Are some theists afraid of atheists?

[emjay]

By nihilism, you mean the view that life is meaningless? I guess I am a bit of a nihilist... evolution has no goal... we're here because we can be, nothing more. But that doesn't change the fact that we are here and everyone, theist and atheist alike, have their own crosses to bear, challenges to overcome, moral decisions to make... everyone has a conscience... everyone has empathy for others. Are you saying it's all rendered moot... being human regardless of how we came to be human... if our 'worth'/'purpose' cannot be rationally justified in dry philosophy... ie if we come to a nihilistic conclusion?

By corroding human dignity do you mean in this nihilistic sense (as in the view that I have... that we're ultimately just biochemical machines, our reactions governed by the clockwork universe) or do you mean in a more Biblical sense where humans are placed at the centre of the universe, better than, and with dominion over, all other forms of life?

As for civil rights, what do you mean by civil rights? Everyone fights for civil rights, where they see injustice... that's not the preserve of religion. And where atheism is concerned, that fight is based on principles of fairness to all, equality, and empathy for others, unfettered by the prejudices and conformity of religion.

Finally, as for 'aesthetic hierarchies', I have no idea what that means

Thanks for your considered response, Emjay. I was only offering my most basic opinions. I'm encouraged that nearly all the members of AF profess concern about the Western values necessary for liberal democratic societies. At the same time, believing in those values is not the same as have having reasons to hold them. A theist saying that we have those values because people are "Created in the image of God. Full stop" is reflexive and unenlightening. I honestly do not know how an atheist intellectual rationally grounds the notion of human rights etc. beyond cultural preference. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if that were indeed possible. It would bridge one more divide in our society. If I can find the time, I would like to give you a more complete answer, maybe on its own thread. But it's kind of hard to find the motivation to do so since my posts seem to generate an inordinate amount of hostility.

What's wrong with having empathy as the rational grounds for the notion of human rights from an atheistic perspective? It's perfectly logical and it requires no appeal to anything beyond what we experience directly in our own minds; we each know what it is to suffer... we each can imagine what it is for someone else to suffer... we each find that unpleasant... so we each want to reduce potential suffering in the world. In fact, that's where I think it all derives... from human empathy... but in the case of religion it is misattributed to God. Take adultery for instance; the empathetic reason not to commit adultery is because we all know what trust is, and what it is like to lose it and feel betrayed... and don't want to put that on anyone else. But adultery is also a commandment in the Bible... why? Is it for the benefit of man (ie God having empathy for man and the suffering he may endure) or only God?

Whether you believe in God or not, if you can take the leap that human morals derive from empathy, then whether written by man... as atheism contends... or by God... as theists contend... either way the commandments in the Bible represent the extent of one person (God included) or group's empathetic thinking, in the form of moral laws; ie those laws exist to reduce suffering in the world. From that perspective, the problem with religion, as opposed to atheism, is that those laws are set in stone... unchanging forever... and as such they are necessarily limited... they cannot evolve or expand to uncover other, or new forms of suffering and tackle them accordingly. For instance the ethics of informed consent; that deals with a type of potential suffering that was not dealt with in the Bible (to my knowledge)... so it's only through continually expanding the direction and focus of empathy that moral progress can be, and has been, made; something that cannot happen if you are confined, for your moral imperatives, to a fixed set of unchanging and unchangeable rules, as is the case with religion.