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: 7975

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mine. :D


RE: "Mine. :D"

That explains far more than I care to know --

@Heather. You are clearly incapable of intelligent, reasonable and respectful discussion on the subject. Pity.

And you remain incapable of a discussion on the difference between satiation and balanced nutrition.  This is because your ideas are not your own and the gurus you follow haven't provided you with an appropriate apologetic for this particular pitfall of your radical dietary regime.

Perhaps one day someone in the priestly class of vegans will create an appropriate apology for this pitfall, one which a devotee such as yourself can cut and paste - but until then you remain unarmed for this discussion.


Just wanted to say that I really liked this response- lines up surprisingly well with my own thoughts on morality. However, I also think that although we seem to share this view on morality, some others would not. Witnessing or knowing about human suffering does not bother some the way it does us, and so there values may differ greatly. It's difficult to answer what drives my desire to end human suffering (including fear, etc)- but in the end I think it is still a "selfish" thing. If I am completely unaware of suffering, it doesn't bother me- for how could it? I think that the empathy I feel is a product of an evolved brain that best preserves the species by being motivated to protect the other individuals and help them thrive.

Hi Heather

Is the only offence of a child rapist / killer that they threaten the security of an individual and of society.  Or is what they do morally reprehensible?  If there was a society who decided it was right and good and not morally wrong, would it then not be so? 


If there was a society who decided it was right and good and not morally wrong, would it then not be so?

This question can be posed conversely: If there was a society god who decided it was right and good and not morally wrong, would it then not be so?

Amen! It's the capriciousness of god's so-called morality that really gets me.


If children could grow up living well balanced lives, without need of therapy, after being sexualized at a pre-pubescent age then child molesters wouldn't be a problem at all, would they?

"Your right to swing your fist, stops just short of my nose." - metaphorically at least, that concept, necessary for the survival of our species, was probably the first precept on the road to establishing a moral code for Humans, living together in a mutually beneficial society (which could include any gathering of two or more members). The Human moral code was built, brick by brick, over eons, based on what worked, and what didn't.

Had the Bible been written as a "Self-Help" Book, and all mention of magical, invisible entities omitted, like most Human endeavors, it would have contained some beneficial information, and some, not so much, but the introduction of fear into the formula, fear of what would happen if these precepts were not followed, while at first proved very effective among an ignorant population, ultimately provided the grounds for its own downfall as we Humans became more knowledgeable about the world around us and the way it worked.

Newton, for example, considered by most to have been the Grandfather of astrophysics, and who turned the world around from the Aristotelian thinking that had prevailed for two millennia, was in fact, devoutly religious, and used his discoveries in physics, his principles of gravity and laws of motion, in an effort to prove that a god created and continued to provide maintenance for the Universe. For example, he realized that the orbits of the planets were irregular, and with time, would collide or their orbits decay, and he believed that god sent comets, with their slight gravitational tugs, to pull errant planets back into their proper orbits.

Ironically, Kant, LaGrange and Laplace, not having the myopic religious focus of Newton, were able to use Newton's own calculations to demonstrate that the Universe was in fact, quite self-sustaining, and in no need of a Magic Maintenance Man.

Knowledge, then, has become the torch that illuminates the Human mind and drives back the shadows where Magic Boogy-Men lurk - the moral judgments we make - right, wrong, good, bad, are entirely subjective, but based on a variety of factors, among those, past experience of what works, what doesn't, and what society will allow us to do without stopping us.

pax vobiscum,


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service