Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?

[gomtuu77]

This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death).  I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.

1. What on earth is 'outworking [sic] of atheism'? Is this going to be a 'but hitler was an atheist!!!!!!!!!11!1!1111!1!1!1!1!10!!!' retort?
2. If you LUARKED MOAR you'd see nobody takes Xero seriously, not even himself.

No, atheism is a materialist philosophy.  As such, it cannot support genuine objective morality.  In that sense, there is no real or genuine constraint on behavior.  Tyranny tends to be the natural outworking of atheism as a result.  It doesn't always happen immediately, but it does happen eventually.  Essentially it is a rationalization used to free human nature to act more fully and freely upon humanity.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This has been the natural outworking of atheism (i.e. tyranny and eventual death).  I'm not surprised to see these kinds of questions asked and seriously considered.

1. What on earth is 'outworking [sic] of atheism'? Is this going to be a 'but hitler was an atheist!!!!!!!!!11!1!1111!1!1!1!1!10!!!' retort?
2. If you LUARKED MOAR you'd see nobody takes Xero seriously, not even himself.

No, atheism is a materialist philosophy.  As such, it cannot support genuine objective morality.  In that sense, there is no real or genuine constraint on behavior.  Tyranny tends to be the natural outworking of atheism as a result.  It doesn't always happen immediately, but it does happen eventually.  Essentially it is a rationalization used to free human nature to act more fully and freely upon humanity.

Verbose irrlevencies galore.

Atheism is not a philosophy, its a stance on a claim, a default stance in fact.

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.

So, to conclude, you're talking out of your rear end.

[gomtuu77]

Verbose irrlevencies galore.

Atheism is not a philosophy, its a stance on a claim, a default stance in fact.

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.

So, to conclude, you're talking out of your rear end.

Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God.  It is not a lack of belief, as a mere lack of something wouldn't constitute a stance.  The recent cowardice of the atheist position, defining itself into a kind of agnosticism, rather than an affirmative statement is kind of off-putting.  I understand why it's done, but it really shouldn't be.  Atheism is typically supported by way of a materialist/naturalistic view of the world.  That is what I indicated earlier, and I stand by the statement.  However, you are correct, in that I should have been more precise by saying that it is ungirded by such a philosophy rather than identifying it with the philosophy itself.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Verbose irrlevencies galore.

Atheism is not a philosophy, its a stance on a claim, a default stance in fact.

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.

So, to conclude, you're talking out of your rear end.

Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God.  It is not a lack of belief, as a mere lack of something wouldn't constitute a stance.  The recent cowardice of the atheist position, defining itself into a kind of agnosticism, rather than an affirmative statement is kind of off-putting.  I understand why it's done, but it really shouldn't be.  Atheism is typically supported by way of a materialist/naturalistic view of the world.  That is what I indicated earlier, and I stand by the statement.  However, you are correct, in that I should have been more precise by saying that it is ungirded by such a philosophy rather than identifying it with the philosophy itself.

So much wrong, in so short a paragraph.

I actively disbelieve in the abrahamic version of god because its self-defeating (the bible for example is just full of contradictions, as are the multitude of beliefs that people have about the Christian version of god). Although I admit there is a minute possibility of its existence, hence agnostic atheism.

I have no knowledge of every god ever envisioned or indeed that will be envisioned, so how is it possible to actively disbelieve in them all? After all, one of them could be right.

Lack of belief is what I was born with, and its how I've remained all my life. Using your stance, I'd have to be born with an active belief in all deities and strike them off the list as I grew up. Couldn't care less if it's 'off-putting' to you, it is what it is. Deal with it, or don't, doesn't affect my lack of belief in all deities one bit ;)

In a word, nonsense.

[Hydra009]

Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God.

*goes from a huge negative to a huge negative in scientific notation*

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Atheism is an affirmation of the non-existence of God.

[ Image ]

*goes from a huge negative to a huge negative in scientific notation*

I get the feeling this guy is just here to take us for a ride.

[Hydra009]

I get the feeling this guy is just here to take us for a ride.

Was there ever any doubt?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I get the feeling this guy is just here to take us for a ride.

Was there ever any doubt?

True. Did you read the origin of morality thread?

Barrel of laughs, this one.

[Shiranu]

Yes, you could say atheism "naturally" progresses into immorality (or rather, subjective morality) and violence. The same would have to be said of theism then; the morality of the theist is subjective to the culture and beliefs of the individual theist rather than an objective morality that is found in the religion. This is made obvious by the fact that no two theists have the exact same code of moral conduct just as no atheists have the exact same code of moral conduct.

Therefor I see little reason to believe that theism or the lack of belief, atheism, has anything to do with the "natural" progression into subjective morality but rather all morality is subjective by nature. Even the most devout make their own choices on morality or follow what is accepted amongst their culture.

And no, atheism has not turned into agnosticism; atheism is either the denial OR the lack of belief in a deity.

[gomtuu77]

So much wrong, in so short a paragraph.

I actively disbelieve in the abrahamic version of god because its self-defeating (the bible for example is just full of contradictions, as are the multitude of beliefs that people have about the Christian version of god). Although I admit there is a minute possibility of its existence, hence agnostic atheism.

I have no knowledge of every god ever envisioned or indeed that will be envisioned, so how is it possible to actively disbelieve in them all? After all, one of them could be right.

Lack of belief is what I was born with, and its how I've remained all my life. Using your stance, I'd have to be born with an active belief in all deities and strike them off the list as I grew up. Couldn't care less if it's 'off-putting' to you, it is what it is. Deal with it, or don't, doesn't affect my lack of belief in all deities one bit ;)

In a word, nonsense.

So then you agree that the Christian God could exist?  Since you simply lack that particular belief, it's still possible that He exists?  You just lack the belief that He exists for your various reasons.  Is that right?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So much wrong, in so short a paragraph.

I actively disbelieve in the abrahamic version of god because its self-defeating (the bible for example is just full of contradictions, as are the multitude of beliefs that people have about the Christian version of god). Although I admit there is a minute possibility of its existence, hence agnostic atheism.

I have no knowledge of every god ever envisioned or indeed that will be envisioned, so how is it possible to actively disbelieve in them all? After all, one of them could be right.

Lack of belief is what I was born with, and its how I've remained all my life. Using your stance, I'd have to be born with an active belief in all deities and strike them off the list as I grew up. Couldn't care less if it's 'off-putting' to you, it is what it is. Deal with it, or don't, doesn't affect my lack of belief in all deities one bit ;)

In a word, nonsense.

So then you agree that the Christian God could exist?  Since you simply lack that particular belief, it's still possible that He exists?  You just lack the belief that He exists for your various reasons.  Is that right?

it's right there in black and white (or blue).

I disbelieve in the Christian version of god (the many millions of them) because of the contradictions inherent with belief (as contained within the bible and official/personal dogmas). But yes, 'it' (undefined, unevidenced) could exist, but the lack of any sort of coherent evidence is enough for me to not believe in it (and when I say it, I refer to all the billions of versions of it as every believer has their own interpretation of what their god looks like/does/'is').

I was born without any belief in a deity and have remained so my entire life.

[gomtuu77]

Yes, you could say atheism "naturally" progresses into immorality (or rather, subjective morality) and violence. The same would have to be said of theism then; the morality of the theist is subjective to the culture and beliefs of the individual theist rather than an objective morality that is found in the religion. This is made obvious by the fact that no two theists have the exact same code of moral conduct just as no atheists have the exact same code of moral conduct.

Therefor I see little reason to believe that theism or the lack of belief, atheism, has anything to do with the "natural" progression into subjective morality but rather all morality is subjective by nature. Even the most devout make their own choices on morality or follow what is accepted amongst their culture.

And no, atheism has not turned into agnosticism; atheism is either the denial OR the lack of belief in a deity.

I agree in part.  However, one's understanding of how to apply the moral law and the objective existence of the moral law are two different things.  And regardless of the particular cultural socializations that bring in various levels of cultural subjectivity regarding morality, it is still possible to establish the existence of real standards supported by the moral law and the corresponding suppositions or expositions of the religion itself.  As such, it is also possible to establish that departures from those standards are contraventions of what the religious text itself and founder of the religion taught.  No such contravention can genuinely exist, in the objective sense, with regard to atheism supported by materialism because objective morality doesn't exist at all within a materialist framework.

Therefor I see little reason to believe that theism or the lack of belief, atheism, has anything to do with the "natural" progression into subjective morality but rather all morality is subjective by nature. Even the most devout make their own choices on morality or follow what is accepted amongst their culture.

And no, atheism has not turned into agnosticism; atheism is either the denial OR the lack of belief in a deity.

This has to with the existence of moral facts, which are different than ordinary facts.  A regular fact might be that my dog, Soldier, eats grass when he goes outside.  In order for that to be a fact, what has to be the case?  It has to have happened or been instantiated in reality at some point.  Moral facts are different because they can tell you the truth about something that has never happened or been instantiated in reality.  For example, if I said that it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun, I would be correct, and I would be correct about that whether it had ever happened before or not.  This is not the case within Atheism, which depends on materialism or naturalism for the development of morality, assuming the atheist isn't comfortable with morality essentially being identical with preference or taste.  Materialism cannot produce this because for morality to develop within a materialist framework, the actions has to have occurred in reality, probably many times, for a significant and tough or solid moral guideline to prevail.  Does that make sense?

[gomtuu77]

it's right there in black and white (or blue).

I disbelieve in the Christian version of god (the many millions of them) because of the contradictions inherent with belief (as contained within the bible and official/personal dogmas). But yes, 'it' (undefined, unevidenced) could exist, but the lack of any sort of coherent evidence is enough for me to not believe in it (and when I say it, I refer to all the billions of versions of it as every believer has their own interpretation of what their god looks like/does/'is').

I was born without any belief in a deity and have remained so my entire life.

I see we've made the subtle shift from mere lack of belief to active disbelief.  Interesting.  You disbelieve in the Christian God or do not believe the Christian God exists.  Hmmmmm...I think that's essentially what I said earlier.  It's not merely a lack of belief, but it's an active affirmation of the Christian God's non-existence, at least from your perspective and on the basis of your information or lack of same.

[Shiranu]

However, one's understanding of how to apply the moral law and the objective existence of the moral law are two different things.

Perhaps, but if no one knows the objective moral law and the means of determining it are beyond the realm of science then it is practically useless. This is what religion proposes; an unconfirmable deity that exists beyond the realm of human understanding made objective rules that he, and only he, is going to be able to understand or ever know... what good is it then?

And if this is the case, then could one not also say that god is following his own subjective morality as well, and the only reason we should believe it to be objective is because he is more powerful than us? Objective morality therefor is nothing more than "might makes right.".

... it is still possible to establish the existence of real standards supported by the moral law and the corresponding suppositions or expositions of the religion itself.

Do tell how this is done. Religion is full of contradictory moral statements; do not kill one another, kill the Canaanites; do not be an adulterer, rape the unmarried women of a conquered nation; love one another as you love yourself, believe they should spend eternity in unimaginable agony for disagreeing with you.

One must cherry-pick if one is to find any sort of morality from any religious text; Jesus said he did not come to replace the old law, Mohammad said both really good and really terrible things... the closest religion to being "moral" by today's standards would be the likes of Jainism and Buddhism and even they get things wrong.

So again, even if there is an objective morality to be found in religion, it is meaningless because we do not know which bits are and which bits aren't. And the bits we do find moral oddly enough coincide with what we find to be moral as a society.

 

For example, if I said that it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun, I would be correct, and I would be correct about that whether it had ever happened before or not.

Why are you correct, though? I completely agree it is terrible thanks to my code of ethics, but there is no objective truth telling me this is wrong. The baby will live, the baby will die; the torturer will live, the torturer will die. The Earth will keep on spinning until it doesn't, the sun will keep on burning until it stops and the universe will exist until it doesn't. There is no cosmic punishment for breaking the objective rules, there is no punishment at all outside of society agreeing that the torturer broke the commonly accepted code of conduct. What is the point then of an objective morality if it is neither knowable nor enforced?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

it's right there in black and white (or blue).

I disbelieve in the Christian version of god (the many millions of them) because of the contradictions inherent with belief (as contained within the bible and official/personal dogmas). But yes, 'it' (undefined, unevidenced) could exist, but the lack of any sort of coherent evidence is enough for me to not believe in it (and when I say it, I refer to all the billions of versions of it as every believer has their own interpretation of what their god looks like/does/'is').

I was born without any belief in a deity and have remained so my entire life.

I see we've made the subtle shift from mere lack of belief to active disbelief.  Interesting.  You disbelieve in the Christian God or do not believe the Christian God exists.  Hmmmmm...I think that's essentially what I said earlier.  It's not merely a lack of belief, but it's an active affirmation of the Christian God's non-existence, at least from your perspective and on the basis of your information or lack of same.

There's nothing subtle about it, and its not Christian god centric. Nobody here cares about the Christian god in whatever form people believe it takes because its just as unevidenced as every other deity ever proposed.

I beseech you to read what people are writing to you. Having a lack of belief in deities (the default position from birth) is my position on every deity proposed. I can easily reject the claims of theists (including but not exclusively Christians) about their version of whatever god they worship because they are always self-defeating or contradictory, and always backed up by precisely zero evidence.

So yes, active disbelief on claims that are found wanting (still open to the possibility of being proven wrong) lack of belief of the concept of a god because I have no concept of one, mainly due to not knowing every god that can and/or will be proposed and/or evidenced. This has been pointed out previously to you but you ignored it for some reason, probably owing to your lack of intellectual integrity that you've displayed on other threads.

It's simple. Atheism, if anything, is pragmatism. The exact antithesis of theism.