Will the U.S. ever have an athiest/agnostic president?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Guys, Tassadar5000's point isn't that atheists can't be nice people or that they're always serial killers or mean or anything like that.

His point is that their actions cannot be considered objectively good in the absence of God. They may be actions that help people or benefit the world and such, but that does not necessarily make them good from the standpoint of the universal moral system that rules the universe, which he believes can only come from God.

Btw, I have no idea if this is actually his point, but it should be.

Its still bulshlt though.

Spec.

[Cort Haus]

Re: Will the U.S. ever have an athiest/agnostic president?

Originally posted by Spec
Religion is dying.

Yeah, right,

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Spec
Its still bulshlt though.

Spec.

No, it's not.

Atheists and agnostics and such can invent ethical systems that are just as effective as the moral systems of religionists, but in the end those systems are just that - inventions. They're just something people made up. They don't necessarily have any intrinsic value in the grand scheme of things.

Things can only have value if they can be measured, and things can only be measured from the outside - from an objective viewpoint. This means that any morality pertaining to the human race or to the universe itself must come from beyond the universe - God.

(These are not my beliefs.)

[Spec]

Re: Re: Will the U.S. ever have an athiest/agnostic president?

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Yeah, right,

Dude, we are talking about the U.S.

The "WEST" as you guys often refer to it.

Religion IS dying here.

Spec.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Lorizael


No, it's not.

Atheists and agnostics and such can invent ethical systems that are just as effective as the moral systems of religionists, but in the end those systems are just that - inventions. They're just something people made up. They don't necessarily have any intrinsic value in the grand scheme of things.

Things can only have value if they can be measured, and things can only be measured from the outside - from an objective viewpoint. This means that any morality pertaining to the human race or to the universe itself must come from beyond the universe - God.

(These are not my beliefs.)

I still call bs.
Any sane person knows the difference between good and bad.

You dont need God to know that.

EDIT: Would be a good excuse in court though. Sorry M. Judge, I didn't know I couldn't do that, I am an atheist.

Spec.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Guys, Tassadar5000's point isn't that atheists can't be nice people or that they're always serial killers or mean or anything like that.

His point is that their actions cannot be considered objectively good in the absence of God. They may be actions that help people or benefit the world and such, but that does not necessarily make them good from the standpoint of the universal moral system that rules the universe, which he believes can only come from God.

Btw, I have no idea if this is actually his point, but it should be.

The bolded portion of your last sentence was correct. Not sure about the rest of it.

He did after all say "if there isn't a God, why should you act moral" - which refers to choice of actions and their consequences rather than an abstract notion of a "universal moral system that rules the universe ... from God".

However, since we've been reliably informed that Tass's post was that supposed pinnacle of intellectual accomplishment, a troll, the whole thing becomes somewhat moot.

Presumably it could be argued, Zael, that you were meta-trolling the original troll, which would presumably be a contribution so cunningly clever as to completely break the clever-o-meter.

[Lorizael]

You're failing to see the difference between the built-in, biological imperatives that drive human actions and a universal moral system. A universal moral system doesn't necessarily have anything to do with humans, so the intuitive sense of right and wrong that humans have may not be applicable.

For example, if the ultimate purpose of the universe is to produce a galaxy-sized kettle of tea, and all good and bad are dervied from actions that either help or hinder that objective, then a human's intuitive sense that stealing is wrong and murder is bad are completely irrelevant.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Lorizael
For example, if the ultimate purpose of the universe is to produce a galaxy-sized kettle of tea

What a wonderful image that conjures up.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Lorizael
You're failing to see the difference between the built-in, biological imperatives that drive human actions and a universal moral system. A universal moral system doesn't necessarily have anything to do with humans, so the intuitive sense of right and wrong that humans have may not be applicable.

For example, if the ultimate purpose of the universe is to produce a galaxy-sized kettle of tea, and all good and bad are dervied from actions that either help or hinder that objective, then a human's intuitive sense that stealing is wrong and murder is bad are completely irrelevant.

Sure, if you are not rational, or without a conscience. A wild animal.

If you steal something from someone, you hurt him. As soon as you hurt someone for your own gain and not survival, its a bad action. Everyone knows that deep down, and no one needs a god or a universal moral system (AKA brainwashing) to know this, only a conscience/instinct. Feelings are what humans are made of.

When you act to survive and hurt someone, you have little to no remorse, when its for your own gain, you feel bad inside. The difference between good or bad.

Dont get me wrong, I understand your point, but I still call bs on it.

Spec.

[Arrian]

"Ever" is a long time. Yes, then.

But not anytime soon.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Er, but why do you call bull**** on it? You're not getting past the point that people don't necessarily matter in the long run. Pain and life and all of that stuff may be thoroughly inconsequential. Sure, they matter to us, but they may not matter to anything that is objectively important.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Er, but why do you call bull**** on it? You're not getting past the point that people don't necessarily matter in the long run. Pain and life and all of that stuff may be thoroughly inconsequential. Sure, they matter to us, but they may not matter to anything that is objectively important.

I call bs on the fact that you need god or a moral system to know right from wrong.

Spec.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
He did after all say "if there isn't a God, why should you act moral" - which refers to choice of actions and their consequences rather than an abstract notion of a "universal moral system that rules the universe ... from God".

He didn't say that atheists make all the wrong choices in the absence of God. He's just saying that atheists have no (good) reason why they should make the right choices in the absence of God.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Spec
I call bs on the fact that you need god or a moral system to know right from wrong.

That isn't what he's arguing though. He's saying that what we think as right or wrong is irrelevant if the universe is really just a giant experiment to find the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. And tea.

What he's saying is completely irrelevant to the original threadjack, though, which might have been a troll, concerning which your position is quite correct.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
What he's saying is completely irrelevant to the original threadjack, though, which might have been a troll, concerning which your position is quite correct.