For sure. I'm not sure what word you'd have to use for someone who actually thought everyone is identical to each other...

(May 26, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote:

(May 26, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't hold an egalitarian position.  For instance I see no reason why men in general can't be better leaders than women or women in general can't be better leaders than men.

People who think that people of different genders, ethnicities, and sexual orientations should be treated equally and have equal opportunities is what an egalitarian is. So, why don't you hold this position? I don't understand why you're accusing atheists of being fake egalitarians.

There is a difference between believing people of different genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are equal and merely acting as if they are equal.  People who truly believe different genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are equal are true egalitarians when they practice egalitarianism based on that belief.  People who merely act as if these things are all equivalent are faking it in my opinion.

Now I can see how a theists can be a true egalitarian.  And my question is can an atheist have any rational reason to believe these things are actually equivalent or are they simply just going through the motions?  

(May 26, 2015 at 1:47 pm)TRJF Wrote: Yeah, I think the problem here is the charged word "fake".  To fake something is to deceive.  I don't think most people who ostensibly identify as "egalitarians" are maintaining that they really do believe everyone is perfectly equal; rather, to be an egalitarian is to strive towards equality and try to improve society so as to destroy, rather than perpetuate, inequality.

Why is everyone continuing to make this point?

Heywood began the thread by listing qualities that he thought wouldn't be equal except via god-magic: race, gender, sexual orientation. Like most of Heywood's threads, this one purports to ask a question, while covertly smearing atheists in the process; the implication is that atheists are secretly racists, homophobes and sexists, acting out some pretension of being otherwise, while christians are true equal opportunity folks because magic! That's why there's this constant push on his part to us the term "fake egalitarian" over and over, why he's constantly trying to corner people into admitting that; like most threads Heywood makes, this one is blatantly about insulting others, and to the extent that it makes a point at all, that point is geared solely towards making those that disagree with him look bad.

But luckily for everyone, we don't need to play that game, and can in fact be more nuanced than Heywood can even comprehend. We can acknowledge that individual people aren't equal- which still isn't the point Heywood was making, and doesn't show up in his OP- while simultaneously acknowledging that their gender, race, and orientation does not contribute to that fact. So why is everyone acting like they can't see the shitty game this sophistic little babby is playing?

I'm actually not sure how a theist can be an egalitarian. You have to get past a lot of "kill people for being different" before you finally get to a part that says love your neighbor and enemy, that isn't even original or unique to the bible. It's just the classic glossing over the majority of the old testament, while trying to keep some bits that they like.

Such as the ten commandments, where even in that women are put in the same category as livestock. Also the part that demands discrimination against homosexuals.

(May 26, 2015 at 1:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: So like Chad, you're just basically faking egalitarianism.  You don't really believe people, races, genders, and sexual orientations are all equivalent do you?

You have no clue what egalitarianism actually is, do you? It isn't that everyone is magically equal, it's that everyone is treated equally under the law and under social standards.

(May 26, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I'm actually not sure how a theist can be an egalitarian. You have to get past a lot of "kill people for being different" before you finally get to a part that says love your neighbor and enemy, that isn't even original or unique to the bible. It's just the classic glossing over the majority of the old testament, while trying to keep some bits that they like.

Such as the ten commandments, where even in that women are put in the same category as livestock. Also the part that demands discrimination against homosexuals.

What prompted this thread is in a previous thread I made the argument that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality.  I made a rational argument for that position and the only refutation I could come up for it(since you guys all failed to refute it) is that perhaps God created them both to be equivalent.  

Like most or all of you, I usually treat different genders, ethnicity, sexual orientations as equivalent in my day to day real world activities. However I'm really just going through the motions.  I'm a fake egalitarian.

Lets assume for a moment that egalitarianism is optimal human behavior.  Why would it be optimal behavior?  One answer and perhaps the best answer is because genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are all actually equivalent.  If this is true it implies the existence of a God because an unconscious nature simply wouldn't care to create them as such. 

Of course if you use multiple definitions of egalitarianism you can say all sorts of stupid things.

The irony-meter is reaching near record levels too.

(May 26, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: Lets assume for a moment that egalitarianism is optimal human behavior.  Why would it be optimal behavior?  One answer and perhaps the best answer is because genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are all actually equivalent.  If this is true it implies the existence of a God because an unconscious nature simply wouldn't care to create them as such. 

Ok this is even more contorted than I expected. I still have no real idea what you mean by equivalent. I'm not even asking why this should imply the existence of God.

(May 26, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: What prompted this thread is in a previous thread I made the argument that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality.  I made a rational argument for that position and the only refutation I could come up for it(since you guys all failed to refute it) is that perhaps God created them both to be equivalent.

You made a question begging mess of circularity, relying on a series of assumptions and naturalistic fallacies that you didn't even attempt to justify, and now apparently you're shifting the burden of proof by expecting that we all need to prove you wrong before you'll let it go. You don't get to lie here while I'm around.

Quote:Lets assume for a moment that egalitarianism is optimal human behavior.  Why would it be optimal behavior?  One answer and perhaps the best answer is because genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are all actually equivalent.  If this is true it implies the existence of a God because an unconscious nature simply wouldn't care to create them as such. 

Don't be idiotic. Gender, sexuality, and race are not entirely separate constructs that just so happened to shake out equal, they are slight variations on the same category, which is human beings. There is not significant difference in any of those categories that would prompt us to consider them as entirely different categories; look at a fucking biology textbook for a minute before you open your mouth about "unconscious nature," next time.

(May 26, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: Lets assume for a moment that egalitarianism is optimal human behavior.  Why would it be optimal behavior?  One answer and perhaps the best answer is because genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are all actually equivalent.  If this is true it implies the existence of a God because an unconscious nature simply wouldn't care to create them as such. 

Nature doesn't care one way or another. Are you seriously arguing that genders et al. that are deserving of equal treatment cannot evolve naturally. We are evolved to be a social species. We depend upon one another for the benefit of the whole. In that situation it would be reasonable that, regardless of whatever inequalities may exist, by granting everyone equivalent opportunity, we are maximizing the utility of our resources. Your mistake is in presuming that egalitarianism postulates that the different classes are the same, rather than that they should be treated the same. If that is your understanding of what it means to be egalitarian, then no, I'm not egalitarian. I think you have a defective understanding of the word.

Wiktionary Wrote:egalitarian (comparative more egalitarian, superlative most egalitarian)

     Characterized by social equality and equal rights for all people.

Social equality, not literal equality.