Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73
Thanks Tree12Thanks

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

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

    From
    US

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

    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.

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

    From
    US
    Or in summary:

    "Humans are animals... but humans dying so that animals can eat = bad; animals dying so that humans can eat = good".

    Yeah, makes a lot of sense...

  3. #3
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,219
    Thanks
    26401

    From
    SWUSA
    All starving children go to heaven.

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

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    All starving children go to heaven.
    That's a very atheistic response.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,219
    Thanks
    26401

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    That's a very atheistic response.
    'where do they go? They either go to heaven or hell.

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

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    'where do they go? They either go to heaven or hell.
    Or purgatory if you're a Catholic.

    Problem is that you're not debating another conventional American Christian (TM) who repeats stuff they heard on the 700 Club without actually thinking about it, so you dropped the ball with that response.
    Last edited by Reality; 6th November 2017 at 09:57 AM.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,219
    Thanks
    26401

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Or purgatory.
    OR? you sound unsure. You mean that starving children don't get a ...go straight to heaven pass? That sucks.

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

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    OR? you sound unsure. You mean that starving children don't get a ...go straight to heaven pass? That sucks.
    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.
    Last edited by Reality; 6th November 2017 at 10:03 AM.

  9. #9
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    32,811
    Thanks
    30345

    From
    United States
    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.
    Why do you assume that all starving children live in Africa?
    Thanks from Friday13

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

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Why do you assume that all starving children live in Africa?
    Who said I did?

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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