Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

So it’s a quandary if an atheist can inherently be a good citizen simply by being an atheist, but not a quandary that someone who believes in a false god (any god other than what the examining person believes in) can be a good citizen? No belief = questionably good citizen? False god belief = citizenship not questioned?
 
Would theists behave as morally as we atheists if they weren't imagining a god spying on them ready to damn them to eternity for bad behavior and give them presents and eternal goodies for "faith" promoting activities?

Plato says no.

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
 
So it’s a quandary if an atheist can inherently be a good citizen simply by being an atheist, but not a quandary that someone who believes in a false god (any god other than what the examining person believes in) can be a good citizen? No belief = questionably good citizen? False god belief = citizenship not questioned?

Could a Communist be a good citizen of the United States?
 
That establishes neither a union nor a government.

The DOI is a statement of the animating philosophy of the Union and later the government. It sets out our faith in the proposition that all men are created equal which the ground for any just government.
 
You are basing your entire argument on this mans semantics and ideas

Semantics and ideas that suggest that the man is a zealous nutter, yearning for a nostalgic (i.e. unreal) past

Neuhaus said:
Those whom we call atheists in the modern period... <snip/> ... deny the reality of what they understand believing Jews and Christians to mean by God. This form of atheism is a post-Enlightenment and largely nineteenth-century phenomenon. It developed a vocabulary—first of course among intellectuals but then becoming culturally pervasive—that was strongly prejudiced against believers. Note the very use of the term “believer” to describe a person who is persuaded of the reality of God. The alternative to being a believer, of course, is to be a knower. Similarly, a curious usage developed with respect to the categories of faith and reason, the subjective and the objective, and, in the realm of morals, a sharp distinction between fact and value. Belief, faith, subjectivity, values—these were the soft and dubious words relevant to affirming God. Knowledge, reason, objectivity, fact—these were the hard and certain words relevant to denying God. This tendentious vocabulary of modern unbelief is still very much with us today.

Yep... but luckily not with all of us

Some of us are content to define atheism in much simpler terms:
  • a = without
  • theism = a need for woo

Why, I wonder, did Neuhaus waste so many words on such irrelevancies?

Clutching at straws, perhaps?


You don't use philosophy to analyze the behaviour of real-world groups, you use simple observation

Simple observation suggests, to me, that my 3-month old niece is a normal, happy child.... but was she born incapable of being a good citizen?

After all, she was born and undoubtedly still is an atheist... simply because she is too young and innocent to even understand, let alone consider, the arguments (for want of a better word) in favour of any woo

@Stone Island: Does she (before we can even begin to hope that she will mature into a 'good' citizen) need to be zapped by the some magickal force from on high?

However, before you answer my question, it would be proper (the sort of thing a good citizen®©™ would do) to answer KingMerv00 first

Perhaps you missed it...

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?
 
The DOI is a statement of the animating philosophy of the Union and later the government. It sets out our faith ^assumption that all men are created ^born equal, which is the ground for any just government.

Fixed it for you.
 
The DOI is a statement of the animating philosophy of the Union and later the government. It sets out our faith in the proposition that all men are created equal which the ground for any just government.

Which does not create a union or a government.
 
No and no. So what?

Rights are not a real thing that exist. They are an abstract concept thought up by humans, just like authority and laws. They are useful when describing the kinds of societies people want to live in and the governments we want to have.
 
Last edited:
No and no. So what?

Rights are not a real thing that exist. They are an abstract concept thought up by humans. They are useful when describing the kinds of societies people want to live in and the governments we want to have.

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them? Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?
 
If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them?

Because respecting them results in a society that is more likely to be fair and just. Note that fairness and justice are also abstract concepts.

Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?

"Legitimate" is also an abstract concept. If you don't want to be killed and eaten, then you probably wouldn't want your society to accept cannibalism.
 
If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them?
Why should we respect a society that encourages freedom, equality, police restraint and happiness?

Er, because such a society is a hundred times better to live in than a cannibalist dictatorship? Are you really telling me that you don't really see a reason for the US to be a Republic at all, and that you support democracy just because it's what God happened to like? Would you start eating babies if Yahweh descended from the clouds tomorrow and confessed He was really into dictatorship and child-roasting than democracy?

Christianity was never about democracy to begin with. The Bible says nothing about freedom of speech or religion - in fact, it's very clear on what you should do to people who advocate foreign gods, or who run their mouth at their parents. Democracy, whether you like it or not, is not a Christian idea.

Can science discover rights?
Indirectly, yes. By analyzing scientific studies of past and present societies, we can determine which are favorable for us to live in and which should be discarded.

Are rights woo?
No, and no one claimed they were.

Could a Communist be a good citizen of the United States?
I don't see why not.
 
Last edited:
No and no. So what?

Rights are not a real thing that exist. They are an abstract concept thought up by humans, just like authority and laws. They are useful when describing the kinds of societies people want to live in and the governments we want to have.

If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them? Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?

Er...because they help describe society that we want to live in. Is this really so difficult for you?
 
If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural,

Well, we are natural, so abstract concepts thought up by us are the result of natural processes. It may be that the ability to think abstractly is an evolutionary advantage. One million years from now, it may not matter. This is all irrelevant...

Can atheists be good citizens?
 
Because respecting them results in a society that is more likely to be fair and just. Note that fairness and justice are also abstract concepts.



"Legitimate" is also an abstract concept. If you don't want to be killed and eaten, then you probably wouldn't want your society to accept cannibalism.

So if say "fair," "just," and "rights", and get people to agree with us, then the content of those words is unimportant. They're not a reference to any particular universal truth.

If I got enough people to agree with me that "hanging atheists from trees until dead" was included in the ideas of fair, just, and rights, then that would be as legitimate a ground for a society as a society that rejected hanging atheists from trees until dead.

It's just that the Founders of the United States, and the writers of the Constitution, actually believed in the universalness of the rights they were protecting and that ideas like liberty had some meaning apart from the preferences of a particular time and place.

So someone who argues that a right is contingent and particular to a time and place fundamentally disagrees with what those who founded this country meant.
 
If they're an abstract concept thought up by us, if they're not natural, then why should we respect them? Is there any reason to say that cannibal societies are less legitimate than non-cannibal societies?

Where are human rights mentioned in the bible?
I remember the good book being quite big on what you couldn't do. I don't remember much about what you're entitled to.
 

Back
Top Bottom