oh well – could have been an interesting discussion.

The irony here is that you’ve not yet indicated why my comments are actually bigoted or offensive – apart from accusing me of saying the opposite of what I did say (see comments 14 & 15).

Clearly you’ve not understood the very comment you seem to be so insulted by. I would think discussion of that comment would be the most rational next course. In anticipation of that next course, I’ve layed out fairly clearly what I’m saying and NOT saying (comment 21), but you appear more interested in fighting than discussing.

Whenever you’re prepared to discuss the issue, please do so. Otherwise, we’re not getting anywhere.

I am in the position of the coloured South Africa. When faced with bigotry I am not going to “discuss it”. I am going to fight against it.

To do otherwise is to lose my dignity.

1: I can wait
2: yep, those scenaros are exactly parallel. (cough)

But, for you to chew on until next week, allow me to hopefully bring further clarity to what I’m saying and what I’m not saying.

First, on “consistency with moral/ethical framework”:
I AM NOT saying that atheists don’t construct moral/ethical frameworks (and make moral/ethical judgments of various kinds), just like anyone else does.
I AM saying, however, that I don’t understand how atheists ‘connect the dots’ between their moral/ethical understanding/views about prescriptive ‘goals’/'values’/'principles’ and their prescriptive moral/ethical judgments.

Second, on “prescriptive indifference”:
I AM NOT saying that atheists are unable (i.e. without ability) to make prescriptive moral statements based upon prescriptive moral judgments.
I AM saying that (as far as I know!) atheistic views about the world/’reality’ in general, and about prescriptive goals/values/principles in particular, are such that these prescriptive moral statements/judgments which they make (i.e. ‘Hiter was wrong!’) cannot be said to be anything more than a constructed moral/ethical opinion – just like anyone else’s constructed moral/ethical opinion (including, i.e., the constructed moral/ethical opinion that ‘Hitler was right’ – or ‘Hitler? who cares?’ for that matter).

After all that, I’ll reiterate that these remain comments which seek to discuss moral/ethical theory and its practical, down-to-earth, everyday application, as opposed to seeking to demean or degrade Ken Perrot.

1: Because I am out of town till next week.

2: because one usually doesn’t discuss insults. South African racist (1970s) to a coloured person: “You are incapable of governing because you ar black”. Coloured person “That’s an insult. I you prepared to show me some respect and withdraw it.” Racist: “Why not discuss it?”

No wonder the ANC opted for armed struggle in South Africa.

Why not discuss it?

So you withdraw the “prescriptivelu indifferent” charge?

Well you’ve interpreted that (despite the qualifier ‘to my knowledge’ and having signalled ‘if I can say it like this’) in the most anti-Ken way possible.

Again, it is patently obvious, Ken, that I clearly cannot be saying that atheists have an inability to come to various or specific stands on HItler. Atheists of all kinds can and do make moral judgments of all kinds based on moral standards of all kinds – Nowhere have I ever suggested otherwise. I’m not diverting or jelly wrestling, and I’m still baffled at your persistence in being offended. Dare we actually talk about how moral goals/values/principles are derived?? Or more insistence that I’m trying to be a jerk?

Dale: This is what you said:
“Atheism, on the other hand (to my knowledge), has an ethical/moral framework which is (if I can say it like this) “prescriptively indifferent”, and therefore does not prescribe their criticism of Hitler any more (or less) than it prescribes their support of Hitler.”

Now I interpret that as meaning an inability to come to a specific stand on Hitler because the specific moral/ethical framwork does not provide a prescriptive approach to the moral issues involved. My reference to inability is pertaining to making a moral judgement based on moral standards.

This is what I am objecting to. You are trying to divert away from it. I call this jelly wrestling – a common theological tactic.

But in this case your statement is causing personal offense.

It’s an area people should not play theological games in.

Wow, you seem pretty bent on insisting that I get a kick out of being nasty? Quickly, a patently obvious correction:

You are not criticising my views at all. You have not referred to any of my views on Hitler. You have made a bald assertion about my ability to make moral judgements. (emphasis in original)

Yet I wrote the following in the original post (did you forget?): “Clearly, atheists are able to make criticisms of Hitler… …clearly any statement made that atheists are not able to make criticisms of Hitler are [sic] false” (emphasis here)

I have never denied that atheists ‘can’ and ‘do’ make moral judgments, and I have not demeaned or insulted anyone. Discussion of moral justification, anyone? Or shall we continue this needless finger-pointing?

I think you may be reacting to (and/or misunderstanding) the phrase “moral/ethical framework”.

I’m NOT referring to a moral framework as merely a set of opinions or moral judgments. I’m talking about the assumed or reasoned values, goals and moral principles which underlie moral judgments. OF COURSE every person I know has a ‘framework’ in the sense of a set of opinions/judgments… But my post is clearly about what lies beneath.

Discussion? Or more finger pointing!?