Atheism and necrophilia

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Atheism and necrophilia as edited by Wikignome72 (Talk | contribs) at 03:45, June 14, 2020. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Necrophilia is "sexual feelings or activities that involve dead bodies".[1]

Joe Carter's First Things article entitled The Dangerous Mind declares concerning atheist Peter Singer:

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).[2]

Marvin Olasky, the editor of the evangelical Christian new magazine, indicates Singer told him that he thought necrophilia and bestiality were “not wrong inherently” so long as pain wasn’t inflicted on another being.[3] In addition, Singer also states that the deceased must give consent when alive in order for necrophilia to not be inherently wrong.[4] See also: Atheism and bestiality

The article Peter Singer, bestiality, and infanticide indicates:

Marvin Olasky interviewed Princeton philosopher of bioethics, Peter Singer. The New Yorker has called him the most influential philosopher alive. Influence means that one’s ideas have a way of shaping other people’s ideas. So what are Singer’s ideas you ask? When asked about the morality of necrophilia (having sexual relations with a corpse) Singer said, “There’s no moral problem with that.” [5]

The abstract of a 2014 peer-reviewed study in the journal Plos One reported:

American participants intuitively judged a wide variety of immoral acts (e.g., serial murder, consensual incest, necrobestiality, cannibalism) as representative of atheists, but not of eleven other religious, ethnic, and cultural groups. Even atheist participants judged immoral acts as more representative of atheists than of other groups. These findings demonstrate a prevalent intuition that belief in God serves a necessary function in inhibiting immoral conduct, and may help explain persistent negative perceptions of atheists.[6]

See also