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...
This question has been answered for you so many times, but somehow, bafflingly, that answer is not seeping through.
 
thaiboxerken said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's certainly what you think you're going to do. Who's to say what will actually happen?
 
Post submission returned error, but was successful
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
Lets do a Stone Island!
Click to expand...
Me too
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Letter to Peter Carr (Jefferson's Nephew)
Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Click to expand...
 
Stone Island said:
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?
Click to expand...

"Subjective" and "arbitrary" are not synonyms.

I don't particularly care. Inasmuch as I do care, it's because it's mildy insulting for some professor I've never heard of to imply I'm not a good citizen.


I imagine the families of atheists who have died as a result of military service would be a little more insulted than I am.
 
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...
Let's ask an similar question:

Is there a non-arbitrary reason for people to be not-musicians?
Is there a non-arbitrary reason for people to be not-soup eaters?

linusrichard said:
So you continue to dodge. This is embarrassing too, of course, but we know people have a preference to stick with a lousy status quo rather than move to a lousy alternative.

What to do? Just say yes. It may feel embarrassing at first, but it's actually admirable for someone to admit he was wrong. It's actually good to learn new things. Sure, some might gloat, but in the end, they're forced to respect your honesty and reasonableness. As opposed to what's happening now, where this is just a joke that's getting less and less funny.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, Stone Island, ignoring such posts doesn't help your case.
You disappoint me.
 
I had a read of this Neuhaus chap just to see whether he knew something I didn't.

Being such a noted personage and advisor to presidents, I thought that maybe, just maybe, he had something that would persuade us 'bad citizens' to turn.

Nope. Just one big load of faith-based nonsense and personal opinions and we all know that opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. Some bigger than others.

No facts, no proof, no 'telephone to the lord', nothing. Another religious windbag who claims to know it all but will ultimately end up as wormfood, just like the rest of us.

Wonder what he would be doing if he had been born in the streets of Madras or Karachi.
 
Having a bit of free time I wanted to further address the following:

Stone Island said:
Except that being an atheist implies the rejection of beliefs without justification.
Click to expand...
How is one not justified to reject belief in something for which there is no evidence? There is no evidence for the existence of gods. In the absence of this evidence I do not believe in gods. If anything, it is the belief in gods that is not justified because there is no evidence of their existence. I assume that you do not believe in leprechauns, yes? Your lack of belief in leprechauns is no more unjustified than my lack of belief in gods. Unless you are willing to provide some evidence for the existence of gods then you must, if you are honest, admit that the above statement is erroneous.

It also implies the rejection of non-scientific claims.
Click to expand...
How so? Please explain.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Having a bit of free time I wanted to further address the following:


How is one not justified to reject belief in something for which there is no evidence? There is no evidence for the existence of gods. In the absence of this evidence I do not believe in gods. If anything, it is the belief in gods that is not justified because there is no evidence of their existence. I assume that you do not believe in leprechauns, yes? Your lack of belief in leprechauns is no more unjustified than my lack of belief in gods. Unless you are willing to provide some evidence for the existence of gods then you must, if you are honest, admit that the above statement is erroneous.


How so? Please explain.
Click to expand...

There is no comma in what you quoted. The phrase "without justification" modifies "beliefs".

Science is a method for justifying beliefs. Science may be the only method for justifying beliefs for the atheist. What beliefs, not justified by science, and not merely expressions of arbitrary preference, is an atheist allowed to hold, if we are to believe that their rejection of belief in God is itself not an arbitrary pose?
 
Last edited:
All Christian use confirmation bias to make their unbelievable story sound deep and true to them. :D

Christianity is a method for being a bigot while imagining yourself more moral than everyone else.

:D

Stone Island is a troglodyte.

(wow, anyone can play this game, eh?)
 
Stone Island said:
There is no comma in what you quoted. The phrase "without justification" modifies "beliefs".

Science is a method for justifying beliefs. Science may be the only method for justifying beliefs for the atheist. What beliefs, not justified by science, and not merely expressions of arbitrary preference, is an atheist allowed to hold, if we are to believe that their rejection of belief in God is itself not an arbitrary pose?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you imagine atheists as some sort of club that meets every week, wearing crimson robes and ram skulls, to drink blood and burn the effigies of various gods.

Science is not a method for justifying beliefs, that is just horribly stupid. Science is all about finding natural explanations for what we observe. A system of acquiring knowledge via research.

I would not even first call myself an atheist, I am first an empiricist , if there is such a thing. I think most atheists would say the same.

Having a fine tuned bullpucky detector does not make you a member of a secret sect. There is no "church" of atheism, and science has no connection to atheism/atheists other than the fact that it seeks natural explanations, not magical ones.
 
Last edited:
That reminds me gate2501, it's your turn to bring snacks for a sooooper seekret meeting where we plot genocide and plan the war on Christmas. Might I suggest braised babies?
 
Why are you such a coward, Stone? Why can't you answer the simple question, pertinent to the thread you started? What are you afraid of? Do you think people will conclude you're a bigot if you voice your opinion that atheists are bad people? I've got news for you, buddy, you've already proven your position. You are a bigot and it's not hard to see. Your failure to actually voice your position doesn't fool anyone.
 
Stone Island said:
Science is a method for justifying beliefs.
Click to expand...
Not last time I checked. It is a method for testing hypotheses.
Science may be the only method for justifying beliefs for the atheist. What beliefs, not justified by science, and not merely expressions of arbitrary preference, is an atheist allowed to hold, if we are to believe that their rejection of belief in God is itself not an arbitrary pose?
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any mechanisms for either allowing or disallowing atheists to do anything. Can you explain that rather odd statement?

As I have pointed out before we are only too happy to accept alternate epistemologies, just as soon as the people (like you) who darkly and vaguely imply they exist will simply specify what these alternate epistemologies are and why they are valid.

Until you let us in on that little secret then the scientific method is all we have to go on.

Any chance you can be more specific?

Any chance you can specify your answer to the question you asked in the OP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom