Modern people and their mixed up values and priorities.

According to what objective standard do you justify the term "wrong" ?

I love my pets more than most of my blood relatives. I'd save my pets from a burning building before just about anyone. The circle is small.

I don't know what you mean by "objective standard". Is there a proper way to feel love for someone or something? The people in your meme clearly loved their dog more than granny. This is fine.

"I love my pets more than most of my blood relatives. I'd save my pets from a burning building before just about anyone. The circle is small."

I already know this. You implied this above with your disapproval of the meme. That does nothing to answer the question and says more about you than the morality of holding such a position - and what it says is not good.

"I don't know what you mean by "objective standard"."

You said there's nothing "wrong" with people behaving in the manner described in the meme. The term wrong is a moral term. Do you have a standard to establish this term apart from your own emotional and subjective preferences? Because if you don't - what you're calling " wrong " is not in fact wrong and is just an arbitrary preference or opinion that is no more valid than a favorite color or flavor of ice-cream.

"Is there a proper way to feel love for someone or something?"

2 points. First.The above meme is not illustrating "love" but idolatry, And Second. Love is not a feeling but a choice commitment. Emotions may flow from love, but love they are not, and if you think they are, it's doubtful you've ever experienced real love in your life. Emotions are the most fickle part of the human makeup - coming and going like the weather. Love is steadfast and immovable. You would also need to qualify the term " love " Because your words indicate you have no idea what it is.

"The people in your meme clearly loved their dog more than granny. This is fine."

That fact that these people hold higher value of a animal not created in God's image over a human created in his image shows that what they have is not in fact love, but idolatry.

That this is " fine " is a moral claim. I'm going to ask you again now that I've explained it. According to what objective standard is it "fine"? Because if you have no so standard - it's just an arbitrary preference.

K it's a preference. Feel better about being disagreed with now?

Not at all. You just admitted to being depraved. Have you considered repenting of your sins of idolatry and turning to Jesus Christ in faith?

I'll pray on this but...

I'd let you die in a fire while I carried my two wonderful cats to safety ;)

"I'll pray on this but..."

You don't have to pray on it nor will your prayers be heard unless they're prayers of repentance.

"I'd let you die in a fire while I carried my two wonderful cats to safety ;)"

Which only validates my above point - that you're depraved. That your'e cats are " wonderful " is as arbitrary as your favorite color or flavor of ice-cream. It means nothing and is purely subjective.

Lastly. Provocation equals immaturity - not intellectual prowess - and you're a wonderful case in point to validate my meme's point.

People like you are why people like their pets more than people.

Don't worry, if there was still time I'd go back for you. Priorities.

"Liking my pets more than you makes me depraved?"

No, valuing them more than any human does.

"Tone back the analysis, sociopath."

This is what's known in logic as an ad hominam attack. It's typically characteristic of someone with a crumbling position or no arguments trying to appear confident by abusing their detractors. That's not "analysis" it's basic logic with a little experience.

"If you look too closely you can't see the big picture. Perhaps try a mirror."

I'm seeing the big picture just fine, you know it, and it's for that reason you're lobbing insults and flailing your arms about like a teen age girl who was just rejected by a boy friend.

"Im guessing you're projecting because that's not essentially what I'm implying."

This might not be what you intend to imply, but this is what the direct implications of your words in fact are - like it or not. You're now also using words you found in my history. Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery.
:)

That's what you're implying. Perhaps you've got something you want to say but need to say it at someone?"

This is what's known as an appeal to motive fallacy. It's like the 3rd or 4th logical fail you've committed. There are some very good videos on YouTube on basic logic. I would highly recommend them.

"Don't beat around the bush. Have at it."

I've been very direct. Which is precisely why you're becoming hostile and abusive.

I'm not a troll. Truth naturally offends people in this snowflake generation.

"People like you are why people like their pets more than people."

This is a further expression of depraved nature.

What you're essentially implying is that your relationships - be it they human or animals - are based on convenience and what you can get out of them. This is the very definition of selfishness - not love.

"Don't worry, if there was still time I'd go back for you."

This is just more provocation grounded in immaturity. Grow up.

"Priorities"

Your priorities are meaningless and arbitrary apart from an objective standard.

Checked your account.
A troll in need is a troll indeed.

Liking my pets more than you makes me depraved?

Tone back the analysis, sociopath. If you look too closely you can't see the big picture. Perhaps try a mirror.

Im guessing you're projecting because that's not essentially what I'm implying. That's what you're implying. Perhaps you've got something you want to say but need to say it at someone?

Don't beat around the bush. Have at it.

“If someone values pets more than people, how is that idolatry?”

You are valuing a human created in God's image below that of an animal not created in his image. Christ made it clear in the gospel of Mathew – among many other places – humans are worth more than animals. This doesn't mean we can't love them, care for them, and derive enjoyment from them, but that we should not value them above humans.

“You say humans are made in the image of god (a claim you can only support by appealing to your specific holy book),”

It's not my " holy book " but God's word. and that appeal - although your words indicate doesn't amount to much - is worth more than all the literature in all the higher learning institutions in the world.

“but that's different than being on the same level of value as god, right?”

All people are created in God's image or likeness. The image of God (Latin: imago dei) refers to the immaterial part of humanity. It sets human beings apart from the animal world, fits them for the dominion God intended them to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables them to commune with their Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.

Mentally, humanity was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, human beings can reason and choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom.
Humans are the most glaring representation of God. When you value an animal above this representation - you're committing idolatry. Which is making God into your image vs him making you into his.

“As far as something being a subjective preference, yes, there are things that are sometimes subjective.”

Not when it comes to the value or worth of humans above animals. However, if you reject God's word - it is in fact reduced to a “ subjective preference “ and that carried to it's logical conclusion is disastrous.

“So what. I think lima beans are gross. That's a subjective statement.”

You're comparing the arbitrary preference for a food to the objective value of a human being. This is the conflation of separate issues.. However, human worth becomes just as arbitrary and of the same worth, apart from God.

“I'm not saying they're objectively gross to everyone. But to me they are.”

That's good to know, but the problem is, food preferences, tastes, and human worth are entirely separate issue, but again, if you jettison God, they're both just as arbitrary a preference – one worth no more than the other.

First: What evidence can you provide that your naturalistic epistemology holds the capacity of evidencing a supernatural book?

Second: Why is this above claim not category mistake?

" You made a whole bunch of assertions based on claims made in the Bible."

I made truth claims which can only be accounted for in revelatory epistemology and world view.

" I care about what can be proven, not what a book says."

I know - which assumes your epistemology and is precisely why you're an atheist. The very principles you hold to are the same one's limiting you.

“You haven't demonstrated that the Bible is a supernatural book.”

Nor do I have to nor can I – and to do so would be a waste of time – as my engagements with you and other atheists have proven.

“How do you demonstrate that?”

Many ways, but unless God's holy spirit grants you repentance - you will continue to suppress the God you intuitively know to exist – regardless of how logical, nuanced, or eloquent the arguments & explanations. ( Romans chapter 1) This is the lot of the lost man or woman, what the bible itself says, and what I have personally experienced while dealing with atheists in my over 20 years of engaging them.

I can provide evidence with pinpoint detail and logical accuracy and they'll continue to object – yet accept other claims supporting their secular world view upon much less evidence and arguments. This is a fact.

“Methodological naturalism is what we have to work with, and it has demonstrated itself to be reliable.”

This is what atheists, alone, have to work with. People can know things about the natural world, but what they deduce from those things ( a-priori knowledge) is based on where you stand on the issue of God. Methodological naturalism in modern times presupposes natural causes without God – this is a verifiable fact which I have shown you in the past - and why much of modern science suffers - and is in many areas – is in a ditch.

“How do you demonstrate that "revelatory epistemology" is reliable, let alone more reliable than a naturalistic epistemology?”

This is what's known in philosophy as a category error. It's an ontological or semantic error where you conflate properties of one kind as belonging to another kind, which could not possibly possess that property.

You limit yourself to a naturalistic epistemology and then lament the fact that it can't provide you with knowledge of supernatural claims. This is akin to lamenting the fact that your nose doesn't provided you with the means to smell the color blue.

“What methods can we use to test it for accuracy?”

You as a lost man can't reason your way to a God who you're currently suppressing with autonomous human reasoning - which the bible itself says is corrupt and hostile towards God. Your mind from birth as a result of sin has a bent away from God. Atheists can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a cop – they're not looking for him while claiming they are. This was what Sigmund Freud ( A famous God hater ) recognized as repression.