You will bow before me!

Following in the same vein of this previous post, the Former Fundy, Dr Ken Pulliam, is now attempting to simply define his way into moral justification.  It's easy, apparently.  Just assert, w/o argument (or by reference to an obscure book, in this case written by one Audi) that your view is "self-evident", and you're golden.  Let's see how it all plays out, when I pretend to assert w/o argument the opposite view.


Dr Pulliam,
There are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs.

No no, I do understand that.  The purpose of my reductio is to demonstrate the emptiness of your ipse dixit.
See, *I* say that "rape is morally compulsory" is in fact that which is self-evident.  You are mistaken in thinking that "rape is morally wrong" is self-evident.  And I have a whole bunch of people, both in prison (those who are being oppressed by the oppressive majority) and out of prison (who take their stand against The Man) behind me.


If your intuition tells you that rape is good, then you are a socio-path who will wind up in prison.

I knew it.  Your view reduces to might makes right.
Plus, this has nothing to say about the morality of rape.  Now you're just telling about what you'd prefer to do to someone who violates your preferences.
See, if I can gain enough power, then I can make the same category error as you and start saying that rape is morally compulsory.  Since I have the power.
This is the problem with your human-centered and human-based moral system.



There are always exceptions but the near unanimous opinion of man is that rape is wrong

The near-unanimous opinion of human societies throughout human history have not been atheistic.  If you don't respect counting noses at all times, I don't see why this isn't an exception too.


Hume's guilliotine does not work against foundationalism

It does until you can make some real connection between what you intuit and what is normative and prescriptive outside yourself, and why.



you should be able to make a real name for yourself by refuting Audi.

Right, just like I'd make a real name for myself in refuting evolution.  Those things aren't quite as simple as you make them out to be, sir.


Now, I've noticed, BTW, a post by a none-too-bright commenter in the same thread by the name of Geds

S/he apparently has no idea that when s/he said:

I self-identify as a feminist. My argument is this: women are people, ergo they deserve to be treated like people and not objects.

And I responded:

1) Prove the ergo. I'd encourage you to read up on Hume's Guillotine. I've been bringing it up for several threads now, and nobody's touched it. Not even Dr Pulliam, who, as a PhD holder shouldn't be afraid to delve into a little elementary philosophy. how does IS imply OUGHT?

2) My argument is this: atheist women are not people, ergo they deserve to be treated like objects and not like real people. And any ideology that says otherwise should be resisted. Prove me wrong.

that I was engaging in an internal critique, a hypothetical, a thought-experiment. Geds really thinks that I think that atheist women are not real people!  Geds also apparently thinks that I somehow thought that the Atheist Experience was going to let me run their show during an April Fools' prank a couple of years ago.  Yeah, not so much.  Anyway, unfortunately Geds represents the majority of American voters' thought level.  Now I'm all depressed...