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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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