Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73
Thanks Tree12Thanks

Thread: Why isn't starving children a good thing if one is an atheist?

  1. #11
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    32,812
    Thanks
    30345

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Who said I did?
    You did. In your OP.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  2. #12
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    lol, @DebateDrone just learned that heaven and hell aren't real places and took off, hope I didn't traumatize him too much.

  3. #13
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    You did. In your OP.
    Replace Africa with any other country and the OP still works.

  4. #14
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,241
    Thanks
    33101

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Replace Africa with any other country and the OP still works.
    The OP doesn't work at all. Aside from the fact that ethical/moral systems are possible without recourse to a deity, 18th-century ideas about natural law show why allowing other members of your own species to starve is wrong. In nature, the survival of the species is paramount, and while we may not care that much about other species, we should care about our own.

    Even an ethical notion based purely on "survival of the fittest" wouldn't support your conclusion, since the fitness of children isn't based on their ability to find food for themselves. If that were true, no one in our species would survive because we take so long to come to adulthood. Perhaps a seven-year-old might forage enough food to feed him/herself, but below that every human would die if not fed by someone else.

    You clearly aren't familiar with any non-theistic moral/ethical thinking and thus imagine that there isn't any. There's a long history of such thinking. You should take a course in ethics.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 6th November 2017 at 10:16 AM.

  5. #15
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    The OP doesn't work at all. Aside from the fact that ethical/moral systems are possible without recourse to a deity, 18th-century ideas about natural law show why allowing other members of your own species to starve is wrong. In nature, the survival of the species is paramount, and while we may not care that much about other species, we should care about our own.
    By that logic, then survival of one's own race should also take priory over 'other races'.

    So I guess whites should only care about the survival of their own race, not about all those black and Hispanics out there, right? lol

  6. #16
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,224
    Thanks
    26401

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Heaven and hell aren't "real places", silly. If you need me to tell you that, you're not worthy of debating further.

    Further proof of how much atheism sucks, you rarely find an atheist who can defend their vapid beliefs on their own right, without debating some fundamentalist Christian caricature that occupies their mind.
    Heaven is not real....Then why bother?

    Good thing I did not waste my Sundays...and I can still feed the poor.

  7. #17
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,241
    Thanks
    33101

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    By that logic, then survival of one's own race should also take priory over 'other races'.
    No. Race and species aren't the same thing. Race is an almost meaningless concept if looked at biologically. It's a social construct. The variations within a "race" of humans is greater than the variations across "races."

    So I guess whites should only care about the survival of their own race, not about all those black and Hispanics out there, right? lol
    Not at all. Your self-serving point is illogical.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  8. #18
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    No. Race and species aren't the same thing. Race is an almost meaningless concept if looked at biologically. It's a social construct. The variations within a "race" of humans is greater than the variations across "races."

    Not at all. Your self-serving point is illogical.
    "Species" is a social construct too, chimpanzees are 99% genetically the same as humans, and it was humans who decided to classify animals into different 'species' to begin with.

    So if you want to go down that rabbit hole, there's no reason not to stop at "species", and your ideas could be extended to 'caring for one's own race' but not others as well.

  9. #19
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,241
    Thanks
    33101

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    "Species" is a social construct too, chimpanzees are 99% genetically the same as humans, and it was humans who decided to classify animals into different 'species' to begin with.
    Incorrect. The scientific test for species is that members of a species can reproduce and their offspring are also fertile. If a human were to mate with a chimp, there would be no offspring. Thus homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes or Pan paniscus are different species. In fact, they are different genuses. In genetics, a 99% match is no match at all. Goodness, we humans share about 70% of the same genes with an orchid.
    So if you want to go down that rabbit hole, there's no reason not to stop at "species", and your ideas could be extended to 'caring for one's own race' but not others as well.
    No, the distinctions are pretty bright line, as I've demonstrated. And the ethical system I've given as an example isn't the only one--just the most convenient. All one needs to do in order to defeat your point is to find one exception, and I've done that.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  10. #20
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Heaven is not real....Then why bother?
    Heaven's not a real place, that doesn't mean people can't experience what some may have called Heaven, others Nirvana (but you don't care about that).

    Good thing I did not waste my Sundays...and I can still feed the poor.
    Why bother feeding the poor whether heaven is or isn't real?

    Who makes the value judgment that humans starving is "bad" to begin with, or any worse than animals suffering? - Sure you can 'believe' that, but that's really just... faith, minus the "god" part.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Too much of a good thing
    By labrea in forum Economics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 3rd July 2016, 05:07 PM
  2. Starving Children...
    By Friday13 in forum Warfare
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 19th April 2015, 03:20 PM
  3. Replies: 107
    Last Post: 24th March 2014, 07:06 PM
  4. If you think war with Iran is a good thing...
    By Zarathustra in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th June 2008, 11:27 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed