LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[Redbeard The Pink]

Oh, just off the top of my head... Jesus was sacrificed for sins others had committed and were guilty of, he was taking the blame for actions rightly attributed to another. In the case of disease, humans are entirely blameless; nobody wants to get sick, and sickness isn't an action that, morally speaking, one should rightfully atone for, but are instead placing that atonement on the animal to take their punishment for them. So in reality there's no "redemption" in animal testing to be experienced "vicariously," because we don't need to be redeemed from getting sick, sickness is not an act that we're guilty of. The comparison is you're making is inappropriate in the very area that we're objecting to in the first place, therefore, there's no hypocrisy involved here.

This is like you going "You say you're against drunk driving, but you drive a car! Aha, hypocrite!" It only takes a little thought to realize that driving is not the part of "drunk driving" that is particularly objectionable. Likewise, curing things is not the objectionable part of the Jesus mythos; it's the nature of the thing being cured as it applies to individuals, the nature of the cure itself, and the mentality behind it, that we're objecting to. Not curing things, or even curing via sacrifice. You're making an accusation of hypocrisy while avoiding entirely the actual content of the claim you're asserting hypocrisy over.

Not accurate.
Jesus' death was a cure for sin (the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world), Not just for sins that had been committed, for there were future generations to benefit that didn't yet exist to commit sin.

In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. - Zechariah 13:1

Jesus made the choice to sacrifice his life, he didn't have to do it, yet you guys seem to think that  to be immoral.

Now compare that to the earlier example of syphilis I gave. syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease, so wouldn't you say that if a person contracts it, it's their own fault? Yet you can be cured of syphilis thanks to the 40 years of African-American men being (unbeknownst to them) infected with the disease in the name of scientific progress..

These men died to provide a cure for a disease of people that were sexually irresponsible.....vicarious redemption.

Again, how are they not comparable?

Do you consider the latter immoral?

What is the fundamental disconnect between theist thought and informed consent?

They are not comparable because of the phrase "unbeknownst to them."

Jesus knew what was being asked of him and went along with it. The real people in your example did not. They did not sacrifice themselves willingly. Someone else decided to sacrifice them for what those people deemed to be the "greater good." Yes this is immoral, and this is why.

For the record though, it's also immoral to sacrifice your child to save someone else from accountability, even if the child volunteers for it. Your god is a sadistic monster. If sin has to be atoned for with blood, death, and pain, it's because he made those rules. If he didn't make those rules, he is not all-powerful.