I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity."  Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."

A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of  "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?

Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.

Views: 7956

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Suzanne, Take Two:

"Why don't women want to keep little boys as sex slaves?"

While many men might like (in fantasy more than in reality) to live as sex slaves, many more men have lived as provider slaves, or provider objects.

That women are now majorities in professional schools (i.e., law and medicine) supports a conclusion that men have been able to tyrannize because they have historically had greater access to wealth.

"Women don't have to fight 'free will' not to do any of this - Why?"

I hope I'm stating this clearly: do women have greater "social permission" than men to rely on self-interest as motivation?

Free will seems more a rationalization than a fact. I doubt left brain/right brain explanations.

That is the point Tom, men fantasize about being sex slaves, but I also know in reality they just couldn't keep up :D 

So, why do men fantasize about being a sex slave, when women don't?

America is the biggest producer of porn. Who do you think is the majority that watches it - men or women?

There are always aberrations to any statement. Ha,ha, I knew that as soon as I made my comment, blokes would come on out, and start naming all the shitty, violent, controlling women. One can tell when a man in not an adequate male.

I am talking about the average female, who had to fight, all over the world, just to get the vote why? And even then, the vote was conditional.


In my lifetime, and I am not that old :D after the second world war, if a woman married, she was not allowed, legally, to work. In my lifetime, if a woman had children and worked, she would get death threats, and told to stay home and look after her children. Women went to jail, were forced fed, tubes down their throat - just for the right to vote. Why?

That women are now majorities in professional schools (i.e., law and medicine) supports a conclusion that men have been able to tyrannize because they have historically had greater access to wealth.

Yep - and had to fight for it all the way - keep anyone down, and they will, eventually, fight back. Women just keep behind the eight ball, and if women didn't fight for basic human rights, they just would never had got them, and in America, it was a state by state fight. The same as African Americans, natives of any country, Gays - all have to fight, just for equal rights.

I have huge respect for men, but only some - the ones who are sure of themselves, and are not threatened by women. There are good men, bad men, there are good women, bad women, and I feel sorry for a male who gets tied up with a nagging cow. BUT, women will never, per se, plummet the depths that men can and do.  I have huge respect for men who have gone to war, who do all the shitty jobs that women, physically can't do, I have great respect for the men who truly love their children, and look after them. This forward thinking of the male, to 'allow' women to reach their full potential, I think, is tied to intelligence. 

Keep in mind, I generalize, because I also know bitchy manipulating shitty women -  and I am ashamed, embarrassed when I hear of a bloke being taken down by a woman, and through history, the women who are vengeful murdering terrorists, but I think the average female wants to help society, which is why they outnumber male nurses etc. - but when women are encouraged, the same as a male, educated the same as a male, expected to do as well as a male, she will achieve, the same as men do. Doctors, Law. Research Science etc. etc.

But it is when one goes back  in history, and women heroes, achievers, inventors, scientists are just not named and revered the same as men. It is changing, but it has been slow, and a women in a prominent, powerful position, had better have a thicker skin, and be attacked for extraordinary things, Like 'She has a big bum, and long earlobes (I kid you not, this is the sort of stupidity from her male opposition sprouted to our Female Atheist Prime Minister).

Men have the brawn, aggressiveness and the power - they are innately competitive, one can see it on this site, and women need men onside, 'cause, and make no mistake, men make the rules, and it is only when men come onside, that women will be really able to achieve their full potential. It is just one reason why more and more women are not getting married or having children, and power to them. 

Quote by a bloke: A woman is just an aid to masturbation - now, that just warms a woman's heart.

Free will seems more a rationalization than a fact. I doubt left brain/right brain explanations. I think this is true.

Men and women need each other, and until they are on the same side - there will always be problems, because women in western countries, at least, just won't put up with being 'controlled'. It is a totally different matter in Muslim and third world countries.

But sex slaves is a serious question and problem - in third world countries, people sell their daughters off, simply because they can.

This is just one article about it :(


"why men do horrendous misery causing acts, but not women?"

Cleopatra, Imelda Marcos, Isabel Perón, Margaret Thatcher. Last one had 323 men killed on her direct orders. When it comes to the application of violence for a cause, women can do an equal amount of damage as men (perhaps even more?). Men have had the most power to fuck shit up for thousands of years, now women are finally getting their chance to do the same. 

You forgot Golda Meir and Queen Victoria.

Let's not forget Wu Zetian, Jiang Qing, Bloody Mary, or Catherine the Great either.

There are plenty of terrible everyday women, too, whose names we don't know.

Haven't  we met?

@Blaine Leavitt

@Unseen "There really is no multicolored arc out there where the rainbow appears to be." Without photons and water molecules no rainbows. I would think rainbows are real. Grasshopper confused!!

You certainly must be. "Everything is real once properly categorized. A rainbow belongs in the category "Illusions."

Where do illusions originate?  I wonder if they are discovered or created. Certainly, some illusions require the existence of something other than ones own mind.

Rainbows, mirages, magic tricks. In fact, EVERY illusion I can think of other than a pure hallucination, would seem to have some origin outside the brain. (Mind is just another way of saying "consciousness," isn't it? To be mindful of something is to be conscious of it.)

Rainbows, it seems to me, are no more an illusion than any other apparently solid object.  Water droplets refracting light allow our eyes to see an object.  With other objects the separate, far spaced atoms are not seen as moving separate particles, but our eyes perceive them as a solid object.  Water and light are real are they not?

Water and light are real in on sense as physical objects. Rainbows are not. They are an illusion just like a mirage on a hot road. They aren't physical objects with real boudaries and edges. Their boundaries and edges aren't really there. You can touch a water droplet, not a rainbow. A rainbow is an epiphenomenon.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service