Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Question of the Day #28: Dogs

Image hosting by PhotobucketI'm not entirely clear on what Christians make of their pets. Are they sentient beings to them, or do Christians simply regard pets as fuzzy little crapping robots?

If the former is true, then wouldn't the pet therefore have a soul, and where would it go when the animal dies? If it doesn't go anywhere, then what's wrong with saying the same is true of the human "soul"?

If the latter is true, and pets are non-sentient furry robots, then why do Christians play with their pets? Do they get the same sort of emotional fulfillment from interacting with other "soulless" non-sentients, such as a computerized videogame opponent or SmarterChild?

Post a Comment


At 2/22/2006 6:07 AM, Blogger strangely rouge declaimed...

can't theists and athiests just like and cute furry things?

At 2/22/2006 8:32 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Well, sure, everyone can like cute, furry things, but the relationship with a pet usually goes beyond just fascination.

I think this is an interesting question, because I've known a lot of Christians for whom a pet is really a part of the family. Strictly speaking, animals don't have souls, and so any postulation of Doggie or Kitty Heaven is clearly unorthodox. But some Christians can't imagine this to be the case; for them, all dogs really do go to heaven.

I think this is, like grief at funerals, yet another indication of the mental disconnect that Christians are burdened with, as they're unable to reconcile Christian doctrine with observed reality.

At 2/22/2006 11:03 AM, Blogger Hellbound Alleee declaimed...

Sure, someone can "just like" an animal, and you would think most don't give it a second thought. But how could a person go to church and listen to the minister talk about life after death, or read the biblical passages about everlasting life, or -- goddamnit--pray without at least touching on how their religion affects their everyday lives and relationships?

I know for sure that Christians have relationships with their animals, and I also know that they do not all relate to them as robots, or playtoys that God gave man. Just for a second, most of them must have thought that an eternity without Fluffy, who they more than just liked, would be very sad. How could it be heaven without their loved ones there with them--including those who are going to hell. How does it make sense, in the religion they think they believe in? I have feeling this is one of those things where a christian has to say "I just like Fluffy, that's all," and avoid thinking about the implications altogether. After all, they aren't cruel overlords of these adorable creatures, as the religious relationship implies.

Edited to add:
Zach brought up funerals. This question is just dying to be answered (pun intended) when a Christian has a funeral, or at least a burial for Fluffy. What is left to pray for, except an exception for one's beloved pet?

At 2/22/2006 11:50 AM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Ive had a few longwinded arguments with various Christians about this. No they think animals arent sentient, have no intelligence, and have no souls. Rather unkind of them I think.

I have argued at length about the sentience of other mammals, and even invertebrates like cephalopods, but the Christians refuse to consider it.

Most Christians dont even think that homo sapiens qualify as "animals"!!!!!! Fucking insane I tell you.

Christians think that God put animals on this Earth for their exploitation. They are considered property of man, not sentient life forms that we should understand and respect.

At 2/22/2006 1:43 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

"No they think animals arent sentient, have no intelligence, and have no souls."

And yet they interact with animals as if they were personal beings. Give a dog a bone if he's been good, hit his with a newspaper if he's been bad. Why enforce discipline on an organism that can't learn? That seems rather sadistic to me.

At 2/22/2006 7:18 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Cognitive dissonance, my friend ;)

At 2/22/2006 9:20 PM, Blogger BJ declaimed...

I would like to say one thing, maybe more. The question, though not thought out that well, is a false dilemma. I propose option 3. That is, why cant christians think of their "pet" in terms of a future food source? This seems just as reasonable as them being commited to the notion of it being a "crapping robot" or a "sentinent being." With a Christian thinking of a pet in terms of food, I think that an atheist should see this view as rather insightful. In the atheist worldview we "homo sapiens" are nothing more than "meat-bags" anyway, and at the top of the food chain (for now). So my view, as a Christian, is that animals like my Weimarner (Blue) are a future pot roast for my family. Not a robot or a sentiment being, but rather a meal.

Kinney said: Most Christians dont even think that homo sapiens qualify as "animals"!!!!!! Fucking insane I tell you.

Insane? It certainly is in terms of your presuppositions, but not a Christians. As a matter of fact, I guess that since dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits, deer, etc.. are in fact animals (as well as pets)that are sources of food, and atheist like Kinney demand humans be classified as such (above), than it follows that humans can be sources of food as well because homo sapiens are meat-bags like fluffy. Which brings up a possible Q.O.D #29 which reads..

Are atheist advocating cannibilism?

I sure am hungry. Down South we have pigs-in-the-ground, and beer on ice at our redneck cookouts. I will have to mention to my buddies about having an atheist-in-the-ground. Slow roasted.....yee-haw!!!

At 2/22/2006 10:07 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

BJ : thanks troll, you had your fun, now get the fuck out of here...

At 2/22/2006 10:39 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

BJ: "Are atheist advocating cannibilism?" [sic]

Is BJ advocating the thwarting of the rules of grammar?

At 2/23/2006 8:30 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

"That is, why cant christians think of their "pet" in terms of a future food source?"

Doesn't seem any more silly or disturbing than any other Christian belief.

At 2/23/2006 1:44 PM, Blogger Herb Schaffler declaimed...


Humans can be a source of food and are a source of food for many organisms. We have meat just like other animals. We shit, fuck, drink, eat, breathe, etc. just like other animals. We have minds just as other animals have minds. The only difference is that our mental state is more complex and advanced in ways. Do we have a soul just because of our advanced mental capacity? People would like to think so because they can't accept that we die and our mind doesn't continue to live on. In that, we are also like other animals.



Create a Link

<< Home