Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Foster Zygote said:
A theist can hold that some people are superior to others and that these "inferiors" deserve less rights.
Click to expand...

And throughout history many theists have. The kings of Europe, including the one the US declared independence from, derived their authority over others from the Christian God.
 
Gate2501 said:
Once again. Circular reasoning.

You are basing your entire argument on this mans semantics and ideas. Neuhaus is a bigoted, social conservative, with a whip to crack. He is an adviser to Pres. Bush, and a very politically active Catholic priest.

Yes, if you predicate the basis for right and wrong in your argument on the views of this man, you are correct within that framework. I am also correct in my above post that 2+2 = 2501 using this same brand of reasoning.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem

Guilt by association
 
godless dave said:
And throughout history many theists have. The kings of Europe, including the one the US declared independence from, derived their authority over others from the Christian God.
Click to expand...

Let's just clear this one up. I forget what it's called, but an argument that says, for instance, that atheists are always wrong isn't the same as saying that theists are never wrong.

A theist who is wrong disproves the argument that theists are never wrong and not the arguments that atheists are always wrong.
 
Stone Island said:
Ad hominem

Guilt by association
Click to expand...

You are reduced to this? Just spitting out fallacies in defense of your own circular argument that has been explained to you numerous times? My calling Neuhaus a bigot is not even an Ad Hom. Go back and look at the article by him that I linked where he thinks that crimes against gays should not count as a "hate crime". And calling him a social conservative is simply true.
 
Stone Island said:
Let's just clear this one up. I forget what it's called, but an argument that says, for instance, that atheists are always wrong isn't the same as saying that theists are never wrong.

A theist who is wrong disproves the argument that theists are never wrong and not the arguments that atheists are always wrong.
Click to expand...

And an atheist who is a good citizen disproves the argument that atheists cannot be good citizens. I'm glad we cleared that all up.
 
Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.
Click to expand...
Can atheists realize that humans should be treated well and not discriminated against?

[Edit to elaborate:] As is evident by the freedoms and rights enjoyed by minority groups, such as homosexuals and immigrants, in atheist countries such as Iceland, yes. Next question?
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
The Constitution refers to the establishment of a "more perfect union", leading one to believe that there was a less perfect union already in existence.
Click to expand...
Perfect is perfect. The most it could properly say is a "more nearly perfect union." Either way, it's little more than empty rhetoric. Unless there is still room for improvement, we should just send the Congress home.

This has nothing to do with whether atheists can be good citizens.
 
Gate2501 said:
If you have a philosophical point to make, and cannot make it without using the explicit reasoning and arguments set forth by this man, then YOU do not have a point at all.
Click to expand...

Sure, I would. I could make an argument that shows how on its own terms, his argument either doesn't follow, has various unpleasant and unintended consequences, is trivial, isn't a thorough thinking out of the problem, or commits some fallacy of one kind of another.

When you read a philosophical paper, half the time the author is trying to make the argument he is against stronger so that his counter-argument is that much more authoritative.

Read some of Michael Martin's papers. He's usually very fair in this way.
 
Gate2501 said:
You are reduced to this? Just spitting out fallacies in defense of your own circular argument that has been explained to you numerous times? My calling Neuhaus a bigot is not even an Ad Hom. Go back and look at the article by him that I linked where he thinks that crimes against gays should not count as a "hate crime". And calling him a social conservative is simply true.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I forgot about that. Listen, if you're going to make arguments from consequences without going into arguments or reasons, then why try and justify anything? Why do you disagree with him, why do you think is argument is flawed?

It's a rhetorical fallacy on your part.
 
bokonon said:
Perfect is perfect. The most it could properly say is a "more nearly perfect union." Either way, it's little more than empty rhetoric. Unless there is still room for improvement, we should just send the Congress home.

This has nothing to do with whether atheists can be good citizens.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with whether the Declaration of Independence is important or not and the status of the documents that came before.
 
Stone Island said:
Let's just clear this one up. I forget what it's called, but an argument that says, for instance, that atheists are always wrong isn't the same as saying that theists are never wrong.

A theist who is wrong disproves the argument that theists are never wrong and not the arguments that atheists are always wrong.
Click to expand...

But no one is making the argument that theists are always wrong. The argument is that appealing to a god to justify one's political beliefs is useless. One can just as easily use belief in a god to justify a belief that some people have authority over others as to justify a belief that all people are equal.
 
Stone Island said:
Sure, I would. I could make an argument that shows how on its own terms, his argument either doesn't follow, has various unpleasant and unintended consequences, is trivial, isn't a thorough thinking out of the problem, or commits some fallacy of one kind of another.

When you read a philosophical paper, half the time the author is trying to make the argument he is against stronger so that his counter-argument is that much more authoritative.

Read some of Michael Martin's papers. He's usually very fair in this way.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is that Neuhaus's argument was destroyed on page 1 by people proving that yes, "an atheist can be a good citizen" using the conventional definitions of all words involved.

It was also pointed out that Neahaus's entire reasoning is based on religion being the source of morality in men. This is hogwash.

After his logic was proven faulty, you simply began saying " But using Neahaus's logic atheists cannot be good citizens ".

As we have pointed out, this is circular and you do not have an argument to make. You are just repeating the words of this man and appealing to them even after they have been shredded.
 
Stone Island said:
The Constitution refers to the establishment of a "more perfect union", leading one to believe that there was a less perfect union already in existence. What created this less perfect union? According to Abraham Lincoln is was the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...

If Abraham Lincoln really said that, he was wrong. The less perfect union was the one created by the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence does not create a union at all, nor does it specify a form of government for any of the states.
 
Stone Island said:
It has everything to do with whether the Declaration of Independence is important or not and the status of the documents that came before.
Click to expand...
It's obviously important, as its creation was a watershed event in the formation of our country.

That document, and the documents which preceded it, can be discussed by good citizens without requiring belief in a deity.
 
The article is meaningless anyhow, as it's a philosophical writeup rather than actual anthropology/psychology. You don't use philosophy to analyze the behaviour of real-world groups, you use simple observation. A mere glance at statistics tells you atheists can be, and in fact most of the time are, good citizens. Why write a several pages long philosophical essay when you can look at the HDI and compare it to the religious adherence of each nation, for example (hint: the atheist and secular nations dominate the HDI;))?

I think a better question would be:
Why are you so full of hatred towards atheists?
Click to expand...
Really. Are you merely jumping on the anti-atheist bandwagon, or is it something more personal?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom