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: 7393

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Shabaka - Whatever you do, NEVER admit you're are wrong!  Just keep moving forward and make yourself look even more like an uncaring ass.  "If we can't torture animals, then that will lead to allowing chickens to marry pigs and that would just be *wrong*!!!"  Is it that you don't understand how ludicrous your premise is, or that you are so self-righteous that you can't conceive of ever having an invalid opinion, or just so prideful that you can never admit being wrong in public?

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,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com

@archaeopteryx,

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 --"

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 1 Comment

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 6 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service