Even if they think there’s no right and wrong or whatever, they probably still want to live. Otherwise they would’ve killed themselves already.
More personally:
I quite dislike and don’t get the point about them being atheists. What’s the connection?
In addition to that, reductionally (Although perhaps statistically) there’s nothing that says “atheist equals [value]”. Perhaps statistically on anecedotally, but not reductionally. Unless HE (and only he, because that’s what HE’s saying. Because he’s making the argument and that’s what HE believes.) says anything about that (which he implies, but things can clear up with the right question) I don’t see the point of mentioning they’re atheists. If there’s no reason to mention they’re atheist, then why did he? Seems like a personal attack.
Killing the children in addition seems entirely stupid because children practically always believe whatever stupid stuff you tell them. So they’re basically killing someone who can’t really make a reasonable judgement.
I quite dislike and don’t get the point about them being atheists. What’s the connection?
The connection is that the whole point of Phil Robertson’s spiel was a criticism of atheism and atheists, the idea being that because atheists can’t get their moral values from God they don’t, or shouldn’t, or can’t coherently, have moral values at all (and, allegedly, therefore aren’t in a position to complain if their family is abused and murdered and they are mutilated).
That’s all kinds of wrong, and Scott understands that; the only thing he’s defending is one specific feature of Robertson’s crappy argument that some people have taken offence at, namely its use of an unpleasant thought experiment in which awful things are done to an atheist and his family.
Even if they think there’s no right and wrong or whatever, they probably still want to live. Otherwise they would’ve killed themselves already.
More personally:
I quite dislike and don’t get the point about them being atheists. What’s the connection?
In addition to that, reductionally (Although perhaps statistically) there’s nothing that says “atheist equals [value]”. Perhaps statistically on anecedotally, but not reductionally. Unless HE (and only he, because that’s what HE’s saying. Because he’s making the argument and that’s what HE believes.) says anything about that (which he implies, but things can clear up with the right question) I don’t see the point of mentioning they’re atheists. If there’s no reason to mention they’re atheist, then why did he? Seems like a personal attack.
Killing the children in addition seems entirely stupid because children practically always believe whatever stupid stuff you tell them. So they’re basically killing someone who can’t really make a reasonable judgement.
The connection is that the whole point of Phil Robertson’s spiel was a criticism of atheism and atheists, the idea being that because atheists can’t get their moral values from God they don’t, or shouldn’t, or can’t coherently, have moral values at all (and, allegedly, therefore aren’t in a position to complain if their family is abused and murdered and they are mutilated).
That’s all kinds of wrong, and Scott understands that; the only thing he’s defending is one specific feature of Robertson’s crappy argument that some people have taken offence at, namely its use of an unpleasant thought experiment in which awful things are done to an atheist and his family.