C-notes

 
A contributor to Freethought blogs has commented on a post of mine:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2012/07/02/sodomy-christianity-and-atheism/

He starts off with a limerick which supposedly represents my argument:

It’s God’s love that gives you meaning

It’s God’s love that gives you worth

But I didn’t use that argument. What gives our existence worth or meaning is not, in the first instance, God’s love, but the fact that God made us. We are creatures of a wise Creator.

At the same time, the love of God makes a difference to our future fulfillment.

Isn’t it ironic–don’t ya think? Of course, a hundred dollar bill has no intrinsic value, either; the value it has is the value we have given it. We make our own worth; anyone who can watch children playing and only think they have worth if some supernatural entity bestows it on them, is doing it wrong.

So he’s comparing homosexuals to c-notes. He’s granting that, if atheism is true, then homosexuals have no intrinsic worth. Rather, homosexuals are worth as much or as little as society assigns to them, or they assign to themselves. Hence, he’s conceded the first part of my argument. According to atheism, homosexuals are inherently worthless.  Doesn’t strike me as a very promising way to begin his counterargument.

Homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the population. What if the majority decides to turn them into dog food? What if society values pets more highly than sodomites? Is that wrong? But if the value they have is the value we give them, what if we value them for dog food?

He then brings up children at play. Children are valuable if we value them. Like c-notes.

Of course, in times of hyperinflation, c-notes are pretty worthless. It takes a wheelbarrow full of c-notes to buy a loaf of bread.

We make our own worth, he says. So what if I value my children, but I don’t value yours? What if I’m a schoolyard sniper? I go to a playground and pick off screaming kids with my rifle. Is that wrong?

By contrast, consider the Christian viewpoint. Instead of comparing human beings to c-notes, suppose we compare them to da Vinci paintings. The painting has both inherent and derivative value. Because da Vinci is a genius, a da Vinci painting exemplifies his genius. He transmits some of his genius to the painting. The painting is great because it participates in the greatness of the painter.

So lemme get this right. Christians, who believe that “homosexuals do have intrinsic worth”, are the ones leading the charge to deny them the status of equals. (No, not all Christians, of course.)

Well, that’s illogical. Equal worth doesn’t entail equal treatment. An arsonist and an army nurse have the same inherent human worth. That doesn’t mean the arsonist is entitled to the same treatment as the nurse.  The nurse cares for wounded soldiers, whereas the arsonist maliciously destroys the livelihood and keepsakes of others.

Atheists, who believe that “no one has intrinsic value”, are the ones treating people as people.

But how does “treating people like people” imply treating them as “equals” if, by his own admission, people only have whatever value we give them? Why should I treat them equally unless I value them equally? And why should I value them equally unless they have intrinsic value?

These loving Christian bloggers, right in the title of the post, take their intrinsically worthy fellow human beings and reduce them to one aspect of behavior…

Homosexual activists define themselves by their homosexual identity. By their homosexual proclivities and activities.

On a day when Anderson Cooper’s low-key coming-out gives one more example illustrating the accepting attitude of the majority of Christians, the writers of this blog paint themselves into a smaller and smaller corner, facing the wrong way.

And what makes Anderson Cooper special? The fact that he’s a celebrity? What makes a celebrity more important than anyone else?

And how did he get to be a celebrity? He’s the son of a celebrity. The son of a famous American heiress and social butterfly. Derivative celebrity. Does that confer special worth on Anderson Cooper? What if you’re just a farm boy or a waitress? How does that rate?

BTW, was Anderson Cooper born homosexual? Or is his sexual identity confusion a reflection of his troubled youth? The fact that his father died when he was boy, his brother committed suicide, and his mother is a rich vapid socialite?

These christian bloggers offer them an imaginary afterlife, in exchange for the freedom to treat them as second-class citizens today.

So what’s wrong with treating them as second-class citizens? By his own yardstick, they are only worth as much or little as we impute to them.

Cuttlefish is a good example of an apostate who doesn’t think–he simply reacts.