Essay: Criticizing the beastly behavior of atheists is family-friendly

A few points:

1. Bible-believing Christians are more likely to have children and marry than the irreligious. The Bible is very family-friendly. The Bible mentions bestiality in more than place (prohibits it).

2. I do not use any salacious sources in terms of quoting or sourcing the various "Atheism and bestiality" type articles. I used mainstream news sources, etc.

3. A man said his mule was very teachable.

His friend told him, "Mules are stubborn. That is universally recognized. In fact, 'stubborn as a mule' is a common term people use to describe stubbornness."

While I am not advocating this of course, the man told his mule to do something and whacked him with a 2 by 4 piece of construction wood. And the mule complied with his request. The man then told his friend, "You see! My mule is teachable and not stubborn. But first, you have to get his attention".

I wanted to convey to atheists/agnostics/nonreligious/religious the notion that atheism breeds immorality. And bestiality is considered immoral by a very large amount of people for good reasons (harms animals, harms people[1], etc. etc.). And the topic of "Atheism and bestiality" is a "rhetorical 2 by 4" that gets people's attention. Conservapedia's "atheism and bestiality" article has nearly 100,000 page views.

Now do I wish that atheists often weren't as stubborn as mules? Yes. Nevertheless, I believe they are and so I sometimes use "rhetorical 2 by 4s" that gets people's attention.

4. I am very much against bestiality. It is against God's design/purpose (for example, People/animals certainly don't advance procreation via engaging in bestiality, etc. etc. etc.).

Under an atheistic worldview, bestiality is just two animals having sex together. Under an atheistic worldview, bestiality is just one clump of atoms interacting with another clump of atoms.

There is no OBJECTIVE meaning under an atheist worldview (see: Atheism and meaninglessness).