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.
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" --
I suspect you and I are the only ones who recall who that is.
Who gets to decide what is harmful to humanity are the ones with the most power. That's why many atheists vote against people running for public office that want to pass draconian laws that promote further suffering for humanity, yet the Christians view these laws as accomplishing just the opposite.
Many Christians live their lives feeling assured Armageddon is a true prophecy that will happen soon. All this does is demotivate people to be more actively involved in solving the problems of today's modern world.