Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73
Thanks Tree12Thanks

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

  1. #31
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    Right, Because without belief in stupid, made up shit by goatherders a couple thousand years ago atheists lack the compassion for fellow humans.
    Wow, you lack reading comprehension. I don't believe in sky fairies, nor do I believe in secular 'alternatives' to religion like secular Humanism, which just replace religious mythology with trendy, sci-fi sounding ones such as "social progress", this or that, but are really just comforting beliefs without much substance.

    Example: Chimpanzees are 99% human DNA, yet, I doubt you care about chimpanzees even 99% as much as you do your "fellow humans"?

    The reality is you're just making a "faith-based" value judgment that humans are "more special" than other animals - all you do is remove the "sky fairies" from the equation, but hold emotion-based beliefs in secular Humanism which you never bother to think about or question, just like any other religion.

    But if you can't win other than by debating fundamentalists who believe the earth is literally 6,000 years old, then that's a sign that your philosophy might just suck. Would be much more impressive to hear a secular Humanist explain why out of the 1000s of non-religious philosophies out there, theirs is the only "one correct" understanding?

    https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3487

    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.


    If this atheist would rather torment and rape, much like some other animals do (e.x. chimpanzees to engage in killing and sexual violence), rather than show empathy, who is another atheist to say their belief in empathy is better by some "objective moral standard" and impose their relative beliefs on him?

    Sure an atheist isn't obligated to do things like that, but if an atheist did want to, you couldn't say he's objectively wrong to do so without making a philosophical value judgment .
    Last edited by Reality; 6th November 2017 at 01:16 PM.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,604
    Thanks
    17269

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    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 problem with your post stems from this premise. You presume that sanctity is the only means by which to measure value. This belies a reliance of religious ideology. Has it never occurred to you that there might be other characteristics that might provide value to a thing?

    Take a human being, for instance. A human is capable of rational thought, as well as imagination, and, most importantly, an understanding of self. Now, while you are quite correct in that biologically humans are "just animals". However, did it not occur to you that this ability to reason, and perceive an understanding of self might, without any need for religious trappings like "sanctity", give humans - even human children - more value than bacteria, amoeba, maggots, and worms?

  3. #33
    Established Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5,520
    Thanks
    4273

    From
    In my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Wow, you lack reading comprehension. I don't believe in sky fairies, nor do I believe in secular 'alternatives' to religion like secular Humanism, which just replace religious myths with trendy, sci-fi sounding ones such as "progress", this or that, but are really just comforting beliefs without much substance.

    Chimpanzees are 99% human DNA, yet I doubt you care about chimpanzees even 99% as much as you do your "fellow humans"?

    The reality is you're just making a "faith-based" value judgment that humans are "more special", all you do is remove the "sky fairies" but hold emotion-based beliefs which you never bother to think about or question, just like any other religion.





    If this atheist would rather torment and rape, much like some other animals do, rather than show empathy, who is another atheist to say their belief in empathy is better by some "objective moral standard" and impose their relative beliefs on him?
    See? Same lame ass argument repeated. Without belief in some made up nonsense about omnipotent ghosts folks will commit horrific acts.

  4. #34
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    See? Same lame ass argument repeated. Without belief in some made up nonsense about omnipotent ghosts folks will commit horrific acts.
    Nah, I'm just saying you've just traded ancient beliefs in omnipotent ghosts for secular beliefs like Humanism which claim to be the "only correct belief system".

    I mean, you just blindly believe that a philosophy which originated with a dead Frenchman who bastardized the Catholic Church and tried to create his own cult with the Virgin Mary replaced with a woman who rejected him is the "only correct secular belief", and that all opposing ones are wrong:

    (Here's where all of your beliefs originated, just in case you didn't know):

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...azil-1.2051387

    So why is Humanism the only "correct" secular philosophy out there? Why not Existentialism, or Postmodernism, Epicurianism, or LeVeyan Satanism, or anything else?

    People are gonna believe what they believe, ultimately though the point is that faith in a secular philosophy like Humanism is really just another comforting belief based more on emotion, upbringing, or things like that - if your only claim to greatness is that your philosophy "doesn't bring ghosts or fairies into it" that's... not impressive to say the least.
    Last edited by Reality; 6th November 2017 at 01:26 PM.

  5. #35
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    looks like @Think for myself ducked and ran when he realized he wasn't debating a Christian apologist, but was rather asked to defend the Secular Humanist philosophy and its founder on their own merits... go figure... lol

  6. #36
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,813
    Thanks
    2609

    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.
    You seem to be operating under the assumption that an atheist and a nihilist are the same thing. And that without God a person cannot have an understanding of good and evil. I'm not sure what part of the puzzle you're missing, but this is not true. I think you're skipping over about 3 or 4 major assumptions in your own thinking without noticing it.

  7. #37
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,942
    Thanks
    5853

    From
    NY
    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.

    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.
    Your contributions get dumber with every post you make. I am just surprised that you still find so many people who attend to your permanent repetition of the same silly "atheists are bad" mantra.

  8. #38
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,656
    Thanks
    4419

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Wow, you lack reading comprehension. I don't believe in sky fairies, nor do I believe in secular 'alternatives' to religion like secular Humanism, which just replace religious mythology with trendy, sci-fi sounding ones such as "social progress", this or that, but are really just comforting beliefs without much substance.

    Example: Chimpanzees are 99% human DNA, yet, I doubt you care about chimpanzees even 99% as much as you do your "fellow humans"?

    The reality is you're just making a "faith-based" value judgment that humans are "more special" than other animals - all you do is remove the "sky fairies" from the equation, but hold emotion-based beliefs in secular Humanism which you never bother to think about or question, just like any other religion.

    But if you can't win other than by debating fundamentalists who believe the earth is literally 6,000 years old, then that's a sign that your philosophy might just suck. Would be much more impressive to hear a secular Humanist explain why out of the 1000s of non-religious philosophies out there, theirs is the only "one correct" understanding?

    https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3487





    If this atheist would rather torment and rape, much like some other animals do (e.x. chimpanzees to engage in killing and sexual violence), rather than show empathy, who is another atheist to say their belief in empathy is better by some "objective moral standard" and impose their relative beliefs on him?

    Sure an atheist isn't obligated to do things like that, but if an atheist did want to, you couldn't say he's objectively wrong to do so without making a philosophical value judgment .
    And this is why you are incapable of honest debate.

  9. #39
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,656
    Thanks
    4419

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    looks like @Think for myself ducked and ran when he realized he wasn't debating a Christian apologist, but was rather asked to defend the Secular Humanist philosophy and its founder on their own merits... go figure... lol
    I'd say he got sick of your dishonest shit.

  10. #40
    Established Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5,520
    Thanks
    4273

    From
    In my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    looks like @Think for myself ducked and ran when he realized he wasn't debating a Christian apologist, but was rather asked to defend the Secular Humanist philosophy and its founder on their own merits... go figure... lol
    Sorry, what was that? I do apologize for having a bit of a life, at least at time.,s so not responding to your cult worship nonsense in a timely manner.


    So what exercise in trolling is it I did not respond to?

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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