Are some theists afraid of atheists?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe I am missing something but I am trying. Kiel is saying that if people acting on the assumption that everyone had equal valve simply because they are human… he calls for a rationally consistent evaluation between human beings. That's not saying much. He hasn't shown why human beings are existentally equal other than appealing to empathy. And I do not see how that in anyway undermines my earlier demonstration. He's arguing in a circle.

I think most rational, self-aware, contemplative, thinking, empathetic persons would arrive at the same conclusion that humans are existentially equal. All it requires is the aformentioned empathy and a modest amount of epistemological humility.

It’s incomplete and reveals nothing. The basic structure of the argument is as follows:

P1 is a type of U.
P2 is also a type of U.
Every U has value X.
Therefore, both P1 and P2 have equal value, i.e. X.

This leaves unanswered so very many questions it’s hard to know where even to begin. What is it about U that gives it absolute value? Is value something real or only apparent? Why is U the common type and not U’? Is U even a type? Are types something real or only apparent? Why must every U have the same value? What if X=0?

Let’s start with some basic illustrative examples:

A Chevy Nova is a car.
A Corvette is a car.
Every car is worth $20,000.
Therefore, a Chevy Nova and a Corvette are worth $20,000.

Bill is a human being.
Mary’s unborn child is a human being.
Every human being has absolute value.
Therefore, both Bill and Mary’s unborn child have absolute value.

Hmmm…let’s also take another quick look at empathy towards other human beings. Are we talking about empathy only for the immediate pain and suffering of others or must we also consider their long term good? A child may feel very hurt and humiliated by being disciplined but his future self would be thankful for appropriate correction. Similarly, do we have moral obligations to human beings who do not even exist yet? Are we obligated to protect the environment and preserving culture for future generations?

All you guys are doing is expressing a personal and cultural preference. There is nothing particularly rational about the claims as currently being presented.