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.
"...without mysticism it is impossible to conceive a human mind that is more than...."
I've heard the term "god of the gap" used to refer to the mysticism they need.
It is the capacity to suffer that entitles an animal, human or otherwise, to moral consideration.
Sounds like a pretty reasonable starting point to me.
@Blaine Leavitt - do you slaughter and consume the flesh of carrots?
Very fair. I avoid killing most spiders, but the ones that catch me off guard are crushed for their insolence.
Not if you mark the perimeter of your home with their desecrated corpses as a warning.
Speaking of nutloaves, has anyone seen Michael lately --?
Blaine - don't encourage him, his head is big enough as it is --
Blaine, if "Unseen" is food for your brain, I can only offer two words, "Sea kelp" --