Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?

[Smartmarzipan]

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.

No, it's merely a lack of belief in deities. Different atheists have many different and varied philosophies of life and everything else.

As such, it cannot support genuine objective morality. In that sense, there is no real or genuine constraint on behavior.  

You think that because many atheists consider morality subjective they can't have genuine ideals or ethics by which to guide their lives? What do you consider "genuine", anyway?  I live by a real and genuine code of ethics. I have something called integrity and I follow my own morality out of a desire to be a good person because I've found it is a better way to live.  I don't need an absolute system or a holy book to create my own rules for myself and follow them, and that doesn't make them any less genuine.  

Tyranny tends to be the natural outworking of atheism as a result.

I don't understand this sentence.

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.

I don't quite get this, either. Freeing humanity to act freely creates....tyranny?

Maybe you should clear up what you're trying to say.

[Hydra009]

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?

See that?  That's why I don't like agnostic atheism.  Because every time you say that you don't believe in any gods but haven't completely ruled them out, every idiot god-peddler in 100 leagues interprets as an admission that their God might exist as if the possibility weren't remote bordering on nonexistent and that you're indicating that you're open to conversion sans evidence.

That and no one's similarly agnostic about fairies or ghosts or gremlins or unicorns.  Those things simply don't exist.  Period.  There's no hedging.  There's no debate.  Why one fantasy gets treated any differently than the next seems strange and strikes me as motivated in humoring the majority and skirting the incessant "How do you know there isn't a God?" questions.  (It's also a little bit odd that the people who ask those sorts of epistemological questions rarely ask them of their own pastors and fellow believers.  Almost as if they don't care about the question itself except as a gotcha for ideological opponents)

[the_antithesis]

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

What's a god?

[Colanth]

Atheism is an affirmation

Wrong, it's lack of belief in gods.

of the non-existence of God.

Wrong.  It addresses all gods, not just your particular one.

It is not a lack of belief

That's ALL it is.

as a mere lack of something wouldn't constitute a stance.

Which is why atheism isn't a stance.

The recent cowardice of the atheist position, defining itself into a kind of agnosticism

Agnosticism deals with making statements, not with belief.

rather than an affirmative statement is kind of off-putting.

Boo hoo.  Do you really think we care whether you're put off by our lack of belief?

We define what we are.  You get to accept that definition or you get to look like a fool who wants so desperately to 'win' that he has to redefine words.

I understand why it's done

Then why this post, that declares that you don't?

Atheism is typically supported by way of a materialist/naturalistic view of the world.

Atheism is solely "supported" by "I don't believe in any gods".  It's the theistic stance that requires support, not the refusal to accept it.  All seemingly nonsensical stances that are presented without evidence are rejected - by default.  Religion is just one such.

So then you agree that the Christian God could exist?

Some god, depending on your definition of the word, might exist.  But a god that's defined as to be self-contradictory, or impossible?  No, such a god can't exist.  (And the Christian god is both.)

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?

No, for only 2 reasons, basically.  1) There's never been any objective evidence that any god has ever objectively existed and 2) there's no need for any god for any reason.

But if some god did exist it would be a pretty trivial one.  (For example, it's not possible for an entity that exists to create all that exists, if that's one of the properties of your god.  Either the god can't exist or it couldn't have created everything that does.  Or you're into special pleading, which is merely a convoluted way of tipping your king over.)

[Colanth]

it is still possible to establish the existence of real standards supported by the moral law

That's where you're wrong.  Even assuming that morality comes from your god, it comes either from:

God himself, arbitrarily deciding what's moral and what's not moral - rendering it subjective, not objective
or
Someplace outside of God, making it not come from him.  (He'd be only the messenger.)

But this discussion is like your claiming that lightning is God throwing his wrath at us, when we actually know what lightning is and what causes it.  We know what morality is and we know what causes it.  And morality doesn't need gods any more than lightning does.  God-given objective morality is just one more gap that your god-of-the-gaps no longer lives in.  (It seems that the only places he lives, and the only thing rational Christians can call on him for, any more are things we don't have answers to.  And we're getting more and more answers every day - making his hiding place smaller all the time.)

assuming the atheist isn't comfortable with morality essentially being identical with preference or taste.

It's not preference or taste, it's what works.  A society in which theft is permissible is a society that won't last very long, since there's no reason to do much.  So only societies in which theft is at least frowned upon succeed.

Study evolution.  Morality flourishes for the same reason that there aren't many hairless Polar bears - what works, works and what doesn't work ceases.

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?

Aside from the first sentence, yes.  Morality DOES develop over time.  You keep saying "this thing that happened can't possibly happen."  You can say it until the end of time, but it won't suddenly start appearing to be less foolish.  Behe was shown to be a fool a long time ago, but you're doing the same thing.  Sometimes a piece of wood is just a piece of wood.

[Colanth]

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.

I'm an atheist.  The fact that I find coffee ice cream disgusting doesn't mean that atheism is disliking coffee ice cream.  And if I actively believed that god can't exist, that would have as little to do with atheism as ice cream does.

Or can't you see the difference between "X is defined as Y" and "most people who are X are also Z"?

[Special B]

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.

Atheism is on the rise, now more than ever. It is in no danger of dying. Atheism is actually a contrast to tyranny, not a cause of it.

The questions posed in the topic post have not been seriously considered and are rejected by the vast majority of atheists, including ones in this thread.

You are wrong on both counts. Stay in school, kiddo.