Are some theists afraid of atheists?

[mordant]

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?

You can stop right there because I, and in so far as I can tell, others discussing this with you aren't giving it absolute value. That's your hangup, not ours. We're telling you how WE value it and how we think MOST people will value it, all things being equal, out of logic, rational self interest, empathy, and a normal sense of community.

We aren't saying it's absolute, guaranteed, or that one can appeal to something "out there" to validate or authorize or impose it. As I said in the rest of my post, you seem to want a guarantee that all comers will arrive at the same conclusion. That's not realistic, and it's not what's being suggested. That's a requirement YOU concoct and impose on things.

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.

If you're attempting to suggest here that you're NOT one of the folks that considers humans of equal dignity and worth at least in terms of potential, then maybe these examples would obtain -- if they made the slightest bit of sense, that is. "Every car is worth $20,000" is manifestly and objectively not true, as a perusal of Kelly Blue Book will reveal. Therefore it's not the same thing as saying that all humans have the same rights. Nor would I suggest that all humans contribute as much positive to the human enterprise, or are even able to, which is (imperfectly) why they don't all get paid the same wages for example, or manage their income equally well. We are talking about human rights -- the right to freedom of thought and to hold one's own opinions, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, the right to pursue happiness, things of that nature. Also the right not to be sold and priced like chattel -- or like cars.

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?

We have something called mirror neurons that allow us to relate our feelings to the feelings of others, and what's sometimes less understood, we have the ability to relate to FUTURE others. For example, I might really want to eat a half gallon of ice cream but, empathizing with my future self, I might deny myself that short term gratification (particularly on a recurrent basis) in the interest of better health. That, too, is empathy, as is empathy for your future child in your example. All of that is provided for by our evolved biology.

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

What is there BESIDES personal and cultural preferences? That is what morality arises from. And it is sufficient. It doesn't have to come from the Beyond to be useful and sufficient to its purpose.

How about YOUR personal and cultural preferences? Can you even begin to demonstrate that your alleged externally bestowed morality is anything but what YOU prefer or your theistic subculture asserts?

One of the big problems with theistic morality is that it is obsessed with the notion that morality is null and void without a backing authority. Yet ... despite that I deny your CHOSEN and PREFERRED and ASSERTED backing authority, you would find me entirely ethical as a friend, contractor, employee or any other sort of interaction we might have, and would in fact find my integrity to be toward the high end of what you've experienced throughout your existence. I wonder how that could be. Or are you going to be one of those who claims it's all an act and doesn't "count" because it isn't correctly sourced??