Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

joobz said:
that's a lot of effort for something that easily disproven by example.

If someone was to write a treatise on "all Balls are round", I do not need to write a rebuttal on how the author define ball, what the author means by roundness and what is required to not meet the specifications of being round.

I can simply put a football on the table and say, "This ball isn't round." Or drop a Rugby ball on the table and say, "This ball isn't round" Or drop a testicle on the table and say, "This ball isn't round."

If the Author was to say, Well those balls are round and by round I simply meant smooth.

then I can drop a golf ball on the surface and say, "this ball isn't round."

Which could result in a continual back and forth until the definition of round becomes so broad as to be meaningless or so narrowly shifted that the common definition is no longer being applied.

In other words, this is simply a form of Loki's Wager. When does the head begin and the neck end? Overspecification can continue ad infinitum and that continual back and forth doesn't do anything to support the original argument.

Examples of atheists (of various flavors) have been given who can all be defined as good citizens for various reasons. That is enough to disprove the statement, "Atheists can't be good citizens."

Any attempt to redefine the terms atheist and citizen to such a degree that it would make the statement "Atheists can't be good citizens" true would be so different from common usage as to render the statement unitelligible in english. These new definitions (which make that sentence true) do not by proxy make the original definitions hold true in that sentence. Yet, it appears that this is the whole goal of this exercise. That is the reason for the continual question, Do you believe that atheists can't be good citizens?

This proof by proxy is intellectually dishonest and meaningless.
Click to expand...

Well that pretty much sums up my position. Plus it made me think of Officer Squarenuts from the old Kevin Matthews show on The Loop FM.
 
Which do you folks think would cause the most embarrassment to Stone Island?

(a) answering The Question with a "yes"
(b) answering The Question with a "no"
(c) continuing to refuse to answer The Question.
 
linusrichard said:
Which do you folks think would cause the most embarrassment to Stone Island?

(a) answering The Question with a "yes"
(b) answering The Question with a "no"
(c) continuing to refuse to answer The Question.
Click to expand...
(d) whipping my scrotum onto the table while saying, "These ball aren't round."

*Filling in for DR and the running gag routine.
 
joobz said:
(d) whipping my scrotum onto the table while saying, "These ball aren't round."

*Filling in for DR and the running gag routine.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much running you'll be up for after the whole "whipping" business.
 
I was in a musical version of Cinderella as a teen... one of the songs was "The Prince is Giving a Ball... --We'd all sing: "The Prince needs someone to ball... the prince needs someone to ball... the *prince *needs *some *one to BAAALLLLLLL!"

--ah ball memories :)
 
Last edited:
I must say that thank you all for your concern, but it is unneeded. Afterall, while they are not round, my balls are made of steel.
 
Theist or atheist, rights come down to personal preference and personal values. For a theist to base their ideas on human rights on their god or gods, which god or gods they believe in is a matter of preference; what they think that god wants for humankind is a matter of personal belief.

And why would anyone think it otherwise? How humans govern themselves is a matter only of concern to humans, one life form that has existed for a couple hundred thousand years on one planet in a vast, ancient universe. To think there would be universal "truths" underlying this is hubris of the highest order.
 
joobz said:
Examples of atheists (of various flavors) have been given who can all be defined as good citizens for various reasons. That is enough to disprove the statement, "Atheists can't be good citizens."
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Were they really atheists? Were they really good citizens? What does Neuhaus mean by a good citizen?

According to Neuhaus, a good citizen is someone who can give a morally compelling justification for his country, in this case the United States. The United States of America is a nation founded on a faith in the truth of certain propositions. An atheist denies part of America's moral justification because they either don't believe parts of these propositions to be true, see no particular reason to believe them be true, or deny the possibility of their truth.

The grounding of the propositions operative in the founding of the United States are, in various ways, anathema to an atheist. A morally convincing justification of the founding of the United States is dependent on a faith in the truth of a transcendent moral order. According to Neuhaus, a belief in a transcendent moral order is no more justified than the belief in any particular God or gods.
 
godless dave said:
Theist or atheist, rights come down to personal preference and personal values. For a theist to base their ideas on human rights on their god or gods, which god or gods they believe in is a matter of preference; what they think that god wants for humankind is a matter of personal belief.

And why would anyone think it otherwise? How humans govern themselves is a matter only of concern to humans, one life form that has existed for a couple hundred thousand years on one planet in a vast, ancient universe. To think there would be universal "truths" underlying this is hubris of the highest order.
Click to expand...

A nice summation of why, according to Neuhaus, an atheist cannot be a good citizen.
 
Stone Island said:
I disagree.

Were they really atheists? Were they really good citizens? What does Neuhaus mean by a good citizen?

According to Neuhaus, a good citizen is someone who can give a morally compelling justification for his country, in this case the United States. The United States of America is a nation founded on a faith in the truth of certain propositions. An atheist denies part of America's moral justification because they either don't believe parts of these propositions to be true, see no particular reason to believe them be true, or deny the possibility of their truth.

The grounding of the propositions operative in the founding of the United States are, in various ways, anathema to an atheist. A morally convincing justification of the founding of the United States is dependent on a faith in the truth of a transcendent moral order. According to Neuhaus, a belief in a transcendent moral order is no more justified than the belief in any particular God or gods.
Click to expand...
Your argument is stupid, and it could easily be turned against you. According to the Constitution, you're a rather poor citizen.
 
Stone Island said:
I disagree.

Were they really atheists? Were they really good citizens?
Click to expand...
Yes, on both counts, Loki.

joobz said:
Any attempt to redefine the terms atheist and citizen to such a degree that it would make the statement "Atheists can't be good citizens" true would be so different from common usage as to render the statement unitelligible in english. These new definitions (which make that sentence true) do not by proxy make the original definitions hold true in that sentence. Yet, it appears that this is the whole goal of this exercise. That is the reason for the continual question, Do you believe that atheists can't be good citizens?

This proof by proxy is intellectually dishonest and meaningless.
Click to expand...
Note the bolded text.
 
Is there a term for a backwards-running "No True Scottsman"?

He's not actually claiming that other people aren't part of his faith.
Instead, he's claiming that all people who do not fit into his preconcieved definition of a term are not what they claim.

SI: "No athlete can be a good citizen."
*many examples of athletes who are good citizens*
SI: "Well they obviously weren't real athletes, then."

Yes, Stone Island, your protestations really do sound that stupid.
 
Stone Island said:
I disagree.

Were they really atheists?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Were they really good citizens?
Click to expand...
Yes.

What does Neuhaus mean by a good citizen?

According to Neuhaus, a good citizen is someone who can give a morally compelling justification for his country, in this case the United States. The United States of America is a nation founded on a faith in the truth of certain propositions.
Click to expand...
Neuhaus argues that a good citizen must believe in something greater than himself and that atheists cannot therefor be good citizens because they do not believe in anything higher than themselves. But wait! Is this true? do atheists truly believe in nothing greater than themselves, or is Neuhaus constructing a convenient straw man? Can atheists not believe in things greater than themselves? What about things like "family", "humanity", "society", "the common good" or "the universe"? Any atheists who rank the well-being of the national community as something greater than their individual selves prove Neuhaus to be flat out wrong. Any atheist who has served the community in time of war in the belief that the national community is worth risking one's life for demonstrates the self-serving injustice of Neuhaus' definition. Any atheist soldier who has died in service to the country is greatly dishonored by Neuhaus' bigotry.

An atheist denies part of America's moral justification because they either don't believe parts of these propositions to be true, see no particular reason to believe them be true, or deny the possibility of their truth.
Click to expand...
To justify this argument you have mentioned the Declaration of Independence. As has already been pointed out to you that the DoI is not the foundation of US government. It was a piece of deliberately dramatic political rhetoric as well as an instrument of propaganda. The founding document of the US government is The United States Constitution. This document begins "We the people" and contains not the slightest mention of God.

The grounding of the propositions operative in the founding of the United States are, in various ways, anathema to an atheist.
Click to expand...
Please show what in the US Constitution is inarguably anathema to atheists.

A morally convincing justification of the founding of the United States is dependent on a faith in the truth of a transcendent moral order.
Click to expand...
No, it is not.

According to Neuhaus, a belief in a transcendent moral order is no more justified than the belief in any particular God or gods.
Click to expand...
Do you have any thoughts of your own?
 
Stone Island said:
What does Neuhaus mean by a good citizen?

According to Neuhaus, a good citizen is someone who can give a morally compelling justification for his country, in this case the United States. The United States of America is a nation founded on a faith in the truth of certain propositions. An atheist denies part of America's moral justification because they either don't believe parts of these propositions to be true, see no particular reason to believe them be true, or deny the possibility of their truth.

The grounding of the propositions operative in the founding of the United States are, in various ways, anathema to an atheist. A morally convincing justification of the founding of the United States is dependent on a faith in the truth of a transcendent moral order. According to Neuhaus, a belief in a transcendent moral order is no more justified than the belief in any particular God or gods.
Click to expand...
What does Grinspittle mean by a good citizen?

According to Grinspittle, a good citizen is someone who can be depended on to act at all times in accordance with his country's best interest. In the case of the United States, the country was founded on the principles of Greek democracy and European enlightenent. A theist denies these founding principles, whether because they don't believe parts of these principles to be true, reject the principles altogether, or consider the principles subordinate to a "higher authority" provided by invisible spirits speaking through long-dead seers.

The founding principles of the United States are, in various ways, anathema to a theist. In particular, he bristles at the principle of separation of church and state, believing on some level that HIS invisible spirit should be a guiding force for all citizens. He cannot be depended on to act in accordance with his country's best interests if he comes to believe that a "transcendent moral order" trumps such a course of action. According to Grinspittle, the theist's first allegiance is to his religion. He may thus be inclined to follow principles proclaimed in Rome, Mecca, Tel Aviv, or Shangri La, at the expense of his fellow citizens. Rather than being bound by the unifying principles of his native land, theists are whipped into a froth of competing frenzies by the dictates of a multitude of petty sects, each loyal to a different deity. This naturally weakens the nation. Theists, with their conflicting ideologies which they elevate above the founding principles, are by their very nature corrosive to national unity.

According to Grinspittle, it is impossible for a true theist to be a good citizen.
 
I don't know how they can when they must put their invisible savior above all others...

A good citizen does not put laws from "on high" before the laws of his country. Theists do. The hijackers did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom