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.
An atheist - speechless? Never!
More like tired to repeating ourselves when the xian refuses to listen and keeps repeating the same old debunked BS over and over again.
But, Wretched Saint, a thousand rocks have been thrown into that pond. The resulting tumultuous waves are scuttling many boats.
Personally, I use the golden rule. In the "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." I include other animals. I have had other atheist posters elsewhere express the golden rule as, "Do unto others, SO they will do unto you". This subtly different dictum includes only those others, who have the power to help or harm us. To me that is not ethics, but just a business deal. I think the saying can help us use our empathy to put ourselves in another's situation, and think about how that would be, and then to act in a way that we would seem fair if done to us.
Suppose I'm a masochist. I like being taunted and tortured. Should I apply the Golden Rule?
Yes. But not as simply as you are proposing. If you are a masochist, that is your choice. You expect that choice to be honored. If the other person is NOT a masochist, that choice should also be honored. You are taking (or at least trying to assert for sake of argument) the wrong lesson from "the Golden Rule".
The "Golden Rule" is definitely a keeper, but since we're quoting axioms, I'm rather fond of, "Never judge a man untill you've walked a mile in his shoes" - that way, when you judge him, you're a mile away, and you've got his shoes --
But let's switch Unseen's argument. He loves boys--forgive me unseen-- and thinks it is beautiful for man-boy love to transpire. He is thoroughly convinced that he is doing something beautiful and the boy consents, and sees this as a truly loving relationship. Should we leave them be?
If we call this wrong, whereby do we get our definition of wrong that supersedes his? (I think we would both say it is wrong).
I have a better question for you Wretch - you don't mind if I use your nickname do you? Good.
What does your Bible say about your premise?
Do you have to pitch such easy slow-balls over the plate?
It is wrong because it is pedophilia. It was wrong in your bible and it is wrong in today's society. it is wrong because the "boy" is not an adult and cannot make adult decisions. There is a thing called an "age of consent" and it doesn't matter if it is a boy-man, boy-woman, girl-man, or girl-woman "relationship", if one of the parties is under the age of consent, the "relationship" is not valid. I know you are trying to wedge "homosexuality" into this, but it has nothing to do with that. The scenario you propose is wrong because of the pedophilia.
Yes . . . but I'd keep my leathers in the far corner of the closet . . .
What if you could get away with doing things to people who didn't have the power to do back to you? Continue to do them good? (Yes, I hope). But why?