Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

I am afraid I have not read all of this thread, so I had missed this.

a bad or evil person can act like a good or just person and not be actually good or just.
Click to expand...

I am afraid I can make no sense of that sentence at all. What does it mean?
 
Fiona said:
a bad or evil person can act like a good or just person and not be actually good or just.
Click to expand...
I am afraid I can make no sense of that sentence at all. What does it mean?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure... but I have a hunch that, like the phrases 'don't judge a book by it's cover' and 'all that glitters is not gold', it is a shallow, vague, waffly and essentially meaningless generalisation that can be interpreted as holding true often enough to support (but, obviously, not validate) a weak, ill-conceived argument
 
Once we realize that the principles of our actions have no other support than our blind choice, we really do not believe in them any more. We cannot wholeheartedly act upon them any more. We cannot live any more as responsible beings. In order to live, we have to silence the easily silenced voice of reason, which tells us that our principles are in themselves as good or as bad any other principles. The more we cultivate reason, the more we cultivate nihilism : the less we are able to be loyal members of society. The inescapable practical consequence of nihilism is fanatical obscurantism...

Certainly, the seriousness of the need of natural right does not prove that the need can be satisfied. A wish is not a fact. Even by proving that a certain view is indispensable for living well, one proves merely that the view in question is a salutary myth : one does not prove it to be true. Utility and truth are two entirely different things. The fact that reason compels us to go beyond the ideal of our society does not yet guarantee that in taking this step we shall not be confronted with a void or with a multiplicity of incompatible and equally justifiable principles of "natural right." The gravity of the issue imposes upon us the duty of a detached, theoretical, impartial discussion.
Click to expand...
from, Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pg. 6.
 
SI, I'm a veteran (an atheist in a foxhole, then, as it were, and today I carry a slight disability due to my service), I'm currently a trusted civil servant in a position of some prominence, and I pay taxes, support my government (and serve as loyal opposition when necessary -- a lot lately), volunteer in the community, act as a voice of conscience to many for whom I have some influence, and I maintain that I am a citizen and and good one. And I am an atheist. And further, I take personal umbrage with your baseless assertion that an atheist cannot be a good citizen.

I call foul and say that your assertion is a lie and further assert my own self that you, then are knowingly perpetuating a lie and are your own self thus a bad citizen.

Please, come visit me someday and call me a bad citizen to my face. I'd love to discuss it in person with you ...

I'll buy the beer.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
from, Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pg. 6.
Click to expand...

from, Island, Stone, Appeal to Authority (Teh Interwebs: James Randi Educational Foundation, Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?, 2008), pg. 22.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island, 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?
 
cgordon said:
SI, I'm a veteran (an atheist in a foxhole, then, as it were, and today I carry a slight disability due to my service), I'm currently a trusted civil servant in a position of some prominence, and I pay taxes, support my government (and serve as loyal opposition when necessary -- a lot lately), volunteer in the community, act as a voice of conscience to many for whom I have some influence, and I maintain that I am a citizen and and good one. And I am an atheist. And further, I take personal umbrage with your baseless assertion that an atheist cannot be a good citizen.

I call foul and say that your assertion is a lie and further assert my own self that you, then are knowingly perpetuating a lie and are your own self thus a bad citizen.

Please, come visit me someday and call me a bad citizen to my face. I'd love to discuss it in person with you ...

I'll buy the beer.
Click to expand...




I'm sorry sir but if SI & Neuhuas' argument is that all atheists are 'bad citizens', then it follows that all atheist ex-servicemen & women such as ourselves, are bad citizens. That's all there is to it.

Based upon this agurment, SI and Neuhaus also think that any current serving men & women who are atheists and in life threatening situations overseas, are bad citizens as well.

I'm glad they are enjoying their 'freedom of speech'.

..
What is the world coming to when persons of this ilk can denigrate the service these non-theist people are doing for their country? :cry:
 
Stone Island is a bigot...

Atheist bigotry is alive and well in America:





The US once were at the forefront of civil rights... but religion has made people increasingly stupid while feeling holier-than-thou.
 
Last edited:
cgordon said:
SI, I'm a veteran (an atheist in a foxhole, then, as it were, and today I carry a slight disability due to my service), I'm currently a trusted civil servant in a position of some prominence, and I pay taxes, support my government (and serve as loyal opposition when necessary -- a lot lately), volunteer in the community, act as a voice of conscience to many for whom I have some influence, and I maintain that I am a citizen and and good one. And I am an atheist. And further, I take personal umbrage with your baseless assertion that an atheist cannot be a good citizen.

I call foul and say that your assertion is a lie and further assert my own self that you, then are knowingly perpetuating a lie and are your own self thus a bad citizen.

Please, come visit me someday and call me a bad citizen to my face. I'd love to discuss it in person with you ...

I'll buy the beer.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Stone Island said:
FWIW, the UK, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. (among others, of course) are all essentially Lockean natural rights republics.
Click to expand...
Republics?

And "Lockean Natural Rights"? As opposed to all those other different types of natural rights I suppose.
I wouldn't be surprised if, for Neuhaus at least, it would possible to offer a compelling, moral justification for all of them.
Click to expand...
No doubt he would also consider that good citizenship in Australia would also be limited to those only prepared to give a limited and conditional allegiance to their country.

He would be laughed out of Australia.
 
Stone Island said:
I wouldn't be surprised if, for Neuhaus at least, it would possible to offer a compelling, moral justification for all of them.
Click to expand...
I'd be very surprised if he could. "Compelling" and "contingent on the existence of an unlikely and undemonstrable sky daddy" is a contradiction in terms.
 
bokonon said:
I'd be very surprised if he could. "Compelling" and "contingent on the existence of an unlikely and undemonstrable sky daddy" is a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
Or, for that matter, contingent on the existence of a set of absolute laws that nobody has ever been able to identify or agree on and which seems to keep changing.
 
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...
Your theorem is that absent a God, there are no universal truths or ideals. You accept this theorem as fact without ever defending it, and are surprised when you are called on it.
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...
It's not an argument from ignorance. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. If it was meant to be a legal document it would have been written as one - many of the writers after the war were involved with the legal process of creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - our actual legal documents. The Declaration has no force of law, which any of the makers could have put in if they had decided to. The Constitution legally codifies their intent when writing the Declaration, and is therefore is a more preferable document to reference when discussing citizenship.
 
Hey, Stone Island, can atheists be good citizens?

See my post, #9 in this thread. See also cgordon's post, # 866 in this thread.

You are being given a quiz with the answer written on the blackboard in front of you.

You can score 100% on this quiz.

Why not answer and win a gold star from the teacher?

It seems possible that

*Jack Nicholson voice*

"You can't handle the truth!"

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom