Are some theists afraid of atheists?

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems like god was doing some OJT, at the start there, eh? It's understandable. He;d just made the first female, and having never known a female..he didn;t realize that the only way to practical ensure her taking a bite was to tell her not to. Nor, I suppose, could he have known how utterly whipped adam would be, essentially by fiat. I;mma go out on a limb here and suggest that the first draft of the feminine form probably wasn;t smoking hot - but hey, when you're the only vagina in town and you tell some dick to take a bite, he puts it in his mouth. What else is there to do, back out like a loser and get emasculated for it - right before she runs off with that fucking talking snake...because at least he knows how to have fun and isn;t attached to his goddamned daddy at the hip, amiright?

[vorlon13]

Well according to Christians we all have an immortal soul, therefore we all posses knowledge of good and evil. Isn’t that opening a whole new can of worms.

It's all those tenets of their faith, still, it's odd how few of them they are aware of.

I suppose though, you are still reeling from the revelation that knowledge of good and evil wasn't part of the original design spec of the immortal soul but was essentially a software patch grafted on later.

I could see coming across that detail as a grown up could be quite a shock.  


What a way to create and then run a universe . . . . . . . 

AHA !!


AHA I say !!!



That's why they have Sunday School!!!  If you learn about souls as a grown up it sounds nuts because it IS NUTS.  But spoon feed it to second graders and they don't have a fucking clue God is a total git.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I didn't see any reason to offer any.  You asked me where my schema began, I told you.  In any case, there's no point in bickering with me about moral facts of the matter, since you wouldn't be disagreeing that there -are- moral facts of a matter, just..maybe, positing that my facts were the wrong facts or not those facts, etc etc etc. 

No, a person valuing his own life for x wouldn't necessitate that he valued your life because you also satisfied those conditions x, unless he applied a rationally consistent valuation.  Rational elaborations, like empathetic response, sometimes find themselves arbitrarily limited or not extended to all subjects to which they would, by their own descriptions, apply.

IOW, it doesn't always work, and people still make bad choices. 

I have many reasons to conclude that you and I are existentially equal despite our vast disparities - those are my conditions x.

If we both agree that there are, in principle moral facts, then any dispute would only be an epistemological one given a common acknowledgment that values have some kind of ontological status. As for me, I have not seen a reasonable defense of value realism coming from atheists. On AF there seems to be a universal denial of nearly all kinds of realism in favor of nominalism. Correct me if I am wrong but based on prior conversations I took you for a nominalist/conceptualist. If that is not the case then I would be very much interested in how you could justify any kind of realism, including value realist, without making reference to transcendence.

[Mister Agenda]

Wow, you haven't been paying attention to Khemkal at all.

[Astonished]

Wow, you haven't been paying attention to Khemkal at all.

It's not that, it's a simple lack of comprehension. Just like every other thing anyone says that doesn't involve sky fairies.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Wow, you haven't been paying attention to Khemkal at all.

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. That's fine but is not better than a Christian saying because people are made in the image of God. Both statements rest on unsupported claims. In his case 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.

[Harry Nevis]

Wow, you haven't been paying attention to Khemkal at all.

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. That's fine but is not better than a Christian saying because people are made in the image of God. Both statements rest on unsupported claims. In his case 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.

Image of god? For one thing, it's better because there is no proof of a god, and then morality is just whatever somebody decides what their god wants.

[mordant]

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. That's fine but is not better than a Christian saying because people are made in the image of God. Both statements rest on unsupported claims. In his case 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.

What people like yourself seem to really want is a guarantee that everyone will arrive at such a conclusion -- as if an externally determined and imposed morality would even address that concern. Clearly, it does not, even allowing for the sake of argument that Christian morality really does come from god. Because adherents to such religious faith-based moralities are morally defective assholes at approximately the same (or slightly greater) rate as everyone else. It doesn't help them be better persons. You feel it's intuitive that it should, and you use confirmation bias to tell yourself that it does, but I see zero evidence of that. Indeed, i see that Christians are slightly overrepresented in prison populations relative to other groups, that they have slightly higher divorce rates relative to other groups, and I see their ideology (mis)used in the service of things like white supremacy and xenophobia with great ease. As Charlotte shows us, Christian ideology can be the basis of terrorism and a sense of aggrieved entitlement and sour grapes just as well as Muslim or any other ideology.

[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.

[Succubus]

If we both agree that there are, in principle moral facts, then any dispute would only be an epistemological one given a common acknowledgment that values have some kind of ontological status. As for me, I have not seen a reasonable defense of value realism coming from atheists. On AF there seems to be a universal denial of nearly all kinds of realism in favor of nominalism. Correct me if I am wrong but based on prior conversations I took you for a nominalist/conceptualist. If that is not the case then I would be very much interested in how you could justify any kind of realism, including value realist, without making reference to transcendence.

What have you been reading?