Equality

[uwot]

Dear Uwot:

You write,

As far as I can tell, you are using the term 'ground' to mean 'demonstrate to be commensurate with my religious persuasion'.

No. Not at all. Grounding one's belief is something that anyone who believe in rationality and the importance of personal autonomy ought to do.

It is something that various philosophers have tried to do. What you are talking about is finding some axioms on which to build a logically valid philosophy, such that anyone who accepts the premises is bound to accept the conclusion. The most famous example is Descartes Cogito, the model is Euclid and the assumption is the same as Socrates belief that people only behave badly out of ignorance.
Some theists have recognised that their core axiom, god exists, is not self-evidently true and have tried to offer some proof; there are different versions of St Anselm's ontological argument, none of which hold water, and various attempts have been made at an argument from or to design, the latest being the nonsense about bacterial flagella: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10204
There is no proof that any version of god or gods exist, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discourse, therefore:

As far as I can tell, you are using the term 'ground' to mean 'demonstrate to be commensurate with my religious persuasion'.

is true. It is your belief that god exists, but you cannot prove it; the ground for your grounding is groundless.

The only alternative is making propaganda -- i.e. ungrounded claims that one does not expect others to accept on a rational basis. I won't do that, and I hope you won't either.

For the reasons above, it is precisely what you do do. You and I have different axioms; yours is something like 'god exists and wishes us to behave in such a way'. Mine is along the lines of 'Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong'. Neither of us can prove that our axiom is true, you think it matters, I couldn't give a monkeys. I don't care if it is right or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, I won't do it and if I see some else doing it I will try to stop them, even at the risk of getting stabbed in the face, as happened 30 years ago.
Call it propaganda, if you will, but fortunately, most people have a broadly similar point of view and in my country at least, it is the ethos underpinning many of our laws. It contrasts starkly with this:

Ah, but Henry...you misunderstand what "ground" implies. It implies, among other things, "Make obligatory for other people."

which is the rationale behind the burning of witches in medieval Europe and public beheadings in current day medieval Saudi Arabia. You can deny this all you like:

Your value terms are relative to the whims you ascribe to your god of choice.

But what argument can you forward to "Make obligatory for other people." the conclusion that your denial is warranted?

Mannie,

"Make obligatory for other people."

This happens every day.

The one or ones with the bigger (or more wisely applied smaller) stick consistently impose on others, obligating those others to all manner of things.

No somos machos, pero somos muchos. You missed out lots of sticks. Bear baiting and democracy.

[henry quirk]

"We are male, but we are many"

Huh?

#

"You missed out lots of sticks."

Huh?

#

"Bear baiting and democracy"

Huh?

[Immanuel Can]

It is something that various philosophers have tried to do. What you are talking about is finding some axioms on which to build a logically valid philosophy, such that anyone who accepts the premises is bound to accept the conclusion. The most famous example is Descartes Cogito, the model is Euclid and the assumption is the same as Socrates belief that people only behave badly out of ignorance.

No, not at all. You're way off my intention. I'm saying only this: theistic claims must rationalize with a theistic worldview at the suppositional level. Atheist claims must rationalize with the atheistic (presumably naturalistic) worldview at the suppositional level. I am not even *suggesting* you change your worldview before conceding this point.

All I'm asking is that you be a consistent atheist. What's unreasonable about that?

Some theists have recognised that their core axiom, god exists, is not self-evidently true and have tried to offer some proof; there are different versions of St Anselm's ontological argument, none of which hold water, and various attempts have been made at an argument from or to design, the latest being the nonsense about bacterial flagella: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10204

Again, this is totally unrelated to the point I'm trying to establish. Feel free to ignore that issue entirely. Let's focus on atheism, and for the moment forget theism.

There is no proof that any version of god or gods exist, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discourse, therefore:...

Non sequitur. It does not follow. Your claim suggests that if there is a discourse that shows there's no evidence. It does not. We can debate the evidence, or one of us can know evidence the other happens not to know. In any case, it's clear that discourse and evidence are not incompatible.

...is true. It is your belief that god exists, but you cannot prove it; the ground for your grounding is groundless.

You misunderstand the demands of "grounding" or "legitimating" a belief. Truth or falsehood is one issue; grounding is another. For truth/falsehood, one needs to establish facts. To establish grounding, one can leave that aside. Instead, one only demonstrates that one's own beliefs are consistent with his/her basic suppositions.

Right now, I'm focusing on grounding not truth/falsehood. (We can shift once we are done, if you like). My suppositions are theistic: and *if* they were true (leaving the answer to that issue aside, now) then I could consistently advocate values. Your suppositions are atheistic and naturalistic, so it seems: again, leaving aside the question of truth or falsehood for a moment, *if* those beliefs were true you could not show the existence of any values at all.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to force you to accept theism on my words, and I'm not even trying yet to supply evidence. I'm just talking about rational consistency.

Is that clear enough? Should I explain further?

Neither of us can prove that our axiom is true, you think it matters, I couldn't give a monkeys. I don't care if it is right or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, I won't do it and if I see some else doing it I will try to stop them, even at the risk of getting stabbed in the face, as happened 30 years ago.

You don't know I can't prove it true. You're only really saying you can't. But you should care. You talk as if morality could be an entirely private concern to you. But actually morality *always* involves claims we make about other people. You are saying (I think rightly saying) that it would be wrong for a person not to prevent unnecessary suffering. That's a claim for all people, not just you.

In fact, that's the way morals and ethics work. If you were the only person alive on the face of the planet, there would be no such thing as a moral or ethical issue: for to whom could you be responsible? To whom would you make a case? The concept wouldn't even exist, because there would be no reason for it even to occur to you. You would simply do or say whatever you wished, end of story. There would be none of these odd properties called "morals." The only question would be, "What do I want to do?" and that's a practical, not a moral/immoral question.

I'm glad you risked your welfare for the good of another. That's why I would not presume to call you an amoral or immoral person. You might be very moral, for all I know. But if you are an atheist, then your basic suppositions do not sponsor your action. Maybe only your personal moral compass does. But nothing in your naturalistic worldview makes it "good" for you to have done so. It's simply a neutral fact. If you had walked away, you'd have done nothing either better or worse, since all such terms are nonsense from a naturalistic suppositional perspective.

Call it propaganda, if you will, but fortunately, most people have a broadly similar point of view and in my country at least, it is the ethos underpinning many of our laws.

The fact that "most" people believe this or that is contingent and changeable. That should worry you. As for the claim such a belief undergirds law, you will find that the Jewish and Christian suppositional basis underlies most of our law code, and all of our basic human rights. I can easily show that, but will hold for the moment until we have worked out the grounding issue. (I promise to come back to it if you want to go further.)

It contrasts starkly with this...which is the rationale behind the burning of witches in medieval Europe and public beheadings in current day medieval Saudi Arabia.

Nonsense. You've misunderstood me again, and you've misread the facts as well. Let me be clear: I am NOT imposing a worldview on you. I'm asking you to exposit your belief in values ON THE BASIS OF YOUR OWN VIEW. (I don't mean that to sound like shouting, but I want you to catch the emphasis, if I can clarify).

Factually speaking, you are also off base on your absurd conflation of Islamists and all other religious groups. What one fanatical wing cannot be rightly blamed on people who don't even hold to their philosophy. Today, many of the people being beheaded in the Middle East are Christians. See two days ago, in the newspaper: http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/11/14 ... -minister/

You can deny this all you like:

Yes, I accept your permission: I do deny it. For it's easy to deny something that's incorrect.

In short, I am not advocating what you accuse me of advocating. I am saying, "Legitimate your own belief." I am not at the same time saying, "Believe mine," unless later that becomes rational for you to do. But that's not for now.

You've been blunt, so I will be too: you seem a fairly reasonable sort, so I think it's time to show your hand. What, in a naturalist/atheistic account of the universe grounds/legitimizes/makes coherent and consistent your assertion of belief in universal values like "equality"?

My conviction of the moment is that despite your previous hope to the contrary, you've actually got nothing. If I'm right, I know you'll either admit that fact (if you're inclined to be honest) or else dodge the question and spiral off into more off-topic or ad hominem claims in a desperate effort to escape the trap (if you're running). On the other hand, if I'm wrong in my conviction, you'll have grounds you can provide, and we can move forward on the basis of them.

[uwot]

I'm saying only this: theistic claims must rationalize with a theistic worldview at the suppositional level. Atheist claims must rationalize with the atheistic (presumably naturalistic) worldview at the suppositional level.

Yes. What I am saying is that you wish to build a philosophical edifice using logical inferences from a few simple 'suppositions'. Let me put it another way. You wish to work within a self consistent paradigm, in Kuhn's sense. Or perhaps, more simply, you think peoples belief system should be self-consistent. Am I missing anything?

You misunderstand the demands of "grounding" or "legitimating" a belief. Truth or falsehood is one issue; grounding is another. For truth/falsehood, one needs to establish facts. To establish grounding, one can leave that aside. Instead, one only demonstrates that one's own beliefs are consistent with his/her basic suppositions.

It seems to me that all you are doing is describing the difference between a valid and a sound argument. The following is an example of a valid argument:

All pigs can fly.
Pinky is a pig.
Therefore, Pinky can fly.

If the premises, basic suppositions, are true, the conclusion is also true. It is, as you put it, consistent with the suppositions, it is grounded or legitimated. It is not sound though, because at least one premise is untrue.

Right now, I'm focusing on grounding not truth/falsehood. (We can shift once we are done, if you like).

Whenever you're ready.

My suppositions are theistic:

Whether we call them axioms, premises or suppositions, we all have a set of beliefs that we use to 'ground' our philosophical outlook.

and *if* they were true (leaving the answer to that issue aside, now) then I could consistently advocate values.

Very simply:

Obedience to god's will is the basis of morality.
p is god's will.
Therefore, p is moral.

Your suppositions are atheistic and naturalistic, so it seems: again, leaving aside the question of truth or falsehood for a moment, *if* those beliefs were true you could not show the existence of any values at all.

Causing unnecessary harm is immoral.
p causes unnecessary harm.
Therefore, p is immoral.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to force you to accept theism on my words, and I'm not even trying yet to supply evidence. I'm just talking about rational consistency.

Is that clear enough? Should I explain further?

Only if you think I am missing something.

Neither of us can prove that our axiom is true, you think it matters, I couldn't give a monkeys. I don't care if it is right or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, I won't do it and if I see some else doing it I will try to stop them, even at the risk of getting stabbed in the face, as happened 30 years ago.

You don't know I can't prove it true.

Indeed, but I have very good reason to doubt it.

But you should care. You talk as if morality could be an entirely private concern to you.

As I said, I will intervene if someone is causing unnecessary harm; my morality isn't just for me. How, then, do you justify the following?

But actually morality *always* involves claims we make about other people. You are saying (I think rightly saying) that it would be wrong for a person not to prevent unnecessary suffering. That's a claim for all people, not just you. In fact, that's the way morals and ethics work. If you were the only person alive on the face of the planet, there would be no such thing as a moral or ethical issue: for to whom could you be responsible?

You've lost me. I was given to believe that you think there is a case for some deontological imperative based on your theistic belief. So which is it? Obey god or be nice to people?

...if you are an atheist, then your basic suppositions do not sponsor your action.

Schopenhauer again: Compassion is the basis of morality. Or the more specific 'Causing unnecessary harm is immoral'.

Call it propaganda, if you will, but fortunately, most people have a broadly similar point of view and in my country at least, it is the ethos underpinning many of our laws.

The fact that "most" people believe this or that is contingent and changeable. That should worry you.

I am much less worried by people who can change their mind than people who cannot.

As for the claim such a belief undergirds law, you will find that the Jewish and Christian suppositional basis underlies most of our law code, and all of our basic human rights. I can easily show that,

You would be pushing against an open door; I think I could easily show that too.

but will hold for the moment until we have worked out the grounding issue. (I promise to come back to it if you want to go further.)

It contrasts starkly with this...which is the rationale behind the burning of witches in medieval Europe and public beheadings in current day medieval Saudi Arabia.

Nonsense. You've misunderstood me again, and you've misread the facts as well. Let me be clear: I am NOT imposing a worldview on you.

Oh good; you don't believe I should be subject to your god's morality then.

I'm asking you to exposit your belief in values ON THE BASIS OF YOUR OWN VIEW.

IT IS MY VIEW THAT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING IS WRONG.

As I keep saying: I cannot prove it. I do not care.

Factually speaking, you are also off base on your absurd conflation of Islamists and all other religious groups. What one fanatical wing cannot be rightly blamed on people who don't even hold to their philosophy.

You have at least one supposition in common: It is moral to do god's will. The fact that you and Islamists interpret god's will differently makes this:

Your value terms are relative to the whims you ascribe to your god of choice.

correct.

In short, I am not advocating what you accuse me of advocating. I am saying, "Legitimate your own belief." I am not at the same time saying, "Believe mine," unless later that becomes rational for you to do. But that's not for now.

Then what am I supposed to make of this?

Ah, but Henry...you misunderstand what "ground" implies. It implies, among other things, "Make obligatory for other people."

You've been blunt, so I will be too: you seem a fairly reasonable sort, so I think it's time to show your hand. What, in a naturalist/atheistic account of the universe grounds/legitimizes/makes coherent and consistent your assertion of belief in universal values like "equality"?

We've been over this earlier in the thread. In essence I do not believe you can make judgements about people based on superficial differences. As I have said before, even if it is demonstrably the case that any given group of people have a general characteristic, the distribution of the individuals will be Gaussian. In short, the only way to understand any fellow human being is to engage them. In that respect, we are all equal.

My conviction of the moment is that despite your previous hope to the contrary, you've actually got nothing.

How many times? IT IS MY VIEW THAT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING IS WRONG. As I keep saying: I cannot prove it. I do not care.

If I'm right, I know you'll either admit that fact (if you're inclined to be honest) or else dodge the question and spiral off into more off-topic or ad hominem claims in a desperate effort to escape the trap (if you're running).

Trap? As the Divine Henry might say: HA! (Mr Quirk, do you understand that it is not you that is the butt of my jokes?)
If you think anything I have said is off-topic or ad hominem, show me and I shall clarify.

On the other hand, if I'm wrong in my conviction, you'll have grounds you can provide, and we can move forward on the basis of them.

Did I mention: IT IS MY VIEW THAT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING IS WRONG. As I keep saying: I cannot prove it. I do not care?

[Immanuel Can]

You seem now to have my point: I'm not saying (yet) "be a theist," but rather, "be consistent if you can." And I think we're agreed that rational consistency is the right thing, both for me and for you. So that much looks like clear sailing.

I'll pick up where you attempt to show the consistency, and we'll see if it's consistent enough, okay?

Causing unnecessary harm is immoral.
p causes unnecessary harm.
Therefore, p is immoral.

Maybe you're not aware that premise 1 is contentious and vague: but it is. It's vague, because it leaves "unnecessary" to be interpreted as anyone sees fit. And if a person deems it "necessary" to have slaves, you'd be advocating slavery. Then there's "harm": how does one define that? A surgeon does "harm" by cutting into a patient, but does so ultimately to do him/her good. Surely we don't want to rule out all "harm," then, do we? Do you mean only "net harm"? But even that is undefined here.

Not only that, but whether "harm" itself, even in a clear case like killing someone or depriving them of resources, is always "bad" is also contentious. Nietzsche would have thought "harm" of that sort to some people was justified by the "will-to-power." Social Darwinists think such "harm" is necessary to the weak -- and even desirable -- if the fit are to survive. So you've not got anything universal there, just the opinion of one person, weakly stated and easily undermined. What can you do about that? Can you patch it up?

You've lost me. I was given to believe that you think there is a case for some deontological imperative based on your theistic belief. So which is it? Obey god or be nice to people?

I'll go back. I'm not talking about *my* ethics or *your* ethics, but only about the idea of any ethic at all. I'm saying that ethics inevitably involves the relationship between two relevant persons (whether God is a "person" in the ethics sense is something we can debate later; for now, let's just think in terms of human persons). When I ask a question like "Is X ethical?" what I'm really asking is, "In doing X, am I violating any duty to another person." If there were NO other persons (say if a worldwide plague had wiped out every "person" or being but me) then I would never ask myself an ethics question again, because none would even make sense. This shows that ethics is a description of a relationship among people -- and hence it can *never* be merely a matter of one's own private concern. To have a 100% private ethic (that is, one that takes no other being or entity but myself into account) is the same as to have no ethic at all.

What I am saying there applies to both my practice of ethics and yours. You may see only human beings as counting into the ethical equation, perhaps, and I may take God into consideration as an ethical Entity: but in both cases, if we are doing ethics we are talking about establishing the principles to govern relations between ourselves and other relevant entities.

The real point here is this: there is no such thing as a private ethic. If you say your precept applies only to you, then it is a personal taste but, definitionally speaking, an ethic at all. If you say, "I do not care," then all that means is that you don't care about ethics. But then, why are you arguing?

IC wrote: As for the claim such a belief undergirds law, you will find that the Jewish and Christian suppositional basis underlies most of our law code, and all of our basic human rights. I can easily show that,

You reply: You would be pushing against an open door; I think I could easily show that too.

Oh good...so you know the history, and we don't have to go into all the stuff about the Decalogue, the Lex Talonis, the Justinian Law Codes, John Locke, the Declaration of Independence...and so on. That will save us a lot of time.

IT IS MY VIEW THAT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING IS WRONG.

As I keep saying: I cannot prove it. I do not care.

I'm just saying if you don't care that might be a bit short sighted. The man whose coming to rob your house has a different view. When he arrives, I expect you'll want to prove to him he shouldn't do it, and if he does, I suspect you'll want him locked up, so you'll go to a law court and argue that he did something bad and should be jailed for it or pay you restitution. But if you do that, then you are imposing your view that causing harm is wrong upon that man. In other words, you are making an ethical statement against him.

What you have above is nothing but a free-floating statement of self-will that, as stated, no one is obliged to take seriously for themselves. You can do that if you want -- but you'll have no ethic, because you're making no statement governing the relation between persons. If so, then you can also forget the idea that you have anything further to say in support of equality, since that would make you make an ethical judgment you clearly do not want to make.

Your value terms are relative to the whims you ascribe to your god of choice.
correct.

I can go to this topic if you wish, but in terms of the present flow of argument we're not ready yet. (Can I hold that over until we're done?) We're still seeing if you have anything to say about *your own* ethics. If you want to go to mine, then I'm happy to do so as soon as we're done with yours.

But when we do, I suggest perhaps you should let me make statements for myself, rather than to ascribe your own statements to me and then shoot your own statement down. That is, if you genuinely want to know what I really think at all, rather than to beat the stuffing out of a "straw man" instead.

the only way to understand any fellow human being is to engage them. In that respect, we are all equal.

Ah. So "equal" for you is not a value term at all, and has no ethics involved. It just means "we're all humans". So it's only a practical realization, one that has no implication for the right distribution of power, resources or respect. Well, I think anyone can concede that: but it does not show we owe anyone to treat them as morally "equal," so it doesn't do anything for the topic of the thread.

Immanuel Can wrote: On the other hand, if I'm wrong in my conviction, you'll have grounds you can provide, and we can move forward on the basis of them.

uwot said: Did I mention: IT IS MY VIEW THAT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING IS WRONG. As I keep saying: I cannot prove it. I do not care?

I see you did the admirable thing, and made an attempt to respond intellectually, not ad hominem or by evasion. I'm impressed: it shows integrity. Yet I trust you can see above I have returned the respect by having both recognized and made a proper effort to address your syllogism about harm.

As for the "do not care" part, if I were to believe it I would have to wonder why you were arguing on this particular thread at all -- on the other hand, maybe you only regard it as an idle distraction, which would make our conversation trivial, I fear. I therefore hope it's not true, since we seem to be getting somewhere.

[aiddon]

Notwithstanding the delight of the present discussion, I cannot fail to notice that this thread began as a discussion on equality and for some time now has been about theism versus atheism. I have also noticed this trend of veering off topic in a multitude of other threads...invariably towards the same debate. I find this rather amusing that we can't seem to help ourselves. It appears that ultimately this is what philosophers want to argue about.

But, please do carry on.

[thedoc]

When you have a forum populated by Theists and Atheists the discussion will eventually come around to this basic difference. The Theist will claim all things are based In God, and the Atheist will claim 'there is no God', and the impasse will continue. I, too, find it quite amusing.

[Immanuel Can]

Good thought, aiddon. You're right to realize that at the root of everything we may argue about is our basic beliefs about what does or does not exist in the universe. Ontology precedes ethics.

An astute observation, thedoc. However, in this case there is no necessary "impasse." For at least in the matter of ethics, the sides are not equal. If you think it through, you will realize that atheism (or naturalism, it's sponsoring ontology) is simply incapable of sponsoring any values at all -- including equality (which I believe remains the central focus of this discussion, aiddon), whereas theism, whatever other liabilities may be attributed to it, does not have that one. It's only atheism that cannot "pass" here, so there really is no "impasse" in ethics for theism.

The theist can ground his ethics; he just can't always get others to accept his ontological grounds.

[uwot]

I'm not saying (yet) "be a theist,"

Then let's cut to the chase. In an earlier exchange, I said:

Neither of us can prove that our axiom is true,

To which you replied:

You don't know I can't prove it true.

As you are now claiming

Ontology precedes ethics.

now would be a good time to do so.

The theist can ground his ethics; he just can't always get others to accept his ontological grounds.

I'm not technically an atheist, I don't insist there is no god. But while I think Wittgenstein was overstating the case by insisting 'Thereof we must remain silent', I think the logical positivists had a point by claiming that talk about gods is basically meaningless. Except when people attach their usually right-wing agenda to the tail of their god.

[uwot]

Notwithstanding the delight of the present discussion, I cannot fail to notice that this thread began as a discussion on equality and for some time now has been about theism versus atheism. I have also noticed this trend of veering off topic in a multitude of other threads...invariably towards the same debate. I find this rather amusing that we can't seem to help ourselves. It appears that ultimately this is what philosophers want to argue about.

But, please do carry on.

Stick around aiddon, you'll soon discover how this forum works. It's like yer biblical plagues, one minute it's racists, the next paedophiles. Currently we have a crop of outspoken religious nutters (although they're always there or thereabouts). It would be monstrous of me to slop them all in the same bucket, but there are unpleasant aspects to some god botherers. They also use similar tactics; generally they will bang on and on about some apparently innocuous premise, which they fancy that if you concede it, they can, in Immanuel Can's terms, 'trap' you. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

[henry quirk]

"Mr Quirk, do you understand that it is not you that is the butt of my jokes?"

Yeah, I get that.

##

"I cannot fail to notice that this thread began as a discussion on equality and for some time now has been about theism versus atheism."

I think the topics are inextricably intertwined.

To argue for or against an intrinsic equality is to question the basis for such advocacy or opposition.

In the case of Mannie (and, please, Mannie, correct me if I'm wrong): his advocacy for equality is grounded in 'natural rights' extending out from GOD...it is these 'natural rights' which negate any apparent or obvious disparity among folks.

##

"For at least in the matter of ethics, the sides are not equal."

I disagree. You claim a grounding for which you can offer no evidence.

The theist is as 'groundless' as the atheist in that he or she operates (like the atheist) out of his or her preferences and what he or she chooses.

When you say "The theist can ground his ethics" he does so in the same soil as the atheist: again, him- or her-self.

You may believe the ethos comes to you from GOD; I say you've merely adopted that which extends out from (other) men.

*Prove me wrong...*shrug*









*you might ask the same of me...problem is: I make no extraordinary claim...what I do claim: I see no evidence for an Architect/Creator/Sustainer and I say 'look around...where is HE?'...you, say GOD 'is'...which is fine...again: prove it.

[thedoc]

Good thought, aiddon. You're right to realize that at the root of everything we may argue about is our basic beliefs about what does or does not exist in the universe. Ontology precedes ethics.

An astute observation, thedoc. However, in this case there is no necessary "impasse." For at least in the matter of ethics, the sides are not equal. If you think it through, you will realize that atheism (or naturalism, it's sponsoring ontology) is simply incapable of sponsoring any values at all -- including equality (which I believe remains the central focus of this discussion, aiddon), whereas theism, whatever other liabilities may be attributed to it, does not have that one. It's only atheism that cannot "pass" here, so there really is no "impasse" in ethics for theism.

The theist can ground his ethics; he just can't always get others to accept his ontological grounds.

I understand what you are saying and will say that I had not reasoned it through that far. But that is not the impasse that I was referring to, it was more the difference in position of the two sides. Both base their position and beliefs on faith without any empirical support for either. Both sides have chosen to believe as they do, and that is the impasse that I meant.

[henry quirk]

"Both base their position and beliefs on faith without any empirical support for either"

I disagree.

Take, for example, my bias against the bully and the pedophile...in part: I'm repelled by both because each does what no other animal does, that is, dominate another for no reason other than he or she can.

Again: the cheetah takes down the antelope to satisfy a real hunger while the bully/pedophile merely uses another to satisfy an unimpressive, non-vital, appetite.

Certainly my rationale is *creaky but, I think, less so than 'God says that's wrong cuz all humans are ensouled, and have intrinsic right and value'.









*and easily shredded...hell, as I sit here typing, 'I' can shred my rationale...and still: even as hooey, my 'as evidenced in nature' argument holds more water than **GOD as grounding


**and -- again -- even if GOD 'is', the best that can be said: because HE has the BIGGEST stick, HE makes the rules

having the capacity to design/make/maintain Reality doesn't automatically imbue such a creature with an absolute, or even superior, moral sense

so: followers of such a creature have no real grounding beyond 'GOD says so, God has the BIG stick, what the one with the BIG stick says, goes'

[Immanuel Can]

Wow. So many good responses above, and so little time to do them justice.

Let's start with where Henry and I totally agree.

I think the topics are inextricably intertwined.

To argue for or against an intrinsic equality is to question the basis for such advocacy or opposition.

In the case of Mannie (and, please, Mannie, correct me if I'm wrong): his advocacy for equality is grounded in 'natural rights' extending out from GOD...it is these 'natural rights' which negate any apparent or obvious disparity among folks.

I would not presume to correct you here, Henry, for you are not wrong. Quite right, and succinctly put.

I disagree. You claim a grounding for which you can offer no evidence.

I'd like to agree again -- except (with your permission) to add a small phrase -- I would suggest, "You claim a grounding for which you have *as of yet* offered no evidence." In that form, I'm fine with it, and we agree again. We have been only discussing the action of grounding a belief per se, not the evidentiary warrant for the grounds of either.

So far, I'm just saying, "Atheists, in consistency have to think X, and theists, in consistency, have to think Y." So far so good, so long as I eventually move on to the rest of the work, right?

The theist is as 'groundless' as the atheist in that he or she operates (like the atheist) out of his or her preferences and what he or she chooses.

When you say "The theist can ground his ethics" he does so in the same soil as the atheist: again, him- or her-self.

Here we part company. My claim is that I am *not* the ground of ethics (or equality, if you like). In that case, my preferences are irrelevant. What would be relevant is only what you list below, namely...

You may believe the ethos comes to you from GOD; I say you've merely adopted that which extends out from (other) men.

This is, to be sure, an indication we believe differently. And it's fairly stated as well. I take no issue with it.

*Prove me wrong...*shrug*

I think this is also what uwot essentially is asking -- that we move on from the question of equality to one of the warrant for any belief that God exists. Yet if we do (as others have pointed out) we really change the trajectory of the thread. Some participants would (rightly) resent us doing that.

I don't want to hijack the argument here, though I am interested in taking up the offer, if I may. I'm just wondering if I should start a new thread in which to do it, and leave this one to a continued discussion of "equality"...but then, I don't want to lost the "equality" aspect either...

What think you?

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

I'm time-pressed too...will respond to your post later...My vote: let this thread evolve as it will with any additional, complimentary, threads...I like the concentration of all 'this' in one place.

More later...