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: 7434

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The fact that you have one solution is no reason to devote every third post you make on this site to suggesting that it is the ONLY solution.  I'm glad you aren't reproducing.

I'm glad you aren't reproducing. What an unkind comment!

You might see it as an unkind comment - but in the context of limiting population in order to reduce human suffering it is anything other than unkind.

A good way to ease suffering due to starvation is to examine what we eat. If the UN are concerned with the scale of meat consumption then that is reason enough to expect it to be raised as a topic of discussion. It seems a little rich to be criticising others with a well thought out ethical position when you don't have your own.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-fr...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full

You've read my statement of my ethical position and stated that you can't understand it.  Having no understanding of it, you just continue to push your line on starvation as though it somehow relates.  You know, even stupid people often realize their opinion isn't valid when they don't have a clue what is going on - so where does that leave you?

What a charming person lol. If you expressed yourself better, we could have had a conversation. However, I can see you are not interested but just want to push your narrow views, somewhat aggressively and arrogantly in my opinion.

No, we really couldn't have a conversation because I was attempting to delve into Atheist ethics and you can't seem to delve any further into ethics than your menu.

If the choices we make about our menus are enough to attract international bodies like the UN and EU then I think it safe to conclude they are important issues. If you could lift your vision a little you might too.

They also speak up against alcohol consumption, mobile phone usage, and green jobs. Doesn't immediately elevate these to moral issues.

In addition, all the EU countries' food pyramids include meat.

And what is the WHOs recommendation?

Eat a combination of different foods: staple foods, legumes, vegetables, fruits and foods from animals

Arcus. The WHO actually favour plant based diets because of the health risks associated with meat and animal products.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_916.pdf

You misunderstood. It did not cite these organisations as sources of issues of ethical concern. Rather I just wanted to show Spoonheim that the our menu is an important issue. It happens to be the case that I think it not only a health issue, but an ethical one.

My evidence didn't support your claim and you move the goal post. A debating trick right out of the religious handbook.

@John Major - "However, I can see you are not interested but just want to push your narrow views, somewhat aggressively and arrogantly in my opinion."

Wow.  Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black!  LOL

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 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