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: 7977

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

All of the above.

I'm wrong a lot, but I'm correct (from my personal world view) more

Being right more than you are wrong is a pretty low standard of measure . . .

Blaine - Ya, me too.  When I get the comments in email and see they are from him, I just delete them without reading them.  He makes irrational leaps that only a zealot can make and think they are presenting a reasonable argument.  Pretty pathetic.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

~Winston Churchill

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.  ;-)


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service