Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Stone Island said:
Since some claim that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief, all I can ask is, is there any non-arbitrary reason to be an atheist?
Click to expand...

I am an atheist because I can look around me and see absolutely nothing that couldn't exist on its own without a god.

I see two sides: One promoting belief in a god that can't be proven, where asking questions is discouraged, and no effort is made to refine or perfect the knowledge they have. Effort is put towards resisting change or advancement.
The other side actively disregards what is proven. Nothing is taken as factual by default, and anything that is held as fact can easily be overturn as new evidence is presented. Massive effort is made to better understand the universe we live in, and emphasis is placed on discovering new ideas and improving the quality of life.

So, in short, I *like* being able to question my core beliefs. I *like* being able to say, "This doesn't make sense to me. Why do you think this?" I *don't* like being told what to believe and how, and if I question anything, I'm automatically a sinner and deserve to die and be damned. "I want you to take this belief and revolve your life around it. Every breath you take will be in service to this belief. Oh, and do this because I say so, and because this book says so, even though it was written about events hundreds of years after the events it writes about, is highly inaccurate, and was written by a bunch of people who had only the vaguest ideas of how the world works. Believe this, even if I can't prove anything, or even show you any evidence that supports this." You can keep it.

#EDIT: Addition: Do you believe Atheists can be good citizens?
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
Since some claim that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief, all I can ask is, is there any non-arbitrary reason to be an atheist? Is there any content to atheism? How is being an atheist less arbitrary than being a theist?
Click to expand...

How one reaches atheism is irrelevant to this discussion.

You Neuhaus made a categorical statement about atheists based on the assumption that all atheists think certain way. The thing is, not all atheists that way. Therefore, at least one atheist fits your Neuhaus's twisted definition of a good cititzen.
 
Last edited:
I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for the existence of any gods. I do not accept claims of fact without evidence.

Valuing individual liberty is not a claim of fact.
 
Stone Island said:
Why should we accept the common definition?
Click to expand...

I think that the more pertinent question (not that you're likely to answer it, even privately) is 'Why do you need to reject the common definition?'

My hunch is that common sense is in conflict with your distorted world view and, rather than adapting your world view to reflect reality, you'd rather distort your perception of reality to accommodate your woo

Stone Island said:
As one professor once said to me, who made Webster an arbiter of truth?
Click to expand...

Note that your sheaf of straw cuts both ways - once as you pluck it from your fundamental orifice and again as you swallow it... try mixing it with a serving of humble pie... it'll soften the texture and mask the bitter taste

Your appeal to authority using some 'professor' (known only to you), is patently absurd; either the 'professor' is a buffoon for suggesting that Websters even pretend to be an authority or you have, yet again, twisted reality (i.e. lied) to support your woo

dictionary.reference.com » help » faq » How does a word get into the dictionary? How can I get my word into the dictionary?

A word gets into the dictionary by being used. That's the only way. Lexicographers - the people who make dictionaries - don't make words; they find them and record them. They are like the entomologist who goes into the rain forest looking for new species of beetles. Similarly, you can't invent a word and petition to have it admitted into the dictionary. You can invent a word and use it, of course, and if your word catches on it might end up in the dictionary some day. However, this is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

Note: no mention of adopting a widely-used word and twisting it to suit your personal agenda

---------------------------------------

Stone Island, can Atheists be good citizens?
 
Stone Island said:
Since some claim that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief
Click to expand...

Some "claim" ? IT'S THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD, Stone!

all I can ask is, is there any non-arbitrary reason to be an atheist?
Click to expand...

Yes: there is no evidence for the existence of gods. Ergo, we can assume that they don't exist.

How is being an atheist less arbitrary than being a theist?
Click to expand...

One flies in the face of evidence. The other does not.
 
Atheism is a belief there are no gods. Agnosticism is a lack of belief there are gods. Neither is a "lack of belief". That would be an obviously incomplete sentence if used to define either atheism or agnosticism.

The idea one either believes in gods or nothing is such an absurd concept it defies the most basic common sense.
 
None of you claiming a belief in magical beings is required for a human being to act morally can provide one shred of evidence supporting such a ludicrous statement.
 
godless dave said:
I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for the existence of any gods. I do not accept claims of fact without evidence.

Valuing individual liberty is not a claim of fact.
Click to expand...
Well, pedantically speaking, it may be a fact that you claim to value individual liberty and it may be a fact that you value individual liberty.

That aside, the Founder did not claim to value individual liberty (or that their value of it wasn't the operative aspect), they claimed that it was a fact that one ought to respect individual liberty, that societies had a duty to protect individual liberty, and that, in the end, you could violently overthrow any political order that was egregious enough in its violations of the objective moral order.

The Founders believed that these rights and duties were real and existed over and apart from our assignment of (possibly arbitrary) value to them.
 
Stone Island said:
...Since some claim that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief,
Click to expand...
People claiming a lack of belief in gods is the equivalent of a lack of belief in anything have a short circuit in their brains causing them to miss a key fact, they are not equivalent statements. This has been pointed out over and over ad nauseum. How can they possibly still not realize the absurd error they are making?

The question we should be asking is, what makes someone unable to see such an obvious fact?

If some of the people making this bizarre error weren't board regulars I'd conclude they were trolls. Since some of them are board regulars, I conclude they may have a brain defect. If anyone else has an alternative explanation for this incredibly ludicrous error in logic, I'd be interested to hear it.



Stone Island said:
..all I can ask is, is there any non-arbitrary reason to be an atheist? Is there any content to atheism? How is being an atheist less arbitrary than being a theist?
Click to expand...
'Arbitrary' assumes equal choices. The possibility gods exist in the Universe is equal to the possibility invisible pink unicorns are in my backyard. The evidence for either possibility is equal.

So would you also say that the decision to believe there are or are not invisible pink unicorns are in my backyard is an arbitrary decision?
 
skeptigirl said:
None of you claiming a belief in magical beings is required for a human being to act morally can provide one shred of evidence supporting such a ludicrous statement.
Click to expand...
My only question is whether you can provide an account of natural rights that the Founding generation would have accepted as true that doesn't violate your account of God or gods?
 
Stone Island said:
My only question is whether you can provide an account of natural rights that the Founding generation would have accepted as true that doesn't violate your account of God or gods?
Click to expand...
Lets do a Stone Island!
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
Click to expand...

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Click to expand...
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Click to expand...
 
Stone Island said:
Well, pedantically speaking, it may be a fact that you claim to value individual liberty and it may be a fact that you value individual liberty.

That aside, the Founder did not claim to value individual liberty (or that their value of it wasn't the operative aspect), they claimed that it was a fact that one ought to respect individual liberty, that societies had a duty to protect individual liberty, and that, in the end, you could violently overthrow any political order that was egregious enough in its violations of the objective moral order.

The Founders believed that these rights and duties were real and existed over and apart from our assignment of (possibly arbitrary) value to them.
Click to expand...


Many of them did - for reasons as subjective as the subjective value I place on individual liberty. This in no way implies that atheists cannot be good citizens.
 
It's pretty obvious that my original conclusion about Stone has been correct all along. He does not think atheists can be good citizens but is too cowardly to admit it, instead just showing (by proxy) why they can't be good citizens.

Stone, would you like to come have dinner at my place?
 
godless dave said:
Many of them did - for reasons as subjective as the subjective value I place on individual liberty. This in no way implies that atheists cannot be good citizens.
Click to expand...

If their reasons are subjective, and your values are subjective, then it would seem to me that "good citizen" itself is subjective, i.e., arbitrary. And if "good citizen" is arbitrary, and Neuhaus has not called for any action to be taken on its basis, then what do you care?
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's pretty obvious that my original conclusion about Stone has been correct all along. He does not think atheists can be good citizens but is too cowardly to admit it, instead just showing (by proxy) why they can't be good citizens.

Stone, would you like to come have dinner at my place?
Click to expand...

Give me a call, we'll set something up.

310-361-7271
 
So you realize I'm gonna beat the crap out of you, have my way with you and then leave you on the street with no way home, right? I only do this because I'm atheist and we can't be good citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom