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: 8416

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why shouldn't they have the same right as humans? We are all 100% material living beings without a soul?

wooo, why you got to dis on dogs? There DNA is actually closer to ours than most think. And have you ever seen a poodle with that lil pink bow? Who is to say that at least a poodle could be a "friend with benefits?" Who can claim that is wrong?

Slippery slope arguments, Shabaka, are unfalsifiable in the present . . . and always turn out to be exaggerated in the future. And by taking your conclusion to extremes, you pose a false dichotomy: it's not either - or. It's not traditional marriage versus mindless debauchery.

This tactic is the conservative's way of stepping on the brakes of progress. Change isn't a bad thing. It's how we evolve.

Agree completely, Exile, but we never know for certain, the outcome of change, and to the less adventurous, it can be frightening. Not taking sides, just trying to explain Human nature --

pax vobiscum,


Yes, I did have reservations about the wording: "Change isn't a bad thing.". I should have said: Change isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I was afraid somebody would pick up on that :-)

Sorry it had to be me, but as the scorpion said to the frog, "It's in my nature --"

@Exile - Somehow I don't think Shabaka will ever get it, or at least admit to getting it.

It's a good point that we can only ever evolve and become a better species through change.  But fundies don't believe in evolution, so they can't conceive of us ever improving.  That might be why they fight it so much.

By the way, I am a "conservative" and I'm all for progress and evolution.  I just don't think the government can be trusted with being in charge of it.  ;-)

Ahhh the ideal..but you know what, the ideal has very little to do with the reality..and you can dodge reality with your ideals..

show me, don't just insinuate..Some atheist love to sound like they got their stuff together as a means of intimidation..so please show me the slope if you have the guts..now you are on another level, let's see how you handle it..

@Shabaka - If you know how to use Google, you can look up the term "slippery slope fallacy" and it will explain just exactly where you went off the rails of logical connection.  Several of us have tried to explain to you were you lost validity.  If you look up the term, maybe that will give you some insight.

Knowing the meaning doesn't help, I can't google this particular example. Show me.

@Shabaka - Okay, try this one more time.  A Slipper Slope Fallacy is defined as "a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom"

As an example: You argue that if we protect animals from abuse, that will lead to giving them the same rights as intelligent beings, which they are not.  There are an extraordinary number of mitigating factors to giving a being equal rights as humans, but only compassion is required to want to avoid having a sentient being harmed.  Then, that will lead to people entering into legally binding agreements with those same animals, despite the fact that the definition of a legal binding argument is that both parties must understand the agreement, which animals cannot.  And then that will lead to people marrying their dogs, even though the dog doesn't have the capacity to understand such an agreement.  Which will lead to chickens and wooden posts getting married, which will lead to the wind and courage going to court to win their ability to unite in holy matrimony.  Before you know it, we have dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

That is not only an example of a slippery slope argument, but it completely explains YOUR slipper slope argument.  If you can't understand this progression, then there is no hope for you.  If you ask for more clarification, I will ignore you because you are either far to stupid for me to deal with or you are just arguing for the sake of argument.


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service