Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

I was wrong, name calling isn't an ad hominem fallacy, it's a begging the question fallacy! Sorry for the confusion.
 
Rather than (or in addition to) chastizing the people who call names and don't add to the discussion, how about answering some of the serious questions posed to you and discussing some of the serious issues that have been brought up?
 
godless dave said:
I think we have established that axiomatic principles are subjective, based solely on human desires, thoughts, and values.

We have also established that religious beliefs are subjective, based solely on human desires, thoughts, and values.

So if atheists cannot be good citizens by Neuhaus's criteria, then neither can theists. Would you agree, Stone Island?
Click to expand...

If we did in fact establish that axiomatic principles are merely subjective, and that there is no essential truth to the idea of natural law, and the DOI does not refer to anything transcendent or real, then yes, "Good" is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "I prefer".
 
Stone Island said:
If we did in fact establish that axiomatic principles are merely subjective, and that there is no essential truth to the idea of natural law, and the DOI does not refer to anything transcendent or real, then yes, "Good" is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "I prefer".
Click to expand...
Which is exactly How Neuhaus was using it in the first place. He prefers that athiests aren't considered citizens.
 
Robin said:
Oh and I almost missed your impeccable research here. Australia is a republic? Did somebody forget to tell me? Gee, I thought that vote went the other way!

No, Stone, Australia is a Monarchy, thanks to our British heritage.
Click to expand...

Hey, hey, hey. Don't say that out loud, you will have these people thinking we like those "inbred woo following royal nutters" :crazy: in England.

Let's just say we aren't a republic and leave it at that.

;)
 
Stone Island said:
If we did in fact establish that axiomatic principles are merely subjective, and that there is no essential truth to the idea of natural law, and the DOI does not refer to anything transcendent or real, then yes, "Good" is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "I prefer".
Click to expand...


So then atheists are no more or less capable of being good citizens than believers, correct?
 
Not sure I understand what all the hassle is here. If being a good citizen is based on Neuhaus’ views and he is a theist, then wouldn’t it be better to be a bad citizen?
In some sections of the US, bad means good doesn’t it. eg. “He’s bad”

A theist will ‘key’ your car if you put the Darwin fish logo on it.
A theist will kill you if you prosletyse in their country.
A theist will damn you if you espouse any negative or derogatory remarks towards their deity.
A theist will allow members of his church to go free and continue to serve even after abusing children.
A theist will order ~900 followers to commit suicide in their deity’s name.
A theist will convince followers to donate millions, that will end up in some ‘white suited’ reverend’s pocket.
A theist will burn or drown a woman because she is a witch
A theist will stand outside the cemetery where the serving sons & daughters of your nation are being buried (with honour) and scream abuse and hate in the name of their deity. Grrr, this one gets me going…

Etc etc etc etc etc

It is so much easier being an atheist. eg. You come upon a car accident, two people hurt. One an atheist, one a theist. Who do you assist?

Easy; the atheist. The other person is being looked after by their deity.

I think you should stand proud as an atheist and thank people such as Neuhaus for making it plain for all to see that in the main, we atheists are a damn fine bunch of people.

:)
 
godless dave said:
So then atheists are no more or less capable of being good citizens than believers, correct?
Click to expand...

If we've established that there is no truth to natural law then the idea of "more or less" is meaningless. Good is an evaluative term in a context where no non-arbitrary evaluation is possible. The answer is mu.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
If we've established that there is no truth to natural law then the idea of "more or less" is meaningless. Good is an evaluative term in a context where no non-arbitrary evaluation is possible.
Click to expand...

Why is it meaningless? "Good" is subjective, not meaningless.

When I say Pierre-Marc Bouchard is a "good" hockey player, there is subjectivity involved, but describing him as "good" is neither meaningless nor arbitrary. People can agree on criteria that determine the quality of a hockey player, and evaluate Mr. Bouchard on those criteria - even though there is nothing transcendent about those criteria. Why is it in any different for citizenship?
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
If we've established that there is no truth to natural law then the idea of "more or less" is meaningless. Good is an evaluative term in a context where no non-arbitrary evaluation is possible. The answer is mu.
Click to expand...
So, without natural law, we have Nihilism?

This is the political analog of "Without god, there's no morality."
That argument is dumb.

ARe you saying that without some magical thiestic absolute, we may as well kill, rape, steal, cheat....?
Are you saying that you only do good because some natural law tells you you should?
Doesn't that sound a bit, well, childish?

Isn't it enough that we can think logically that a stable society is in our best self-interest and that conforming to the society which provides us with rules that give me maximum opportunity for my interests is the optimal choice?
 
But that's a side issue.

Even if there is such a thing as natural law, then atheists are no more or less capable of being good citizens than believers, because even if there were a reliable way of determing what natural law is (and so far neither you nor anyone in history has offered one), the decision to value natural law as "good" is still subjective, still a case of "I prefer".

Even if natural law exists, "good" is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "I prefer".
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
But that's a side issue.

Even if there is such a thing as natural law, then atheists are no more or less capable of being good citizens than believers, because even if there were a reliable way of determing what natural law is (and so far neither you nor anyone in history has offered one), the decision to value natural law as "good" is still subjective, still a case of "I prefer".

Even if natural law exists, "good" is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "I prefer".
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't follow at all. Again, what is the reason that one must give a morally compelling account of one's society to be considered a good citizen? What does Neuhaus say?

This is Socrates' problem, the most important question to be asked of political science. What is the best way to live? Can one give an account?
 
PBTree said:
Not sure I understand what all the hassle is here. If being a good citizen is based on Neuhaus’ views and he is a theist, then wouldn’t it be better to be a bad citizen?
In some sections of the US, bad means good doesn’t it. eg. “He’s bad”

A theist will ‘key’ your car if you put the Darwin fish logo on it.
A theist will kill you if you prosletyse in their country.
A theist will damn you if you espouse any negative or derogatory remarks towards their deity.
A theist will allow members of his church to go free and continue to serve even after abusing children.
A theist will order ~900 followers to commit suicide in their deity’s name.
A theist will convince followers to donate millions, that will end up in some ‘white suited’ reverend’s pocket.
A theist will burn or drown a woman because she is a witch
A theist will stand outside the cemetery where the serving sons & daughters of your nation are being buried (with honour) and scream abuse and hate in the name of their deity. Grrr, this one gets me going…

Etc etc etc etc etc

It is so much easier being an atheist. eg. You come upon a car accident, two people hurt. One an atheist, one a theist. Who do you assist?

Easy; the atheist. The other person is being looked after by their deity.

I think you should stand proud as an atheist and thank people such as Neuhaus for making it plain for all to see that in the main, we atheists are a damn fine bunch of people.

:)
Click to expand...
*plonk*
 
Stone Island said:
If we've established that there is no truth to natural law then the idea of "more or less" is meaningless. Good is an evaluative term in a context where no non-arbitrary evaluation is possible. The answer is mu.
Click to expand...

Ah, I guess I should not have changed my sig so hastily. Meh, I'm too lazy to change it back.

BTW I wasn't plonked, why won't he answer my "no religious test" question?
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
No, that doesn't follow at all. Again, what is the reason that one must give a morally compelling account of one's society to be considered a good citizen? What does Neuhaus say?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the existence of natural law?

Even if natural law exists, a "morally compelling account of one's society" is still a subjective account. It's also only tangentially related to citizenship. There are many things about my society I don't like. Good citizenship has to do with the system of government my nation-state has. The USA is composes of many different societies, some in conflict with each other.

Stone Island said:
This is Socrates' problem, the most important question to be asked of political science. What is the best way to live? Can one give an account?
Click to expand...

You think that's the most important question to be asked of political science? Sounds more like a question of personal philosophy to me. Political science isn't about telling people how to live. There are many "best" ways to live. Deciding what is "best" is subjective - even if natural law exists.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
You think that's the most important question to be asked of political science? Sounds more like a question of personal philosophy to me. Political science isn't about telling people how to live. There are many "best" ways to live. Deciding what is "best" is subjective - even if natural law exists.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I think you're begging several questions and raising some more.
 
Stone Island said:
Oh really? I think you're begging several questions and raising some more.
Click to expand...

Elucidate, please. You think there's one "best" way to live? Everyone should live their lives the same way? Not much room for individuality there.

If you don't feel like answering that, maybe you can explain how choosing to value natural law as good (if you can even figure out what it is) isn't a case of "I prefer".
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Elucidate, please. You think there's one "best" way to live? Everyone should live their lives the same way? Not much room for individuality there.
Click to expand...
Try and be fair, now.

Maybe not one "best" way, in the sense of a cookbook, or the Torah or the Talmud, but more of an Aristotelian ethic mixed with a Socratic desire to give an account and a Lockean sense of a low but solid grounding for government (Which is why the Constitution doesn't go into the philosophy of it's own grounding). You know, Alexander Hamilton's commercial republic mixed with Lincoln's account of the natural law and Jaffa's new birth of freedom.

Basically what people mean when they think good things about "The American Way".

But, for more than that, no, thanks. Another time, another thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom