Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Stone Island said:
I'm not really following your distinction. How we're governed has a direct impact on how we live.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I said they're related, but they're not the same. I was confused that you were combining them.

But where did I ever say natural law is oppressively particular?

You are making an error, though. The UK, Canada, and Australia were not "founded on a shared notion of natural law". They weren't founded on principles or notions at all. Like the vast majority of nation states, they were founded by people with a shared allegiance to a monarch. The notion of human rights was later introduced into their governments, but the governments weren't founded on such a notion.
 
Last edited:
Stone- I've followed your postings with great interest. It takes courage to speak truth to power the way you do.

I have a question, and I'd like you to consider it very carefully. It's important.

Has the CIA ever stolen your homework?
 
godless dave said:
Yes, as I said they're related, but they're not the same. I was confused that you were combining them.

But where did I ever say natural law is oppressively particular?

You are making an error, though. The UK, Canada, and Australia were not "founded on a shared notion of natural law". They weren't founded on principles or notions at all. Like the vast majority of nation states, they were founded by people with a shared allegiance to a monarch. The notion of human rights was later introduced into their governments, but the governments weren't founded on such a notion.
Click to expand...

Not really my area of expertise, but I've always thought of the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, and the Declaration of Rights of 1689 as pointing to a nascent notion of natural law. They are all attempts to bring what is accidental and historical in line with what is transcendental and true. If Parliament had just recognized that the colonists in America had the rights of Englishmen too, then perhaps the Revolution would never have been necessary.
 
Stone Island said:
Not really my area of expertise, but I've always thought of the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, and the Declaration of Rights of 1689 as pointing to a nascent notion of natural law.
Click to expand...

Those events happened centuries after the Kingdom of England was founded. As I said, the concept of human rights was introduced after the nation already existed.

Stone Island said:
They are all attempts to bring what is accidental and historical in line with what is transcendental and true.
Click to expand...

How do you determine what is transcendental and true?
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
It's not just your personal position. We have attempted to engage you in discussions regarding some of the errors in your logic and you have refused to address these issues.
Click to expand...
Stone Island said:
No, you didn't.
Click to expand...
We have pointed out to you that Atheists can value things as higher than themselves. You were clearly wrong and you have refused to address the issue.

We have pointed out that the DoI is not the foundational document of the United States in any legal sense and that the Articles of Confederation are a far more likely candidate for the establishment of the "less perfect" union than the DoI. You were clearly wrong and you have refused to address the issue.

These are but two examples.
 
Stone Island said:
So, natural law isn't, I wouldn't think, as oppressively particular as you might think. They all protect property (more or less), protect liberty (making some minimum distinctions with license), and protect the pursuit of happiness (though the Canadians have some weird and troubling anti-hate speech laws). They even allow you your atheism, even if it is vaguely disreputable.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I'd like to know what you mean by "natural law", then.
 
Foster Zygote said:
We have pointed out to you that Atheists can value things as higher than themselves. You were clearly wrong and you have refused to address the issue.

We have pointed out that the DoI is not the foundational document of the United States in any legal sense and that the Articles of Confederation are a far more likely candidate for the establishment of the "less perfect" union than the DoI. You were clearly wrong and you have refused to address the issue.

These are but two examples.
Click to expand...

1. No, you haven't. If anything, all you've demonstrated is that atheists aren't any more consistent in their beliefs, including the consequences of their beliefs, then anyone else.
2. Yes, you've pointed it out, but you haven't made a case. If asserting something was enough to make it so, then you might have something, but it's not, so you don't. Your arguing from ignorance is boring.
 
Stone Island said:
1. No, you haven't. If anything, all you've demonstrated is that atheists aren't any more consistent in their beliefs, including the consequences of their beliefs, then anyone else.
Click to expand...

And, do tell, what are atheists supposed to believe to fit your stereotype... I mean, to be "consistent?"

Also, you've just insulted the character of every atheist on this board. Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
2. Yes, you've pointed it out, but you haven't made a case. If asserting something was enough to make it so, then you might have something, but it's not, so you don't. Your arguing from ignorance is boring.
Click to expand...



Does that mean, all of those assertions by theists that their
religion is the 'true' and only regligion, are incorrect and they
are arguing from ignorance.

Wow, big call.

:nope:
 
Stone Island said:
1. No, you haven't. If anything, all you've demonstrated is that atheists aren't any more consistent in their beliefs, including the consequences of their beliefs, then anyone else.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, are you maintaining that atheists are incapable of valuing themselves less than others? Are you stating that an atheist cannot determine that his or her needs, desires or even personal safety must sometimes be put aside for the benefit of the community?

2. Yes, you've pointed it out, but you haven't made a case. If asserting something was enough to make it so, then you might have something, but it's not, so you don't. Your arguing from ignorance is boring.
Click to expand...
No, you haven't made a case. You are claiming that the DoI is the foundational document of the United States. It has been pointed out to you that the DoI grants no legal rights to anyone, it establishes no laws.

You pointed out that the "more perfect Union" wording of the Constitution implied a "less perfect Union" preceding the present Union. You then asserted that said previous Union was established by the DoI, completely ignoring the Articles of Confederation, the perceived errors of which the Philadelphia Convention was convened to address.

Nowhere in any legal document of the Federal government to which one can make a legal appeal is any mention of "natural law" made.

Pointing out facts like the above is called "making a case". Denying or simply ignoring the problems with your arguments does not make them go away. Your comment about my being boring does not offend me, it simply confirms for me your frustration over your inability to address the problems with your arguments.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
1. No, you haven't. If anything, all you've demonstrated is that atheists aren't any more consistent in their beliefs, including the consequences of their beliefs, then anyone else.
Click to expand...
What? This is a rather strange comment? Can you please tell us which of the posters are athiests and which aren't?

Neuhaus' definition of good citizen is wrong. It attempts to redefine citizenry by thought and not action. We do not have thought crimes, so it's a silly notion. I see no reason to accept it.

Axiomatic principles are an acceptable means of establishing a moral code. Natural law is nothing more than a set of axioms. And as Dr. Adequate showed, those natural laws (of christian origin) changed over time.

Belief in axiomatic principles and something greater than ones self is not the exclusive domain of thiests. Athiesm does not ultimately lead to nihilism. Just like thiesm doesn't ultimately lead to fatalism.

Stone Island said:
2. Yes, you've pointed it out, but you haven't made a case. If asserting something was enough to make it so, then you might have something, but it's not, so you don't. Your arguing from ignorance is boring.
Click to expand...
This statement is pure fantasy. You've evaded FZ's point entirely.
He demonstrated that you know/understand little about Early american history. The less perfect union is clearly the Articles of confederation. The fact that the constitution permits changes to the code, clearly indicates that no part of it was considered immutable truth (not even the natural law).
 
Stone Island said:
If asserting something was enough to make it so, then you might have something, but it's not, so you don't. Your arguing from ignorance is boring.
Click to expand...

I thought you were arguing for faith, yet here you are condemning faith as a negative trait or way to view life.
 
Last edited:
SI, please answer my question:

What are atheists supposed to believe to be "consistent?"
 
Last edited:
Wow. At least he's developed enough intellectual integrity to boldly state his bigotry.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Wow. At least he's developed enough intellectual integrity to boldly state his bigotry.
Click to expand...
Well, not in those words exactly. Here's where he said that athiests can't be good citizens (try to get past the scottsman fallacy),
Stone Island said:
Citizenship cannot be mere action, because, I think you'll agree, a bad or evil person can act like a good or just person and not be actually good or just. However, to be good or just truly, one must do the right action for the right reason. Following the law is necessary but not sufficient for good citizenship.

As Patton (allegedly) said, "The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's to get some other poor son-of-a-bitch to die for his!" Can you offer a morally compelling reason to justify killing for your country? Can you kill based on a set of axiomatic standards that we happen to like?

This is the premise I'm dealing with: "A good citizen is one who can present a morally compelling defense of the premises of her nation."

I'll also hold that one cannot be a good citizen of an evil or unjust nation.

An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws. If an atheist could have faith in non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws they would cease to be an atheist and would become something of an agnostic, because they could not reject the possibility that someone else may be right about God or gods. Remember: there is no more scientific proof for natural law than there is for God or gods. There is no more natural support for the Declaration of Independence or Constitution than there is for the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Unless, of course, you want to say that the weakest of the negative atheists is still an atheist and not an agnostic. All, I can ask is, do atheists have a good reason for what they believe (or refuse to believe), or not? Atheists, like Articulette, who are such out of ignorance, prejudice, or merely arbitrarily aren't, I hope you agree, particularly interesting.
Click to expand...

He then went on to say that if there wasn't a natural law real, then everything would be relative.... effectively setting up the slippery slope to nihilism argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom