Assuming Christianity is True . . .

[Haven]

No need for an introduction.

Debate questions: Assuming Christianity is true and everything Christians believe about God (i.e., he's just, moral, loving, kind, etc.) is correct, why would God:

1) Create gay* people as gay*?
2) Give them the same desires for love, companionship, and intimacy as non-gay people?
2) Tell them that simply being gay* or pursuing a relationship with a member of the same sex is immoral?
4) Tell them that there is no non-sinful outlet for their sexualities or desire for relationships, and that their only non-sinful options are to live a lie with someone to whom they are not attracted or remain celibate and lonely for life?

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place? Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?


By "gay*," I mean people with an innate, exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they act on those attractions.

[Haven]

Yes, most Christian sects do claim to be based in the Scriptures. However, most Christian sects see the Scriptures as primarily the Apostolic Writings and reject the Tanakh as the primary context in favor of Greek philosophy.

Yes, I agree, and I'm surprised more Christians don't realize this. Christianity was infused with Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the fourth century.

The OP is asking about a presumed innate desire and the actions related to it. Therefore, desire and action are the focus of this discussion. It is a much broader question to ask what people are.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

The Scriptures are filled with examples of Adonai saying that He is loving and kind to His people.

So your god is nothing more than a biased bigot, playing favorites for some arbitrary reason?

OK, that's an honest answer. However, I don't see why such a being is worthy of respect, let alone worship. Such a being would essentially be a psychopath, no better than the Nazi dictator who had an arbitrarily predilection for the "Aryan race" (and a strong--even murderous--aversion to non-Aryans).

There are also examples of Adonai saying that this is not an obligation on His part. If He is not obligated to those to whom He said He was loving and kind, why would He be obligated to those He did not say that about. Also, you yourself have often pointed out that if Adonai were loving and kind to everyone, what is written in the Scriptures would not be consistent with that.

This is exactly why kind atheism / Humanism is more "moral" (I'm using the term in its expressivist, fictionalist, and subjectivist sense) than (at least bluethread's version of) Christian theism. You posit a god that is capricious, arbitrary, biased, and fundamentally unkind, which would hardly make him what most would consider moral (in fact, it would make him immoral by most standards). Pro-kindness secularists doesn't accept anything like that; we accept that all humans are fundamentally equal.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 20 by Haven]

I don't see why such a being is worthy of respect, let alone worship.

THANK you - someone else finally said it!
I don't see how anyone can take the christian god seriously enough to be worshipped without fear and guilt. Which is probably why that's taught so much in modern christianity.

V

The christian god has been called that many, many, many times - and rightly so. Anything that would drown innocents AND allow pain to prove a point (aka Job) should be given ZERO respect or even consideration to be anything more than nothingness. Even the bible seems conflicted on the god that's said to write/inspire it.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]

It is Adonai's gift of faith that allows us to take advantage of His grace.

Rather one believes in god or not - any god - it seems silly to think a god is obligated to anyone for anything, no?
Sorry if I hi-jacked - back to topic

Yes, that is what I said.

[bluethread]

The Scriptures are filled with examples of Adonai saying that He is loving and kind to His people.

So your god is nothing more than a biased bigot, playing favorites for some arbitrary reason?

OK, that's an honest answer. However, I don't see why such a being is worthy of respect, let alone worship. Such a being would essentially be a psychopath, no better than the Nazi dictator who had an arbitrarily predilection for the "Aryan race" (and a strong--even murderous--aversion to non-Aryans).

That is your biased way of stating it, complete with a Nazi twist. Race is an invention of the evolutionary humanists, "Aryan race" doubly so. There is no such thing as race in the Scriptures. Regarding favoritism on the part of a deity, it may appear arbitrary to humans, but it need not be arbitrary in reality.

There are also examples of Adonai saying that this is not an obligation on His part. If He is not obligated to those to whom He said He was loving and kind, why would He be obligated to those He did not say that about. Also, you yourself have often pointed out that if Adonai were loving and kind to everyone, what is written in the Scriptures would not be consistent with that.

This is exactly why kind atheism / Humanism is more "moral" (I'm using the term in its expressivist, fictionalist, and subjectivist sense) than (at least bluethread's version of) Christian theism. You posit a god that is capricious, arbitrary, biased, and fundamentally unkind, which would hardly make him what most would consider moral (in fact, it would make him immoral by most standards). Pro-kindness secularists doesn't accept anything like that; we accept that all humans are fundamentally equal.

Kind is a broad value judgment not a philosophical adjective. Also not all humanists are atheist. Regarding your assessment of Adonai, that is the humanist prospective. A deity that is subject to the truly arbitrary standard of human kindness would be no deity at all, but just a lapdog of humanity. That said, what is it that makes "pro-kindness secularists" egalitarian? How is it kind to treat people with vastly different makeups equally? Also, calling for equal treatment for only humans, is being just as capricious, arbitrary, biased. Why is the mentally disabled person treated as an equal to other humans, while a more intelligent ape is denied such equal treatment? I have my own reasons for this unequal treatment, but what is the reason proposed by "kind atheism" or "pro-kindness secularists"?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

Yes
Which is why I agreed with you

[ttruscott]

Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?

Yes

Not necessarily...

IF a moral GOD created all people innocent with the ability to make free will decisions and some decided to go against HIM because they rejected HIS claim to deity and rejected HIS warnings about the natural consequences of doing that,

and IF HE chose a certain expression of sexuality as reflecting HIS morality then the choice of a different sexual expression would be sinful without HIM creating anyone that way.

The fallacy is thinking that GOD created sinners to be sinners and created them in their particular sin (though some sects do teach that), a fallacy that was pointed out but wrongly attributed and not proven.

Peace, Ted

[connermt]

Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?

Yes

Not necessarily...

IF a moral GOD created all people innocent with the ability to make free will decisions and some decided to go against HIM because they rejected HIS claim to deity and rejected HIS warnings about the natural consequences of doing that,

and IF HE chose a certain expression of sexuality as reflecting HIS morality then the choice of a different sexual expression would be sinful without HIM creating anyone that way.

The fallacy is thinking that GOD created sinners to be sinners and created them in their particular sin (though some sects do teach that), a fallacy that was pointed out but wrongly attributed and not proven.

Peace, Ted

That's an awful lot of 'if's' to accept there....
Some would say the fallacy is thinking anyone that has the ability to know god 'prior' to this life would indeed choose something that would go against said god.

[Haven]

That is your biased way of stating it, complete with a Nazi twist.

How is it biased?

Race is an invention of the evolutionary humanists, "Aryan race" doubly so.

The concept of race has nothing to do with evolution, and in fact is not part of evolutionary theory. Race is a Western social construct that predates evolutionary theory (and was actually supported by appeal to Biblical verses).

There is no such thing as race in the Scriptures.

Not in the modern Western sense, no. The Bible is, however, fiercely nationalistic and (especially the Torah / Pentateuch / first five books of the OT) biased against non-Hebrew people. All analogies break down at some point, but the god of the Bible is similar to my hypothetical dictator in that he shows favoritism to some people and abuse to others for capricious and arbitrary reasons.

Regarding favoritism on the part of a deity, it may appear arbitrary to humans, but it need not be arbitrary in reality.

That's a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

You admit they appear arbitrary. What evidence is there that these distinctions aren't arbitrary? What possible coherent criteria could the Biblical god be using to determine between people he loves / is kind to and those he hates / abuses? Also, the Bible itself appears to claim that these distinctions are, in fact, arbitrary:

9 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

God’s Sovereign Choice
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.� 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.�[c]

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.�[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.�[e]

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.�[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.�[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?� 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’�[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,�
26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’�[j]
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.�[k]
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.�[l]
Israel’s Unbelief
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.�

Given the lack of a plausible reason for distinction and the presence of Biblical verses suggesting God's choices are arbitrary, the burden of proof for demonstrating they aren't capricious or arbitrary lies on you.

Kind is a broad value judgment not a philosophical adjective.

Of course. What we call "kind" isn't based in any type of objective reality, but in our own sentiments. Kindness doesn't exist outside of the language, minds, and cultures of those who believe in and practice it. It's not a feature of the universe.

Regarding your assessment of Adonai, that is the humanist prospective.

Yes, it is (sort of -- I'm not a true humanist but a sentientist for reasons I'll explain later in this post). Why is that a problem? Is there any evidence for a system of objective morality, or even a system of morality that is more functional for sentient beings?

A deity that is subject to the truly arbitrary standard of human kindness would be no deity at all, but just a lapdog of humanity.

The problem for your deity is that the writers of the Bible claim that he is kind (Psalm 36:7, Romans 2:4, Titus 3:4), so if he in fact isn't, that makes him self-contradictory.

That said, what is it that makes "pro-kindness secularists" egalitarian? How is it kind to treat people with vastly different makeups equally?

You're confusing equality with equity. I (and other "pro-kindness" / justice / etc. secularists) believe in an equitable state of affairs for sentient beings, not absolute equality.

Also, calling for equal treatment for only humans, is being just as capricious, arbitrary, biased. Why is the mentally disabled person treated as an equal to other humans, while a more intelligent ape is denied such equal treatment?

That would be biased, but that isn't my position. I believe in the equitable treatment for all sentient beings, not just humans (that's why I'm a vegan and animal rights advocate). I don't think the mentally disabled human should be treated better than a more intelligent ape; to do so would be speciesist bigotry. I support equal rights for all persons* (according to the philosophical definition)--this definition would include the vast majority of humans, other apes, dolphins, and elephants, among other self-aware animals--and just, kind treatment for all sentient animals. I'm against the meat industry and experiments on apes for this reason.

I have my own reasons for this unequal treatment, but what is the reason proposed by "kind atheism" or "pro-kindness secularists"?

There is no justifiable reason for this unequal treatment.

[ttruscott]

Given the lack of a plausible reason for distinction and the presence of Biblical verses suggesting God's choices are arbitrary, the burden of proof for demonstrating they aren't capricious or arbitrary lies on you.

Do Christians really have the burden of proof because we are not making the claim but merely expressing the claim as told to us from other sources which we happen to accept as true.

If my Dad told me that Dodge makes the best truck and I repeat his claim, how am I under the burden of proving they are the best or only even proving he said that? If GOD tells me HE deals with us honestly, why am I held accountable for proving it?

Would not the better response be, "Go ask HIM to prove it?"

I personally do not claim HE deals with us honestly but that HE claims HE deals with us honestly and I believe HIM.

Peace, Ted

[bluethread]

That is your biased way of stating it, complete with a Nazi twist.

How is it biased?

It presumes that a deity should be judged like a human.

Race is an invention of the evolutionary humanists, "Aryan race" doubly so.

The concept of race has nothing to do with evolution, and in fact is not part of evolutionary theory. Race is a Western social construct that predates evolutionary theory (and was actually supported by appeal to Biblical verses).

Yes, it is a western form of tribalism, which is dates back to Babylonian times, even earlier for evolutionists. The Nazi's used evolutionary theory, bible verses and anything else they could get their hands on to support their "Arien" agenda. That is why Ad Nazium is a logical falacy. It implies that some thing is equal to Nazism, simply because it was used by the Nazi's.

There is no such thing as race in the Scriptures.

Not in the modern Western sense, no. The Bible is, however, fiercely nationalistic and (especially the Torah / Pentateuch / first five books of the OT) biased against non-Hebrew people. All analogies break down at some point, but the god of the Bible is similar to my hypothetical dictator in that he shows favoritism to some people and abuse to others for capricious and arbitrary reasons.

Though some people find favor in Adonai's sight, prior to Israel leaving Eygpt, there was no favored nation. Then Adonai chose to make a nation of the mixed multitude that left Egypt to be a light to the nations.

Regarding favoritism on the part of a deity, it may appear arbitrary to humans, but it need not be arbitrary in reality.

That's a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

You admit they appear arbitrary. What evidence is there that these distinctions aren't arbitrary? What possible coherent criteria could the Biblical god be using to determine between people he loves / is kind to and those he hates / abuses? Also, the Bible itself appears to claim that these distinctions are, in fact, arbitrary:

I admit that it CAN appear arbitrary. Appeals to ignorance are fallacious when they are used to prove a point. It is you who is proposing that Adonai's choices are arbitrary. Let's look at what you present as proof.

9 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

God’s Sovereign Choice
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.� 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.�[c]

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.�[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.�[e]

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.�[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.�[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?� 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’�[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,�
26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’�[j]
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.�[k]
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.�[l]
Israel’s Unbelief
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.�

Given the lack of a plausible reason for distinction and the presence of Biblical verses suggesting God's choices are arbitrary, the burden of proof for demonstrating they aren't capricious or arbitrary lies on you.

The reasons for distinction are Adonai's purposes and grace. The passage does not suggest that Adonai's choices are arbitrary. That is what you infer.

A. These are the things that were put under Isreal's charge, when they were chosen to be an example to the nations. The point is that even though these things do not assure one a place in heaven, they are the means by which Adonai has revealed His ways for man, for which we should be grateful.

B. & C. Adonai promised Yitzchak beforehand and it is through the son of The Promise that the Promise comes. So, this is not arbitrary, but by design at Adonai's appointed time. Also, it is not the fact that he was born of Avraham, but The Promise of Adonai regarding the birth that made it significant. Thus, the birth of Yitzchak reinforces The Promise of Adonai and establishes the means by which it will be revealed.

D. & E. Again to reinforce the concept that it is The Promise and not heredity, Adonai tells Sarah beforehand that the older will serve the younger and that is how it is. Not arbitrary, but by design to establish The Promise.

F. & G. The purpose of this is not to show that Adonai is arbitrary, but to show that He is not beholding to man. The story of Pharoah is used as an example. Adonai had no obligation to Pharaoh. It was not arbitrary that a Pharaoh that knew not Yoseph came to power. It came to be so that Adonai could show Himself to be the Deity and that the others were no deities at all.

H. "That's not fair.", one might say. However, what is the standard by which fairness is judged? What makes one standard just and another arbitrary? Isn't it one's prospective. Therefore, from the prospective of Adonai's people, Adonai's ways for man are just.

I, J, K, L This is a couplet that differentiates Adonai's people from those through whom His will is revealed. Adonai's ways were reveled through both Pharoah and the children of Israel. However, it is not just the children of Israel who were chosen to be Adonai's people, for it was a mixed multitude that left Egypt. So, it is not those called the nation of Israel that are Adonai's people, but those of The Promise, even if they are not of the nation of Israel, who are Adonai's people. This will be acknowledged in Israel and those of Israel who do not acknowledge The Promise, are not children of The Promise. If there were not those of Israel who did acknowledge The Promise, then Israel would not exist. So, It is not arbitrary, but it ia based on Adonai's ways and His Promise.

Kind is a broad value judgment not a philosophical adjective.

Of course. What we call "kind" isn't based in any type of objective reality, but in our own sentiments. Kindness doesn't exist outside of the language, minds, and cultures of those who believe in and practice it. It's not a feature of the universe.

This is classic gnosticism. Therefore, it is of no use in discussion, but only as a means of self justification.

Regarding your assessment of Adonai, that is the humanist prospective.

Yes, it is (sort of -- I'm not a true humanist but a sentientist for reasons I'll explain later in this post). Why is that a problem? Is there any evidence for a system of objective morality, or even a system of morality that is more functional for sentient beings?

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it. It is just not Adonai's prospective. Why is Adonai obligated to what is functional for what man defines as "sentient beings"?

A deity that is subject to the truly arbitrary standard of human kindness would be no deity at all, but just a lapdog of humanity.

The problem for your deity is that the writers of the Bible claim that he is kind (Psalm 36:7, Romans 2:4, Titus 3:4), so if he in fact isn't, that makes him self-contradictory.

Tis is precisely what I am talking about. Those passages are not talking about an arbitrary standard of human kindness.

Ps. 36:7 We see the same term (Checed) used in verse 10. If that loving kindness is extended to all humans, why does it say, vs. 10 "O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart." That makes the Checed of Adonai selective, not arbitrary. Checed is just a loving desire, whether it is appropriate or not depends on the object of that desire, as we see in Lev. 20:17 "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing(Checed); and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people * : he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity." Adonai's Checed toward His people is indeed good. However, man's Checed is not always good.

Romans 2:4 is speaking of the goodness of Adonai to all men in that knowledge of Him is available. However, taking this as a justification that Adonai is obligated to be kind to all men in other areas is argument by extension, a common fallacy, ie if I give someone a cookie that does not mean that I must them give them milk.

Titus 3:4 Yes, Adonai has been philanthropic toward mankind in that he has shown grace to some, who did not deserve it. However, again this philanthropy does not obligate Him to abide by kindness as the defined by the language, minds, and cultures of those that you believe embody kindness.

Sorry about the font size, I don't know where that came from. I meant to bold continue and that is what happened.

That said, what is it that makes "pro-kindness secularists" egalitarian? How is it kind to treat people with vastly different makeups equally?

You're confusing equality with equity. I (and other "pro-kindness" / justice / etc. secularists) believe in an equitable state of affairs for sentient beings, not absolute equality.

Who decides what is equitable?

Also, calling for equal treatment for only humans, is being just as capricious, arbitrary, biased. Why is the mentally disabled person treated as an equal to other humans, while a more intelligent ape is denied such equal treatment?

That would be biased, but that isn't my position. I believe in the equitable treatment for all sentient beings, not just humans (that's why I'm a vegan and animal rights advocate). I don't think the mentally disabled human should be treated better than a more intelligent ape; to do so would be speciesist bigotry. I support equal rights for all persons* (according to the philosophical definition)--this definition would include the vast majority of humans, other apes, dolphins, and elephants, among other self-aware animals--and just, kind treatment for all sentient animals. I'm against the meat industry and experiments on apes for this reason.

You mean equitable rights not equal rights, correct? Also, I presume that you are an urban or at least suburban individual, because, unless one has a rather vague definition of equitable, that would be hard to maintain in a wilderness area. Animals do not really share your views and tend to be quite speciesist, especially apes.

bluethread wrote:

I have my own reasons for this unequal treatment, but what is the reason proposed by "kind atheism" or "pro-kindness secularists"?

There is no justifiable reason for this unequal treatment.

No, you just admitted that mental capacity justifies unequal treatment, ie the intelligent ape verses the mentally disabled human. Now, if you mean equitable, you need to say equitable. Using the term equal conveys a different concept.