You are right that if you don’t believe in God, Singer’s ideas are perfectly logical. If we aren’t special — we are just other animals — then it is in the best interest of society to get rid of people who are likely to be net negatives on society as a whole. Sure, you don’t make that judgment lightly because someone with a disability may have other talents, but otherwise, life is another utility judgment. The logical implication is that atheist humanists are just weak and emotion-driven. There is no reason for society to protect children or the elderly if there is no social utility to it so people who want to do so are just being driven by illogical emotional attachment and an guilt.
This is what the Godless don’t want to face — the idea that if there is no God, Peter Singer’s ideas — killing handicapped children, killing the elderly, killing prisoners, killing other members of society who clearly aren’t net producers — have merit.
Amen.
Until you see the finger prints of divinity on “the least” of us, it’s just going to be a nightmare.
And keep in mind that this will also include those who have religious or political beliefs that the powers that be deem unacceptable.
Singer's beliefs hinge not only on the denial of God, but also on the absurd notion that a person BECOMES a human as part of their development and by the same theory can lose their human nature at some point or never become human at all. This thinking has been at the core of the left's death mongering for over a century: they will agree that it's wrong to kill a human being, but they believe they have the right to define a person as a non-human.
You're missing a very important point. The existence of G-d has nothing to do with humans being "special" or "just other animals." If it weren't for G-d, there would be no animals of any kind! (Or plants. Or minerals. Or protists. Or . . . well, you get the idea.).
It's scary that some people think that the status of humanity is the one and only argument for G-d.