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.
Penn & Teller Bullshit! It's a great show and they avoid using their infamous skills of misdirection when it comes to the topic at hand. So, you still ignorant of the difference between balanced nutrition and satiation or are you still just trolling?
RE: "Mine. :D"
That explains far more than I care to know --
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.
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?