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.
Thanks for the clarification John. It seemed to me to smack of the realist / anti-realist thing which is down those lines, and quite strange.
Assuming others feel pain is even less supportable than imagining others feel pain. It boils down to basing an action on something we merely imagine. I'm not saying that I don't make that leap myself, but I do feel it should prevent anyone from getting on a moral high horse.
Oh my, you are making me feel so guilty. The thing with evangelicals and self-declared messiahs is that they just make people roll their eyes. Can't you see here that the pro-vegetarians/vegans are making NO headway? None. People don't reach their conclusions by being browbeaten, guilt-tripped, or annoyed. You are doing it primarily to make yourself feel better. Ponder the ethics of that.
Why not trust people to reach their own decision in moral matters? And if you can't why is that?
Why did the abolitionists not just, "Live and let live." Or in this case, "Live and let die." Why? Because they recognized a grave injustice that their peers seems unwilling, or unable to see. They were capable of empathy and compassion. They loved justice. They wanted to share the benefits of freedom with those who had been denied it. Slave owners did not give up their privileges, and unfair advantages, without presenting many arguments, both biblical and scientific in favor of slavery. In fact their arguments are almost identical to those stated here, by those who enjoy their power over " lesser beings".
That's easy to say. It's kind of like "whatever."
@Trevor - RE: "What a terrible nonsense filled pickle the world becomes when you try and remove God from it."
Which god would that be, Trevor? I find myself agreeing with Steven Roberts, in that you and I are both atheists - I simply believe in one fewer god than you do.
One thing I never did, when I visited theist sites (even the two that banned me), I never suggested they had ejected their brains. I had more courtesy than that.
You are no doubt right. It was a cheap shot. Sorry for that.
I think we can agree on a couple of things.
1) Use of a capital G makes it clear enough for most people that you mean the one and only God. 2) Removing God from the world makes it seem a nonsense-filled-pickle for a lot of people (if not most people).
Yet I'm still satisfied that most people's leap of faith to atheism is reasonably based on the same scientific probabilities that predict that there's no Great Unicorn. Maybe we can still have fun discussing ways to reduce various suffering caused by Nonsense Filled Pickles?