• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vote for an atheist president (for religious people)

Would you vote for an atheist president with your views?

  • Yes, I would, his beliefs shouldn't matter

    Votes: 52 89.7%

  • No, he needs to believe in God, even if he agrees with me

    Votes: 6 10.3%
  • Total voters
    58
Ikari said:
Nope, but without intelligence you cannot develop a moral code. Intellect does not guarantee morality, but you cannot have morality without it.
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting question, depending on how much you want to dig in to it. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but here's the other side of that debate.

If one isn't aware that they are acting immorally, are they actually guilty of anything? Throughout legal history (not just in our nation, but around the world) that answer has been "no," and I believe the concept is called "mens rea."

Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put another way, can an animal be immoral? No, animals are blameless of all moral wrongdoing because they're not aware that anything they do is wrong.

Therefore, intelligence is not needed for morality. Intelligence simply imposes a higher burden of morality on us. Since we are aware of right and wrong, we are obligated to do what is right.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
Now that's an interesting question, depending on how much you want to dig in to it. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but here's the other side of that debate.

If one isn't aware that they are acting immorally, are they actually guilty of anything? Throughout legal history (not just in our nation, but around the world) that answer has been "no," and I believe the concept is called "mens rea."

Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put another way, can an animal be immoral? No, animals are blameless of all moral wrongdoing because they're not aware that anything they do is wrong.

Therefore, intelligence is not needed for morality. Intelligence simply imposes a higher burden of morality on us. Since we are aware of right and wrong, we are obligated to do what is right.
Click to expand...

One can say that without concept of morality, one cannot be nor can be a moral creature. It takes the intelligence to know the difference for it to mean anything at all. An animal is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
One can say that without concept of morality, one cannot be nor can be a moral creature. It takes the intelligence to know the difference for it to mean anything at all. An animal is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral.
Click to expand...

That's right. Continuing that line of thought, it follows then that the more intelligent or learned one is, the more they are aware of what is right and what is wrong. The more intelligent one is, the higher the moral burden one bears.

Yet, seeing the difference between right and wrong doesn't imply that they will choose to do what is right.

There is a choice involved as well. How do you define that?
 
lizzie said:
Well, you can if you never question authority, and there are people who do live that way.
Click to expand...
What? To be genuinely moral you must question authority least the authority you are following is not moral. Gosh, that happens all the time.
 
Peter Grimm said:
That's right. Continuing that line of thought, it follows then that the more intelligent or learned one is, the more they are aware of what is right and what is wrong. The more intelligent one is, the higher the moral burden one bears.

Yet, seeing the difference between right and wrong doesn't imply that they will choose to do what is right.

There is a choice involved as well. How do you define that?
Click to expand...
I find your bigoted view of Atheists rude and obnoxiousness. Non-religious people are not robots, we have feelings and morals just like any other human. Your entire assertion is ass backwards primitively archaic and unintelligent in vain of 18th century European people treating other people as savages.

Again our countries forefathers were correct in building an Representative Democracy to curb the bigoted majority.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
What? To be genuinely moral you must question authority least the authority you are following is not moral. Gosh, that happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Not really. Morality is adherence to a set of moral beliefs and principles. There are people who do live a moral life by not questioning the basis for those moral principles. People like this will typically be found in religious institutions, where the guidance of the church and/or the religion is adequate proof to them that morality is important. Others (like myself) are compelled to question and challenge those moral principles, and arrive at an answer as to their validity by questioning, experience, and observation of the results.

They are both moral people, but with different learning methods and different means to acquiring knowledge.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Not really. Morality is adherence to a set of moral beliefs and principles. There are people who do live a moral life by not questioning the basis for those moral principles. People like this will typically be found in religious institutions, where the guidance of the church and/or the religion is adequate proof to them that morality is important.

Others (like myself) are compelled to question and challenge those moral principles, and arrive at an answer as to their validity by questioning, experience, and observation of the results.

They are both moral people, but with different learning methods and different means to acquiring knowledge.
Click to expand...

Needs to be repeated...

Thanks Lizzie..
 
lizzie said:
Not really. Morality is adherence to a set of moral beliefs and principles. There are people who do live a moral life by not questioning the basis for those moral principles. People like this will typically be found in religious institutions, where the guidance of the church and/or the religion is adequate proof to them that morality is important. Others (like myself) are compelled to question and challenge those moral principles, and arrive at an answer as to their validity by questioning, experience, and observation of the results.

They are both moral people, but with different learning methods and different means to acquiring knowledge.
Click to expand...
Thanks for making yourself very clear. And we clearly disagree. (When I thought about this more I realized that the process I use to understand the world is the same as I use in design engineering.) The people you describe as being moral that are followers as you describe are at risk of following leadership into amoral behavior; history if full of examples. So if followers were following leadership and behaving morally; but, then screwed up and followed leadership into amoral behavior, my POV is that they were never moral in the first place.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Thanks for making yourself very clear. And we clearly disagree. (When I thought about this more I realized that the process I use to understand the world is the same as I use in design engineering.) The people you describe as being moral that are followers as you describe are at risk of following leadership into amoral behavior; history if full of examples. So if followers were following leadership and behaving morally; but, then screwed up and followed leadership into amoral behavior, my POV is that they were never moral in the first place.
Click to expand...

They are at risk, no doubt, but the difference lies in the actions of said individual. Morality can clearly be seen by the actions of the individual, and by the way they live their lives. Being at risk does not mean that one will become immoral.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I find your bigoted view of Atheists rude and obnoxiousness. Non-religious people are not robots, we have feelings and morals just like any other human. Your entire assertion is ass backwards primitively archaic and unintelligent in vain of 18th century European people treating other people as savages.

Again our countries forefathers were correct in building an Representative Democracy to curb the bigoted majority.
Click to expand...

QFT. I wish I could like this more than once. I could spot 5 non-sequiturs in his post. How many did you count?
 
41 to 3 that our posters would vote for an athiest president.

This tells us how irrelevant our Christian Right really is. And how a small minority can make a big, huge noise.
 
MaggieD said:
41 to 3 that our posters would vote for an athiest president.

This tells us how irrelevant our Christian Right really is. And how a small minority can make a big, huge noise.
Click to expand...

we don't know how OUR posters responded. i don't like non public polls.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Ever heard of these fellas?
Click to expand...

Oh, yeahhhh...these fellas!

One was a claimed christian...and the others were claimed atheists. The reality is...they were first and foremost mass murders. They were wired psychopaths who would commit the same crimes against humanity no matter what their metaphysical labels or lack there of were.

There is no statistical relationship between atheism and being a psychopath. A number of Popes of the past were mass murders - and some of the first organized crime families, too. In other words...people who are willing to commit mass murder come in all shapes, forms, and beliefs.
 
Amigo said:
S.E. Cupp would make a great president, and she is an athiest, but she understands that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Click to expand...

Which values are those? Please tell me. I'm dying to know.
 
MaggieD said:
41 to 3 that our posters would vote for an athiest president.

This tells us how irrelevant our Christian Right really is. And how a small minority can make a big, huge noise.
Click to expand...

I voted no because of the phrasing of the question and the OP's binary reasoning.
 
lizzie said:
They are at risk, no doubt, but the difference lies in the actions of said individual. Morality can clearly be seen by the actions of the individual, and by the way they live their lives. Being at risk does not mean that one will become immoral.
Click to expand...
You have clarified our difference, thanks. I think a persons morality is predictive quality, will his actions in the future properly extrapolate from the lessons he has learned, even if they don't exactly fit, be moral. With some people you can reasonably predict that their future actions will be moral as well there are others where it is easy to predict that some of their future actions will not be moral. I'm sorry that precise predictions are not possible; and this happens all the time, and we are surprised.
 
Redress said:
How do you know they are not fake religious?
Click to expand...

And those should be the scary ones to the truly religious and atheist alike. The religious at least believe eternal torment awaits them if they do wrong to others, the atheist sort of has to rely on the Golden Rule to get through their one and only chance at existence. The faker, who knows what they really believe? It's the person who shows up to church out of cultural pressure, vaguely believes in an afterlife which has no relationship to their mortal actions, playing the Pascal wager, whose moral compass would be most questionable in my eyes.
 
Peter Grimm said:
That's right. Continuing that line of thought, it follows then that the more intelligent or learned one is, the more they are aware of what is right and what is wrong. The more intelligent one is, the higher the moral burden one bears.

Yet, seeing the difference between right and wrong doesn't imply that they will choose to do what is right.

There is a choice involved as well. How do you define that?
Click to expand...

The choice is to act morally or immorally. No animal has that choice, as they are amoral. Just because one is smart enough to understand good from evil doesn't mean that they'll choose good over evil. Some people are just dicks. But without that intellect in the first place, it can be argued that morality in general doesn't exist. Morality requires empathy and intelligence. Without those, you cannot be a moral (or immoral) creature.
 
MaggieD said:
41 to 3 that our posters would vote for an athiest president.

This tells us how irrelevant our Christian Right really is. And how a small minority can make a big, huge noise.
Click to expand...

All it tells you is a little bit about the makeup of this board...
 
Ikari said:
The choice is to act morally or immorally. No animal has that choice, as they are amoral. Just because one is smart enough to understand good from evil doesn't mean that they'll choose good over evil. Some people are just dicks. But without that intellect in the first place, it can be argued that morality in general doesn't exist. Morality requires empathy and intelligence. Without those, you cannot be a moral (or immoral) creature.
Click to expand...

I agree with you; the smarter one gets, the more awareness one has of the inherent morality/immorality of his choices. The question is, what defining characteristic makes some people choose to do the right thing, and others choose to do the wrong thing?
 
Peter Grimm said:
I agree with you; the smarter one gets, the more awareness one has of the inherent morality/immorality of his choices. The question is, what defining characteristic makes some people choose to do the right thing, and others choose to do the wrong thing?
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess it's the result of whether they were raised to be respectful toward other people's needs/suffering/differences or whether they were raised to be gigantic douchebags.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
I agree with you; the smarter one gets, the more awareness one has of the inherent morality/immorality of his choices. The question is, what defining characteristic makes some people choose to do the right thing, and others choose to do the wrong thing?
Click to expand...
Its called freewill. Homo sapiens existed long before the bible existed. If humans needed the bible in order to decide what is moral and what is not then mankind would have vanished long before the bible was even written. Plus many other cultures exist that are not Christian and do not have any different morals than anyone else. Humans in reality are not amoral until they learn the teachings of an religion. Sure there may be cultural differences between western civilization and other civilizations but the root morals of mankind are universal. And the belief that only believers in a god are moral is primitive and naive at best.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
I'm going to guess it's the result of whether they were raised to be respectful toward other people's needs/suffering/differences or whether they were raised to be gigantic douchebags.
Click to expand...

So does a 50 year old still hear mom and dad's voice in the back of his head?
 
Peter Grimm said:
So does a 50 year old still hear mom and dad's voice in the back of his head?
Click to expand...

I'm in my mid 30's and I do (metaphorically speaking, of course).
 
Peter Grimm said:
So does a 50 year old still hear mom and dad's voice in the back of his head?
Click to expand...
No, cultural conditioning doesn't work that way at all. Different cultures and socioeconomic manifestations have been shown to radically shape one's worldview or ethical standpoints, along with one's social behavior. Religion is just one example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom