It's also not morally wrong to eat your own poop, but that doesn't mean anyone wants to do it.

A common argumentation technique used by dumb people is having a discussion with an imaginary opponent and making them say whatever you think they would say for you to be right.

first. wtf. second. you dont need some divine sky daddy to tell you putting your dick in dead things is disgusting.

if you need your god to tell you its wrong, that means some part of you wants to do it, and thats more concerning. A atheist without a desire to fuck dead things is better than a christian that needs to be told not to.

Its a public health hazard. Its wrong because it can make you sick and you could then spread that disease to others. This danger of pathogens is the reason people feel intuitively revolted by the idea. When those people made up the religions in question those intuitions were incorporated into the story. Now their children are so obsessed with the story that they can no longer make the basic observation that roadkill is filthy, only that the story says its filthy.

This dude has definitely fucked some roadkill

It is scientifically a bad idea to do that action. Morals don't even need to enter into the equation.

These things are indistinguishable to them. They see ragebait as compelling argumentation.

To clarify for others not sure what the counter argument should be as an atheist, start by understanding that religion is not a requirement for morality and consciousness. You evolved to have empathy and respect for other humans as part of surviving as a social animal; you get along with others or you die. This also applies to animals to varying degrees, although culture tends to dictate which animals deserve respect.

In other words, the "golden rule" applies to other humans and animals within that definition and are granted as the same rights we want for ourselves, sexual autonomy included. That's why most of us wince at the thought of this faulty premise because that's the normal reaction, aside from it also just being gross.

"What about the bad people?" you might wonder, given you probably know a guy who would fuck roadkill. Well, empathy is an evolutionary trait, so just like any trait it'll vary, with some having no empathy at all because being a good liar is also sometimes a solution to society (it's just, less so since if too many select that route, the whole tribe dies).

Aside from that, humans form groups and prefer in -groups over out-groups. Typically this means you are more likely to cooperate and share resources with people similar to you because they're more likely to return the favor due to proximity, but it can also be manipulated by leaders to dehumanize whole groups of people, leading to all sorts of horrific treatment like rape and murder. Empathy doesn't factor in at that point.

Religion, if anything, is just another grouping factor that has been used to create such othering and dehumanizing of people, as history has shown for thousands of years and still happening today in places like Gaza. But back to the roadkill fucking; if religion is the only thing stopping you from fucking a dead deer, then there is clearly something very wrong with you, both from a moral lack of empathy for animals and from a sanitation standpoint.

Christians LOVE to have these philosophical debates when it makes their doctrine look good. Do I think it's MORALLY wrong to fuck roadkill? No, as they describe, there's no harm being done other than to your own psyche but is definitely an infection risk to yourself. People should be free to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others.

They will point to this and say "SEE!? The atheist doesn't think it's wrong! Disgusting!" The answer actually is "It IS wrong for many reasons, just not due to morality.

What the actual fuck did I just read. Get the feeling this dude's hard drive needs checked. Congrats, we found something worse that the ubiquitous Christian baby

This is the best they have?

Oh, wait. Of course, it is.

Ah yes, I'm sure Buddhists find desecrating a corpse abhorrent. They believe in forming strong attachments to the impermanent physical form of the self, right?

"Buddhist.... God's creation"

smh

Tom Green could answer this question.

How is that a logical fallacy? Also, "God says so" isn't much of an explanation either. In both cases, it just boils down to what's icky (for God, or people).