Am I? The Holocaust. Palestinian open air concentration camps. The Trail of Tears. Being a victim of violent crime. Not even being able to imagine what I'm talking about is probably why you're such the amoral atheist.
You presume very quickly and flippantly that I haven't experienced something like those things... but I'll let that go for now. Oh, the little jab about being "amoral"? Intriguing, since "amoral" would imply that I have no moral code whatsoever; I do, as I've explained. That you don't seem to like it is irrelevant.
Did you explain it already? I don't think so. You had some comments about me personally and I left it there because you were done. You don't need meat to survive, and killing is against the moral code you were so fabulously born with, yet you're more than happy to let others do the "wrong" killing for you. You not starving to death has nothing inherent to do with morality at all, that's just survival. A fish eating you instead of you eating a fish is just as moral neutral as what you named as your own morality. I dragged you out to deep water and you wound up digressing into this stuff and it wasn't even on topic.
I didn't say we need meat to survive; I said "eat other organisms". Plants and fungi are organisms too. But anyway, that's not important... I agree that a fish eating me versus me eating a fish is morally neutral; what you seem to have been insinuating on this, and other threads, is that I am doing evil by violating the Golden Rule in such a scenario. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. We at least now appear to agree on the point of moral neutrality in your given scenario.
Sure it's sure, and so that was what you should have said in the first place. You don't know anything but you're talking like you do anyway. Sound familiar? You reject faith and others don't. How you act from there isn't any better.
Yes, I reject faith. I needn't have any "faith" to at least know what it is the Bible says. I needn't believe it to understand, or to be familiar with it. Your case of me "not knowing what I'm talking about but talking like I do anyway" is untenable.
They're not mutually exclusive to me at all. Jesus is Muslim. He's Christian. He's Jew. How do you know what Jesus or Allah would let you get away with on Judgment Day? You don't. You can try to impose the orthodoxy on me in imposing your trite denials while someone else might do it seriously. The difference in what you and the Bible thumper project to others is as non-existent as your moral code. The only difference between the two of you is what you personally believe. And what proof do you have for what you believe? I'm not going to give your beliefs anymore credence than I give anyone else's because you don't offer me anything better. You believe in moral evasion. The Bible is far superior to that. You might "believe" (have faith in) what others have carried all the water to "prove" for you to bask in testament of. Which is called knowledge, differentiable from belief.
You can choose to view them as non-mutually-exclusive, fine. That's your right. But don't ask me, or anyone else, to agree with it please. Again, I speak of what will happen on the proposed "Judgment Day" strictly based on the narratives given in the religious texts of the respective religions to which we have referred. I don't believe that such a "judgment" will ever happen, so it's rather a moot point whether or not I'm right about its events; but again, in any case, I speak of it only so far as it is described by the faiths in question. Your straw-man that I "believe in moral evasion" is perplexing, in that I am genuinely dumbfounded as to where you could have misconstrued my position so badly as to have reached that conclusion. My moral code is based on a simple system of the measuring of ethical values. Ethical values may be measured based on the response or quality of life or outcome of any given action or scenario; for instance, there are virtually no instances of rape in which all parties can be said to have been benefitted, on the contrary, of course, ergo rape can be determined to have a very negative, if not entirely negative ethical value, seeing as no positive outcome can be readily said to result from it; on the other end of the spectrum, we have something like charity, which can be perhaps seen to result in largely beneficial outcomes, hence, charity can be deemed a highly positive act. And then of course there is a large chasm in between, of moral neutrality and "sort-of" positives and negatives. And no, I do not accept your case that the Bible is "far better" than "moral evasion". Is moral evasion really a more negative action than the moral code prescribed in the Bible (which, granted, has several genuine nuggets of authentic wisdom, if one can sit by and ignore the bits like killing homosexuals, owning slaves, and killing heretics and non-believers)? I would suggest not. Moral evasion makes no prediction of the behavior of its practitioner[s], and thus it could be presumed that the positive/negative ratio of a moral-evader would be roughly equivalent to one who bore no particular moral code at all; ergo, basic human empathy in contrast with more ego-driven goals might result in a roughly neutral ethical measurement, on the whole.