Atheism

[Dontaskme]

Meat has natural rights. But not non-human meat, that has no natural rights.

Nope.

So non-human meat has no natural rights..why? because humans say so, do they make the rules as to whether non-human meat has rights or not. Don't non-human creatures also have feelings and a natural right to exist?

[henry quirk]

Meat has natural rights. But not non-human meat, that has no natural rights.

Nope.

So non-human meat has no natural rights..why? because humans say so, do they make the rules as to whether non-human meat has rights or not. Don't non-human creatures also have feelings and a natural right to exist?

Meat has no rights, persons do.

[Dontaskme]

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

How do you KNOW that God and you do NOT communicate?

Oh, FFS

Everyone who is sentient draws upon their own human imagination, where else is the source of your knowing, but your own knowing direct experience?

Source is only known, it is not seen by the way.

[henry quirk]

I said have you ever seen the image of the ''me'' and you said yes in a mirror.
So then I said, you cannot shave the beard in the mirror where your image is seen.
If there is another way to see ''me'' then where can ''me'' be seen, if you don't like the mirror image analogy?

I could have my eyes surgically extended out so, like a crab, I could turn them toward myself and see myself.

But, that's a little extreme to prove a point.

Ok, prove you have an image of yourself, post a picture of Henry the deist?

No. I will, as I say, describe myself, but, no, I'm playin' that stupid, attention whore's game of postin' selfies.

[Dontaskme]

Meat has natural rights. But not non-human meat, that has no natural rights.

Nope.

So non-human meat has no natural rights..why? because humans say so, do they make the rules as to whether non-human meat has rights or not. Don't non-human creatures also have feelings and a natural right to exist?

Meat has no rights, persons do.

So are you saying that only 'person can make up the rules as to what meat can be eaten and what cannot be eaten?
And that any living sentient feeling creature that is not a 'person' has no natural right to exist, because the 'person' who has a natural right to exist, says so?

[Age]

It seems obvious that a person's morality is mainly conditioned by the culture he is born and raised in

If by this you mean: a person's innate moral intuition, his moral compass, can be screwed with, then yeah, you're right.

If, though, you mean: a person's morality is installed by his culture, then: you're wrong.

Screwed with is not the term I would use. We seem to come into the world with the capacity for moral sensibility, but, for the most part, what we come to regard as morally good or bad is determined by the prevailing moral landscape of the society we are born into.

Having the capacity for 'moral sensibility' can also BE KNOWING what IS 'morally Right and Wrong, in Life'. Which EVERY one has at say, 'birth'.

BUT, as "henry quirk" just SAID and POINTED OUT, what 'you', adult human beings, come to regard as 'morally good or bad' WAS and IS DETERMINED by the so-called 'prevailing moral landscape of the society in which one is born INTO and lives WITHIN'. Which is, VERY SADLY, CONSTRUCTED and CONSCREWED by 'you', adult human beings.

What IS 'morally GOOD and BAD' IS INNATE, A MORAL INTUITION, or MORALLY KNOWN, just UNCONSCIOUSLY, at let us say, SINCE BIRTH. BUT, this KNOWING GETS and GOT SKEWED THROUGH and BY Wrong TEACHINGS, from the Wrong WAY of living adult CREATED societies.

The 'capacity for moral sensibility' IS, more or less the EXACT SAME 'thing' AS 'innate moral intuition'. And, what is regarded as 'morally good or bad, determined by the prevailing moral landscape of the society one is born into', (or just 'our upbringing') is, more or less the EXACT SAME AS the 'innate moral intuition' or 'capacity for moral sensibility' BEING 'screwed' by 'one's past experiences' FROM the society or culture that they have ENDURED or LIVED IN.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, ALL DEPENDS on WHAT PLACE, and at WHAT TIME, one is LIVING and GROWING UP IN.

[henry quirk]

Like all the others who were in my penalty box, Age is free again to pollute my forum view with his eye-blisterin' posts. And like some of those others: I will never respond to him.

Autists, dick-flashers, gammas: I see you, but you are beneath me.

'nuff said on that.

[Age]

Morality requires that two or more people agree on what is ethical conduct.

Saying "I have this personal morality" doesn't go anywhere. Why should anyone else also have that particular morality? I think that's the point that IC is raising.

The texts tell you why two or more people ought to have that morality.

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

FROM the 'thoughts' within A human body. Which can either be True, Right, and/or Correct, OR, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, OR a part of BOTH.

Now, HOW to DECIPHER between the two, True from False, Right from Wrong, et cetera one just needs to WORK OUT if the 'thought' is coming from one's OWN upbringing ONLY, or if the 'thought' is an ACTUALLY KNOWING that EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT.

WHEN a 'thought' is of the latter here, then THAT AUTHORITY is NOT from 'thought' BUT IS from 'Knowing'. Which is a WHOLE OTHER, authoritarian, Self.

[Age]

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Yes, I know you think that, but where is the objective foundation that makes it more than just your opinion? Is it carved into a mountain by some devine hand, or something?

It is immoral to eat people.

Just SAYING, 'it is so', does NOT MAKE 'it so'.

So, WHY is it, supposedly, 'immoral' to eat the body and meat of the human animal?

What makes eating the meat of the human animal ANY DIFFERENT from eating the meat of OTHER animals?

That is a translation of what Henry is trying to tell you.

OF COURSE. I do NOT think that 'this' was NEEDED to be 'spelled out' for ANY one here. But, if it was, then for those that NEEDED 'this' 'spelled out' to them, let 'them' Correct me here.

You both speak a different metaphysics, however, you are both saying the same thing. We agree.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE here?

[henry quirk]

So are you saying that only 'person can make up the rules as to what meat can be eaten and what cannot be eaten?

In context, the only rule is don't eat people.

And that any living sentient feeling creature that is not a 'person' has no natural right to exist, because the 'person' who has a natural right to exist, says so?

A person is a person independent of what anyone sez. If Bessie is a person (and I'm certainly willing to accept she is) then it's wrong to eat her.

[Age]

Morality requires that two or more people agree on what is ethical conduct.

Saying "I have this personal morality" doesn't go anywhere. Why should anyone else also have that particular morality? I think that's the point that IC is raising.

The texts tell you why two or more people ought to have that morality.

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

HOW does one DISTINGUISH the DIFFERENCE between 'God' OR 'human being' here, EXACTLY? Or, HOW does one KNOW WHEN 'it' IS a combination of BOTH, EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW. Like EVERY 'thing' else here.

[Age]

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of 'this' here?

[Dontaskme]

I said have you ever seen the image of the ''me'' and you said yes in a mirror.
So then I said, you cannot shave the beard in the mirror where your image is seen.
If there is another way to see ''me'' then where can ''me'' be seen, if you don't like the mirror image analogy?

I could have my eyes surgically extended out so, like a crab, I could turn them toward myself and see myself.

But, that's a little extreme to prove a point.

There is no 'Henry' looking out of your eyes either, you said yourself, you can only see yourself as a mirror image of the imageless.

Ok, prove you have an image of yourself, post a picture of Henry the deist?

No. I will, as I say, describe myself, but, no, I'm playin' that stupid, attention whore's game of postin' selfies.

Are you playing the whore selfie game or not ?

You said you would post a picture of yourself, you said it here >

''I'm a deist (not an atheist), I can post a picture or description of myself, so, you're wrong.''

By the way, you can never see yourself, and is why you have to use a mirror as to know you are only a reflected image of the imageless, if you do not want to come off as an attention seeking whore...stop gazing in the mirror at your own selfie. Could you do that? could you stop looking at yourself, and giving yourself some attention?

[Dontaskme]

So are you saying that only 'person can make up the rules as to what meat can be eaten and what cannot be eaten?

In context, the only rule is don't eat people.

And that any living sentient feeling creature that is not a 'person' has no natural right to exist, because the 'person' who has a natural right to exist, says so?

A person is a person independent of what anyone sez. If Bessie is a person (and I'm certainly willing to accept she is) then it's wrong to eat her.

So according to the ''only rule'' non-human sentient feeling creatures have no natural rights to exist?

Basically, all you are saying is that God who is human said humans can eat animals but not humans, so it must be true..ok I understand, that makes perfect sense,

[Age]

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

You have the experience of one person in a particular time and place.

Experience gathered over a long time from many people is different ... more credible and more objective.

So, WHEN MANY people, for a LONG TIME, SAY and CLAIM, for example that, 'the earth is flat', 'the sun revolves around the earth', and/or 'the Universe began and is expanding', then, to you, 'this' is MORE 'credible' and MORE 'objective' of let us say, WHEN just one person SAYS and CLAIMS that ACTUALLY 'the earth is NOT flat', 'the sun does NOT revolve around the earth', and/or 'the Universe did NOT begin and is NOT expanding', correct?