paralysis

[truth_seeker]

All am saying is, this fits perfectly in survival of the fittest worldview. Why are you, if you are an atheist, is suddenly appalled by the idea?

[Jackalope]

. . . or a rock crusher . . .

Yeah, but is that vertical, or horizontal?

[Chad32]

If she does not want to die, then she shouldn't be killed just to save on resources. That's reason enough for me.

[Jackalope]

All am saying is, this fits perfectly in survival of the fittest worldview. Why are you, if you are an atheist, is suddenly appalled by the idea?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Little lunch]

From a theist point of view, why not just kill all the babies before they sin so they can all go to heaven?

[truth_seeker]

I have never read any evidences supporting any of the statements mentioned so far.

[LadyForCamus]

Hello guys

I want your opinion on the following scenario.

Lets assume there was a completely disabled human being who needs major help through all daily activities.
This human being is under the following condition:

• He/she has no job whatsoever
  
• He/she has zero friends and zero family members
  

If you are an atheist, can you give me a reason (other than legal issues) of why this person should not be killed as to free more resources (money, time, hospital space, etc) for the rest of the community?

Why don't you finish out the first two threads you started, troll.

[The Valkyrie]

Because I'm not a sociopath, and have a well-developed sense of empathy, I would not care to see someone treated in a way that I would not want to be treated.

/thread

In an atheistic world view, morality is relative. What you consider empathy is only your concept of empathy. Some one else is not bound to your empathy.

---

Yes.

1. Because a society *should* look after it's most vulnerable people and if the person wants to continue to live, then who are we to kill them?

2.  If you justify killing these people for convenience, where does it end?  (And please, don't conflate this with abortion).

where is your evidence that it should?

From an atheistic point of view, a healthy individual is beneficial to me as they can take a job and provide service to the society, which will eventually help me. So they should not be killed.

But the disabled person in this example has no job whatsoever, is complete disabled, and has no friends/family which might be affected by his death.

As CD stated, it's called empathy.

And no, that's NOT from an atheistic point of view.  It MAY be considered to be that way from a social Darwinist point of view (the two do not equate as the same thing), but we've have evolved, and are intelligent enough, to overcome our animal nature and instincts (most of the time).

[truth_seeker]

From a theist point of view, why not just kill all the babies before they sin so they can all go to heaven?

Because, from a theist point of view, the deity prohibits it and everybody must obey the deity.

[Jehanne]

You argument is perverse; it's like saying that society should sacrifice a healthy individual to harvest that person's organs so that half-a-dozen individuals can live.

From an atheistic point of view, a healthy individual is beneficial to me as they can take a job and provide service to the society, which will eventually help me. So they should not be killed.

But the disabled person in this example has no job whatsoever, is complete disabled, and has no friends/family which might be affected by his death.

I would be impacted by their death, and I care, deeply, about them, even though they are strangers.