Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Darth Rotor]

Stone Island, when you get arround to answering that question, I direct you to FZ's post, which you happened to overlook.

I beat him to the punch by quite a few posts. See post #9 of this thread, if you please. I find the tactic of asking the question the questioner asks rarely effective, though it is now and again amusing.

DA: Did you kill Cock Robin?
Witness: Did you kill Cock Robin?

We are at the point in this thread that Stone Island is having a bit of difficulty defending the article he presented, and having read the various narrow, inelegant, and at times petty posts in the thread, I wonder at why this scrum continues.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, we like to pick at scabs here on JREF forums. (Yes, I am among the guilty on that one, far too often.)

*sings*

Look for
The Union label
Or we'll kick your scab arse!
I love a running gag.

Speaking of gags, was my golden shower on the Neuhaus article, post #9, so repulsive that you recoiled in horror?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

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?

I am gratified to see that you admit to being on the the same moral footing as Mao.

Your bigotry fairly screams off the page, A-lett, by your continued use of generalization and the broad brush. "We atheists" is a bit too broad a group for the purposes of this discussion, which is part of the problem in Neuhaus' article to begin with. Aren't you glad you are as clever and bigoted as Neuhaus? Maybe you should invite him over for tea.

Would Stone Island be more moral and less bigoted if his brain hadn't been seeped in theism? (studies indicate this is likely: http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html)

Would you be more or less bigoted if you got that chip off your shoulder? I guess in the world of A-lett, the hundreds of Christian founded hospitals in America are a sign of moral decay. Please, A-lett, go to Tennessee and ask them to dismantle St Jude's Childrens Hospital. It's such a pox upon our civic lives.

DR

 

[Foster Zygote]

And the sword. Please don't leave out that crucial detail. Power, and the acquiring of it, is often tied to brute force. The justification or excuses given for that exercise varies, but the mechanics of it rarely do.

DR

Ah yes, I remember as a lad realizing that the glorious kings of old were basically just a bunch of gangsters.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Could a Communist be a good citizen of the United States?

No, but that is due to a Communist being doctrinally inclined toward a one party system, a form of tyranny which is expressly opposed to the political freedom outlined in the Constitution.

Granted, this would have to be a true Communist, kilt and all, but that's once again part of the problem. I think that is why you used the capital C.

It isn't the Communist's atheism that is the issue, Stone, it's the political imperative behind Communism that is the problem.

A Socialist, on the other hand, is not necessarily so limited. You can look to the good Union men I have known in my life, some of whom were more liberal and some more conservatives in their social views, and find any number of outstanding citizens.

*sings*

Look for
The Union Label . . .

I am enjoying this running gag, I promise you.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ah yes, I remember as a lad realizing that the glorious kings of old were basically just a bunch of gangsters.

But even you admit that they were snappy dressers, just as the Drug Lords, Mafiosi and Gangstas of today are quite the fashion plates.

Here's an OT question your post evoked.

Cause or correlation: is the class and quality of the threads one wears an indication of one's moral or criminal bent, or is it merely a coincidence?

DR

 

[KingMerv00]

I find the tactic of asking the question the questioner asks rarely effective, though it is now and again amusing.

....

Oh, sorry, I forgot, we like to pick at scabs here on JREF forums. (Yes, I am among the guilty on that one, far too often.)

I think it is a fair "tactic" and that the scab is big, ugly, and infected. I find it dishonest to cast aspersions from behind famous authors. It insulates you from responsibility and allows you to argue conflicting theories.

If Stone Island thinks that atheists can't be good citizens, I'd like to debate the matter with HIM instead of a dead man of his choosing. Sorta makes cross examination easier.

P.S. James Madison says you smell.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Was James Madison an anti-American, then?

No.

"There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison (letter to Edward Livingston)

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." - James Madison

Oh, and let's have a little Thomas Jefferson while we're at it.

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists [...] Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

By the way, Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

 

[godless dave]

Governments are founded by men to secure their rights. Rights are prior to governments.

That doesn't answer my question.

You say that God meant for all men to be treated equally under the law. Other people who believed in God said that God meant for some to be treated differently than others by the law. How do we know who is right about what God wants?

 

[Stone Island]

No.

"There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison (letter to Edward Livingston)

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." - James Madison

Oh, and let's have a little Thomas Jefferson while we're at it.

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists [...] Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

I don't think Neuhaus is speaking about the establishment of a national religion or about the dictates of any particular God or gods. Rather, we're talking about whether an atheist can adequately defend a faith in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Stone Island]

You say that God meant for all men to be treated equally under the law.

Did I? I don't know God's mind, not being a prophet, so I don't think that I would presume to tell you what He does or doesn't want.

Also, being wrong doesn't preclude the possibility of being right.

 

[Stone Island]

I think it is a fair "tactic" and that the scab is big, ugly, and infected. I find it dishonest to cast aspersions from behind famous authors. It insulates you from responsibility and allows you to argue conflicting theories.

If Stone Island thinks that atheists can't be good citizens, I'd like to debate the matter with HIM instead of a dead man of his choosing. Sorta makes cross examination easier.

P.S. James Madison says you smell.

I don't think it's dishonest at all. In fact, I'm trying to be scientific and philosophical by presenting evidence and argument and not injecting my personal biases. There is no use giving you the opportunity to try and use any variety of ad hominem rhetorical attacks.

 

[Stone Island]

4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Neuhaus' requirements of good citizens are reasonable, he doesn't require, at least by definition, that good citizens be theists. He requires that good citizens acknowledge a source for political authority that is higher than the self, and external to the self. There's no reason an atheist can't do that. Atheists don't have to be nihilists or egoists.

Thanks, linusrichard.

Now this is a good point. It gets to the crux of the matter.

Can an atheist acknowledge a source of political authority higher than the self?

 

[Stone Island]

I guess, like those interviewed in his professor's 'phone survey, he's just too cowardly to come out and state his position openly.

Awesome, I now have close readers. Can a fan club be too far behind?

 

[Stone Island]

Its so good to know that the basis of all society is deep-seated, irrational fear.

Well, that's Hobbes's point, isn't it? Men join together in civil society out of a rational fear of violent death. While that isn't Neuhaus's opinion, it's not a opinion that hasn't had its advocates.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't think it's dishonest at all. In fact, I'm trying to be scientific and philosophical by presenting evidence and argument and not injecting my personal biases.

You ARE expressing your opinions and biases. You just call them someone else's. Besides I'm only asking you simple yes or no question. It is hard to inject bias into that.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I agree with X. Here is his opinion." But when you cut out the first part, it is very difficult to debate with you. Do you agree with X in toto? In part? Which parts? Why? We can't have a real discussion until we understand where you stand.

There is no use giving you the opportunity to try and use any variety of ad hominem rhetorical attacks.

Which would be wrong to do. If someone uses ad hominum attacks, say so.

So again...what is your opinion? Can atheists be good citizens?

 

[GreyICE]

Well, that's Hobbes's point, isn't it? Men join together in civil society out of a rational fear of violent death. While that isn't Neuhaus's opinion, it's not a opinion that hasn't had its advocates.

Rational desire to live longer and more comfortably is one thing. That is the basis for society. I just don't think it requires some irrational father figure shaking his finger at us and burning us for eternity if we screw up in order to survive.

 

[Stone Island]

You ARE expressing your opinions and biases. You just call them someone else's. Besides I'm only asking you simple yes or no question. It is hard to inject bias into that.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I agree with X. Here is his opinion." But when you cut out the first part, it is very difficult to debate with you. Do you agree with X in toto? In part? Which parts? Why? We can't have a real discussion until we understand where you stand.

In a commercial for some new drug, Jarvic talks about going into medicine because his father almost died of a heart attack. Is this revelation of his motivations important for evaluating the contributions of his research?

I would like to have the freedom to try out all sorts of different arguments without the constant, nagging insinuation that I'm contradicting myself (as if contradicting myself on an internet forum is some great sin). Some, like Foster Zygote, have already tried bringing up what I've said in other threads, as if that had any relevance to what Neuhaus said in his article.

I guess I don't know what you mean by a real discussion. A discussion about arguments is a real discussion. A discussion about my opinions is probably more akin to therapy. Let's try and be scientific and ignore our biases.

 

[Belz...]

Did I? I don't know God's mind, not being a prophet

Don't feel bad. Nobody does.

So, can an Atheist be a good citizen, Stone ?

 

[AmyWilson]

America is one nation UNDER GOD. Atheists are not as patriotic as Christians are. If you hate God so much, than go to godless Sweden or the Netherlands, where its crime ridden, and abortions galore, because it doesn't believe in God.

 

[KingMerv00]

America is one nation UNDER GOD. Atheists are not as patriotic as Christians are. If you hate God so much, than go to godless Sweden or the Netherlands, where its crime ridden, and abortions galore, because it doesn't believe in God.

Thank you for the offer Amy but we don't need softball arguments to make our side look good.