Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73
Thanks Tree12Thanks

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

  1. #21
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    21,364
    Thanks
    19195

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    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
    There is no "white" race, only a human race.

  2. #22
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    21,364
    Thanks
    19195

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    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).


    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.
    Gods are not needed to be ethical or moral. You god was egregiously lacking in both at times, according to his CV.
    Thanks from Rasselas

  3. #23
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    There is no "white" race, only a human race.
    That's just an arbitrary ruling.

    Fact is if the argument is 'humans matter, animals don't because they aren't one of us', you could easily go a step further and apply that to race as well.

  4. #24
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    Gods are not needed to be ethical or moral. You god was egregiously lacking in both at times, according to his CV.
    That's just faith then:

    "I believe feeding the poor is right because God says so..."

    Or

    "I believe feeding the poor is right, because I just do"

    Both are faith, one just has the "God" part taken out. Regardless, you still can't 'prove' that there's anything more immoral about children starving than animals starving, or that a child starving is bad if it allows an animal to eat - that's just some kind of ethical 'belief' you have.

  5. #25
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,821
    Thanks
    38817

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    That's just an arbitrary ruling.

    Fact is if the argument is 'humans matter, animals don't because they aren't one of us', you could easily go a step further and apply that to race as well.
    You could if you were a racist bigot.

  6. #26
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    You could if you were a racist bigot.
    Atheists historically have been racist bigots, yes, so it wouldn't be a deviation from their historical trend:


    And it is a big question whether among them they are descendants of monkeys, or if monkeys come from them. Our wise men have said that man is the image of God: behold a pleasant image of the eternal Being with a flat black nose, with little or no intelligence! A time will come, without a doubt, when these animals will know how to cultivate the earth well, to embellish it with houses and gardens, and to know the routes of the stars. Time is a must, for everything. - Voltaire (atheist)


    Being against racism is just a concept which seems to have been appropriated from religion to begin with, since it's just a faith-based belief that all human life is "sacred" or in some sense "above" that of other animals.

    There's no "rational" reason for an atheist to care about a human life anymore than that of a monkey, or even a mosquito - it's just faith, minus the "God" part.
    Last edited by Reality; 6th November 2017 at 12:30 PM.

  7. #27
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,656
    Thanks
    4419

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    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.

    I'm up for it. Can you debate honestly, though? I do not want to see the usual bullshit you dish up which conflates atheism with Nazism, Communism, Marxism or any other attempt to poison the well with erroneous examples such as trying to discredit atheism by association with the Texas shooter. That is not honest debate, that is lowbrow & partial bullshit.
    Last edited by Blues63; 6th November 2017 at 12:39 PM.

  8. #28
    Established Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5,520
    Thanks
    4273

    From
    In my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    From a materialist POV, humans are just one of many forms of animal and sentient life, and aren't any more "sacred" than any other.

    The reality is that when children in Africa starve, it is actually a good thing for other forms of life which benefit from it (such as animals, or microscopic organisms which feed off of the dead).

    Therefore, it makes no logical sense to care about starving children if one is an atheist or believe there's anything objectively "bad" about it - since this is just making a value judgment and deciding that human life is "more sacred or special" than other types of life (which would only make sense from a theological or spiritual perspective).

    So if 10 starving children in Africa benefited 100 other creatures, then why should an atheist be elitist toward humans and decide this is any worse than other animals dying so that humans can eat? Seems a bit hypocritical.
    What the fuck does atheism have to do with that ridiculous premise?

    It seems to me you are trying to conflate two things in order to make a rather silly argument agaisnt atheism.

  9. #29
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    What the fuck does atheism have to do with that ridiculous premise?

    It seems to me you are trying to conflate two things in order to make a rather silly argument agaisnt atheism.
    Well, if an atheist believes there exist some type of objective standard of truth or values, I suppose it wouldn't (even then, that would still just be a form of "faith", just without the "God" part thrown in - which is basically what secular Humanism is).

    If an atheist is a strict materialist, then yes the argument still stands - since one would have to say it's always bad for one human child to die even if it allowed other species to live, so they'd be making a value judgment by placing humans above all other forms of animal life.

  10. #30
    Established Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5,520
    Thanks
    4273

    From
    In my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Well, if an atheist believes there exist some type of objective standard of truth or values, I suppose it wouldn't (even then, that would still just be a form of "faith", just without the "God" part thrown in - which is basically what secular Humanism is).

    If an atheist is a strict materialist, then yes the argument still stands - since one would have to say it's always bad for one human child to die even if it allowed other species to live, so they'd be making a value judgment by placing humans above all other forms of animal life.
    Right, Because without belief in stupid, made up shit by goatherders a couple thousand years ago atheists lack the compassion for fellow humans.

    You know, this argument you are putting forth, has bene around forever, and it still is silly. Just because I don't chant to your flying sky fairies doesn't mean I am incapable of empathy.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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