do** _ lead to good results. Are they or aren’t they? Show your work. 1\> A motivation derived from a physical sensation is one thing, because it is a tangible motivation that can be observed. On the other hand, sympathy is altruism. You are arguing for altruism from altruism. 2\> You continue to repeat you point about fammily adoptions. This is irrelevant. I happily agree that an animal will adopt a family members offspring. This has absolutely NO bearing on why they would adopt a stranger, particularly one from another group. 3\> In the earliest animal life, benevolent behaviour had considerable cost; the division of scarce resources, food, mates etc, yet it brought little, if any benefit. 4\> As to the mix of adoptions, who knows? What needs to be demonstrated is why the benefits of a family adoption necessariy would lead to an adoption of the member of another group. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/956 "2010-09-14T03:29:44Z")
[Coincidence?](http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html) ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/957 "2010-09-14T03:30:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’ll spell this out for you. > > > > You are arguing she will undertake an altruistic act because she gets ‘pleasure’ from it. This pleasure is intangible. This is NOT the pleasure of the humping dog. > > Pleasure is by nature intangible. It is a property created by your brain and glands. People can suffer brain damage and lose the capacity for pleasure. > > The brain. > > He’s offering a reasonable guess. Maybe she did it for the money. > > First off facing risks is a matter of personal bravery. People will risk life and limb to fuck a hot chick. Second off, what risks? > > > [@](#): > > > > You’re just clutching wildly at straws. > > No, you’re just unable to face reality. Ok, so pleasure is purely a physical function, caused by the ‘brain and glands’. But all you’re doing is pushing this back one step. It had to evolve. How and why? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/958 "2010-09-14T03:37:11Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > You are arguing she will undertake an altruistic act because she gets ‘pleasure’ from it. This pleasure is intangible. This is NOT the pleasure of the humping dog. It’s the same as the humping dog. ALL pleasure is intangible. > [@](#): > > How do you know she would get pleasure? The same exact way that you knew that a dog gets pleasure from humping a leg. How did you know that? > [@](#): > > How do you reconcile that with the fact she will KNOW the survival risks in the decision? What on earth do you mean by that? You think that she’s thinking “if I raise this oryx it will hurt my chances of survival but I feel that I have a moral obligation”? Really? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/959 "2010-09-14T03:37:13Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > OK, so call my bluff. Provide me with five evidences for macro evolution. > > How’s this?: > > [29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) > > Please watch this short video clip: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk) > > How do you explain scientists knowing exactly where the fused chromosomes would be on human genes based on looking at chimp chromosomes if it’s not because we share a distant ancestor? Because we have a common designer. I enjoy talkorigins, but if I wanted a web refernce I would have asked for one. Their arguments are conventional and have been well refuted. Let’s see five evidneces posted here. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/960 "2010-09-14T03:39:39Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You are arguing she will undertake an altruistic act because she gets ‘pleasure’ from it. This pleasure is intangible. This is NOT the pleasure of the humping dog. > > It’s the same as the humping dog. ALL pleasure is intangible. > > The same exact way that you knew that a dog gets pleasure from humping a leg. How did you know that? > > > [@](#): > > > > How do you reconcile that with the fact she will KNOW the survival risks in the decision? > > What on earth do you mean by that? You think that she’s thinking “if I raise this oryx it will hurt my chances of survival but I feel that I have a moral obligation”? Really? 1\> We know the dog get’s pleasure because it simulates sex. We have no such method of identifying ‘pleasure’ in this animal. 2\> You are arguing for an intangible using an intangible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=49)