Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Stone Island said:
Whether atheists can be good citizens is not a legal question. Neuhaus made that clear from the beginning.

Whether atheists can be a good citizens is a moral question. What is the moral basis for the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is one possibility, perhaps the best.

Can atheists provide an objective moral grounding for the Constitution consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of natural law?
Click to expand...

Can theists be good citizens ?

I mean, their grounds for morality is fear of the big man, right ? How "good" is that ?

Come on, Stone. Answer the freakin' question!
 
Stone Island said:
No, Neuhaus means that it is impossible for an atheist to be a good citizen. Theists who are not good citizens are entirely possible, maybe even likely. He would probably suppose that Thugee who are enthusiastic in the prosecution of their religion would be very bad citizens indeed.
Click to expand...
Stone Island. You appear as an intellectually dishonest coward when you avoid direct critiques of your argument (and by Your argument I mean Neuhaus').

This is not an emotional or personal attack. I am merely stating a fact. You have been avoiding direct questions while defending a failed argument, this is a behavior that would earn you poor marks in any college class. If you want this to be an academic exercise, which your language seems to indicate, you should be willing to address the strengths and admit the arguments weaknesses.
For starters:

joobz said:
I suspect that Stone Island may not understand my argument. As such, I am going to try and explain why the argument he presents doesn't require any debunk beyond what Darth Rotor provided in post 9.

Consider this analogy.

I could make the following argument,
"All Christians are evil. By Christians I mean integers and by evil I mean real numbers"

This would make my argument, All integers are real numbers, which is exactly true. As such the statement, "All christians are evil," is true when I apply the definitions I gave. Yet, this doesn't mean that the statement is true when applying the common usage of christian and evil. Any attempt to make such an implication is inherently intellectually dishonest.

By the common use of athiest(one who doesn't believe in a god or gods) and good citizen (A positively productive member of society), the statement "Atheists can't be good citizens" is simply wrong. As such, Neuhaus' entire argument is simply an intellectually dishonest exercise.

Further, many people would view the presentation of such an argument in a third party fashion, while simultaneously evading direct questions regarding their views, as a cowardly act.
Click to expand...
 
Stone Island said:
The Constitution is practical document. The DOI is a philosophical statement of principles.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt King George saw it as something less than a practical document.

joobz said:
I suspect that Stone Island may not understand my argument...(excellent post)
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to suspect he may not understand the question "can atheists be good citizens?" I think it may be equivilant to asking a North Korean if Kim Jong Il can do anything wrong.
 
This is actually one of the most clever circular arguments I've seen this week. Atheists can't be good citizens, Neuhaus asserts, because only theists can be good citizens... and only theists of his particular ilk, no doubt. He defines "good citizen" as being only based on a specific kind of theism, which make him anti-American, BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY!

So, we can say fairly safely that Neuhaus and StoneIsland are both bad citizens, because they attack the citizenship of others based on the sort of standard the Taliban would use.
 
Foster Zygote said:
The "moral claim" was that atheists cannot be good citizens because they do not hold anything to be greater than themselves. This is false. An atheist is perfectly capable of holding a strong conviction regarding the importance of community and the equality of all humanity.
Click to expand...
Strong convictions could mean arbitrary will to power.

Let's come at the question from a different direction.

I was wondering, if you take David Hume and a verificationist (Logical Positivism) theory of meaning seriously, do the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make any sense? They both seem to me to be implicit avowals of the kind of natural law philosophy found in the DOI.

Assuming for a moment that Martin's defense of weak atheism (that religious language is meaningless) holds, what would an atheistic defense of natural law or natural rights be?
 
Stone Island said:
Strong convictions could mean arbitrary will to power.

Let's come at the question from a different direction.

I was wondering, if you take David Hume and a verificationist (Logical Positivism) theory of meaning seriously, do the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make any sense? They both seem to me to be implicit avowals of the kind of natural law philosophy found in the DOI.

Assuming for a moment that Martin's defense of weak atheism (that religious language is meaningless) holds, what would an atheistic defense of natural law or natural rights be?
Click to expand...
Hey Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
My issue with this is the fact that the same, or at least very similar, guiding principles can have other sources.
Click to expand...
So what? Within the context of my remarks, they were one of the primary sources of those principles within the Euopean cultural sub set that Jefferson was imbedded in. Jefferson had not, for example, been exposed to the Tao Te Ching.

That similar guiding principles can be found in cultures other than EuroChristian suggests that a good idea can be around for a long time, can acquire a variety of attached ideas and symbols, and also that good ideas are not confined to one person for an origin. The same is true with jokes. I've cracked a few jokes that I came up with on my own, to find that others had come up with the same structure and punch line independently of me.

DR
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
Strong convictions could mean arbitrary will to power.

Let's come at the question from a different direction.

I was wondering, if you take David Hume and a verificationist (Logical Positivism) theory of meaning seriously, do the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make any sense? They both seem to me to be implicit avowals of the kind of natural law philosophy found in the DOI.

Assuming for a moment that Martin's defense of weak atheism (that religious language is meaningless) holds, what would an atheistic defense of natural law or natural rights be?
Click to expand...

In your opinion, can atheists be good citizens of the United States?

How many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves?
 
joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...

But, like walnuts, items also not round, they have wrinkly skin. (An assumption, based on the standard ball configuration on the standard male. Outliers are bound to exist, though I'd not leave my balls lying out anywhere just for a statistician to ignore.)

DR
 
JoeEllison said:
What if we suggest that no Christian can ever be a good citizen, because no Christian can put the laws of the land above the laws of the Bible... is that not actually a more fair and honest claim than the one that the bigot has made?
Click to expand...
No. It just as myopic, narrow, and dishonest. Like the original volleyball being spiked, it requires a false, general assumption based on a grossly narrow redefinition of the subject.

A Christian can be a good citizen. My neighbor Jim is a classic example.

A Christian can be a bad citizen. Phelps leaps to mind.

Many shapes and sizes.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
So what? in the context of my remarks, they were one of the the sources of those principles within the Euopean cultural sub set Jefferson was imbedded in. Jefferson had not, for example, been exposed to the Tao Te Ching.

That similar guiding principles can be found in cultures other than EuroChristian suggests that a good idea can be around for a long time and acquire a variety of attached ideas and symbols. It also suggests that good ideas are not confined to one person. The same is true with jokes. I've cracked a few jokes that I came up with on my own, to find that others had come up with the same structure and punch line independently of me.

DR
Click to expand...

Darth, I respect that you have a right to discuss things with Stone and I can't force you to do otherwise but could you postpone your conversation until I get an answer?

This is not just a favor to me. Others have asked him as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom