I don't support egalitarianism. Who told you atheism = egalitarianism?

(May 26, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 26, 2015 at 4:44 pm)Alex K Wrote: Discussion cut somewhat short by the OP being banned. Oh well.

Wasn't much of a discussion anyway. As per usual, it was just Heywood attacking a strawman and pretending that nobody is correcting him when that inevitably happens.

...which sums up just about every Heywood thread to date.

Very good thread. I was thoroughly entertained.

And now...for some of my observations. (You thought I was going to say, "And now for something completely different," didn't you?)

1. I know that the OP is banned. Even though he will never see what my response was, maybe this will serve as advice to others who will make the same argument he/she did.

2. The OP of this thread made several mistakes and assumptions in his/her argument. Those have been already painstakingly and thoughtfully pointed out. Good job participants! If anyone who accepts the OP's paradigm has any doubts, I point to all of the above for your reading enjoyment.

3. The OP assumed that the part of the U.S. Constitution which states "We hold these truths, that all men are Created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights..." is a Christian notion. It is most certainly not. The FACT is, that particular statement is a DEIST statement. If anyone does not think so, look it up. If after that anyone still thinks that it is a Christian statement, then that person is just being a willfully ignorant dumbass.

4. Willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of. See point number 3 above.

5. The OP was trying to impose the Christian God upon his argument through insinuated Intelligent Design. ID makes for very poor philosophy, let alone science.

6. Assuming that the Christian God exists and that he/she/ he-she/it is responsible for creating people as equals, then judging from the Old Testament, which attests the following:
a) God, who is his own father and son (Jesus) is the same yesterday, today, and forever more (Hebrews 13:8).
b) God destroyed humanity in a Great Flood. (Genesis 6:9-9:17)
c) God told Joshua to destroy the Canaanites (Deutoronomy 20; Joshua 6)
d) Based on archaeological, historical, and genetic studies, the Canaanites and the Hebrews are the same people and shared similar religious expressions
(see: http://oaks.nvg.org/hebrews.html ; http://jot.sagepub.com/content/33/4/387.abstract ; PDF--http://www.asor.org/pubs/books-monographs/nakhai.pdf ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh).
the conclusion is that since the Judeo-Christian God is the same character/personality in 6,000 BCE, 1200 BCE, 300 CE and today in modern times (assuming that he/she/she-he/it
exists) and has destroyed individuals, people, and nations for no good reason, then this deity has been a prick yesterday, today, and forevermore, and is not deserving of worship.

7. The OP attempt at carrying an intelligent useful discussion that everyone can learn from is an epic fail, simply for the very reason that the OP did not intend to learn anything from this discussion.

This has been Secular Elf. Good day.

(May 26, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Heywood Wrote: For an theist egalitarianism is an easy concept to accept.  People should be treated the same because God created them as equals.  However if there is no God then there really isn't any rational reason to actually believe that all the different races, genders, or sexual orientations are actually equivalent.  There might be rational reasons to pretend the are equivalent....social harmony and such...but is there rational reason to believe they are actually equivalent?  It is simply too much of a stretch to think that nature, as a matter of happenstance, made all these things equivalent.

You know damned well that there are theists who are liberal and theists who are conservative. What the fuck makes you think atheists are monochromatic either?

I have run into Ayn Rand atheists whom I do not support. I have also run into Che supporters whom I don't support.


The "equal" I value isn't no inequity, entropy alone negates the idea of a perpetual motion machine. The equality I value IS based on regardless of class or gender or religion or race, is the fact that our ride is the same and ends the same. 

Once you know the planet is finite and the sun is finite the only sane thing I can conclude is that we are equal. Our differences are petty when you know the age and the scope of the universe.

I think he will see your response, no?

(May 26, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I don't support egalitarianism. Who told you atheism = egalitarianism?

Atheism = hive mind

I'm assuming you're using a different definition to my understanding here. What does the eagle thing mean to you?

I know you're gone, but fuck you Heywood you stupid twat. I'm surprised you can even spell egalitarianism let alone talk about it.

One of the worst contributors this forum has ever seen. Full of pseudo, junk nonsensical economic discourse he picked up from the back of a fag packet which he applied to every conversation without really knowing what the fuck he was talking about.

FWIW, I had no involvement in his removal as I was away at the time, but fuck him. Glad to see his retarded ass out the door.

DERAIL

@Rob, I don't support egalitarianism because I see it as a naive ideology/philosophy - No one is equal to anyone, we are all different and certain degrees of hierarchy are necessary. I support some degree of equality specially before the law. Not all humans are equal, nothing is equal, and no one has the same social value and equality.

(May 26, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Heywood Wrote: For an theist egalitarianism is an easy concept to accept.  People should be treated the same because God created them as equals.  However if there is no God then there really isn't any rational reason to actually believe that all the different races, genders, or sexual orientations are actually equivalent.  There might be rational reasons to pretend the are equivalent....social harmony and such...but is there rational reason to believe they are actually equivalent?  It is simply too much of a stretch to think that nature, as a matter of happenstance, made all these things equivalent.

Imagine for a moment that you have to design a human society in to which you would be born, replete with all the variety that we associate with the present human condition. The catch is that you don't know exactly what situation or environment that you'll end up in. You could be any colour or gender in any locale with any skills or none.

How would you design that society?

Ah ben, he can't reply to you. He wanted a month ban and he got a little more than that.Kudos, for all it's worth.