I say it is meaningless or "it would be better for a man not to be born than to be brought into the world", but Im just curious and somewhat sick of debates at the moment so you can criticize my view I just may not answer and Id like to hear yours
Also another question I have for Atheists is why should I (or anyone else) be moral if there is no God? I wont accept it if it is subjective because subjective morals makes Nazism moral.
By his own definition, I'm struggling as to why he is playing online when he could be volunteering at a soup kitchen or doing charity work. If he's doing good works on a computer right now, he could use the energy spent in this discussion of improving those good works. There's lots of good that could be done that would more obviously bare fruit than this thread.
Oh, he already admitted in another post that he's not doing what he can and knows it... but he likes making us feel bad that we're not helping (or assumes we're not). And he called me a hypocrite when I don't feel responsible (though I do feel compassion and want to help). I don't think he knows what the word "hypocrite" means.
I see, I see. I find it difficult to keep up with his poor language skills, lazy arguments and general inconsistencies.
I saw his hypocrite comment towards you and found it a little unsettling. This is in part because it was cretinous of him, but also because it contains a level of irony that is almost (frustratingly) too big to put into words.
Try to think abstractly, please. And remember when YOU make statements and I follow them to their conclusion.
By YOUR definition, not mine, God is evil. I never said that if people fail to do good when they can do good, that makes them evil, you did.
I also never said I do not help. I do, however, claim I don't have to help, but I feel inclined to help. I like helping. But, being mortal, I cannot do very much. And I'm not going to ruin myself in an attempt to help.
God can eliminate suffering in one fell-swoop but does not. God could end suffering right now and would not lose anything; he would not have to worry about going into debt or going bankrupt or going hungry. He's God, after all, and has more resources than a mortal, limited human. He does not do even close to what he could. Yes, that makes him evil or, at best, indifferent (according to YOUR definition of evil).
Assuming God does not exist, I obviously cannot hold him responsible for all the suffering in the world, and I don't. I don't live by the same standards you do, David, and I don't believe I'm evil. I know I'm not perfect, and I try to do good sometimes... but, like I've repeated over and over, I'm not a martyr. I will not put myself at risk because I value my own life and believe I have as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as any other human.
You're the one who believes you're evil. You're the one who believes people are evil if they don't do everything in their power to help others. According to your definition, God is evil... not I. I think he's your imaginary friend.
So you're saying he might have done something to deserve it. What the hell is wrong with you?! How can you twist your mind into justifying such evils in the world? I can't understand that. You need to make a real scientific hypothesis as to how the baby could have done something to deserve it. Seriously. What are 6 month-year-olds capable of and which of these things are punishable sins. If you can't think of anything, then there is a very good chance that your logic makes no sense and the kid couldn't have done anything to deserve it.