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.
Love ya like a brother Blaine, but I really wasn't trying to help you understand anything (for that, read my website posts) - just wanted everyone to know how far the Creationism nonsense has spread.
And this is the 21st freakin' Century!
@Blaine - what, for cryin' out loud, is a reader? - I've lead a very sheltered life --
I guess more banned books will need to be sent in plain brown wrappers?
I run into a lot of people who don't know that S. Korea isn't a Buddhist, Confucian, or Shinto culture. Rather, it's become a largely Christian country among those who profess a religion (46.5% do not, which is encouraging).
|Roman Catholic Church||10.9%|
Yeah, well, note who started it: the US Institute for Creation Research
@Unseen,moral and ethics are pure self obligation not social,yes society give such judgement concerning ppl or what they do,but this social impact can be neglected but what is important is what is going on inside and deep down for those "crooks,gangsters........."we don't talk about laws we talk about ethics and morality,so if they can live in peace with this immorality when they face themselves,so maybe they are abnormal or victims of unjust if they are not aware of it.but there are others can not live with it,so if they steal something they stole part of themselves first or if they kill someone they killed part of them before and they can not live with it.
There you go again, just as I said: When you disagree with their ethics, you don't count them in. They are somehow aberrant or defective or something along that line. And of course you can't count them: If you did, your sweeping generalizations would be false.
Who knows, that could be what he's using to write English.
Oops! (Rick Perry moment) - this didn't go where I wanted it to - oh well --
(Refers to Unseen's post below)
@Unseen - hey, English is not the kid's first language, give him a break!
OR, here's a better idea, let him write it to you in Arabic, and you can translate it for us - does that work for you?
It might be interesting to see what Firefox's translate function could do with some arabic.
My Atheist Friends, Help Me Understand...
OK, look, we try to logically debate differences of opinion on morality, since we truly believe there is no absolute definition of it.
A few angry arguments here just show how important it is to us, right?! I still say it's much better than blindly putting full faith into ancient scripture written by men who had no clue about what daily life would be like for future humans, or even what the earth that we live on really is, or where we really came from and how we continue to evolve.
Behold, one of the many, newer images of earth, brought to you by Science, not Scripture. And the thing is, this science it true regardless of what religion one chooses.
Pride and vanity live on- as old as humanity.
Are you here, too? We are here? We must have something to do with it or else we wouldn't be here. Or, what is the alternative?