Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Darat said:
I have to disagree with you - he is certainly a self-righteous bigot of that there can be no disagreement (simply based on his words and the common definitions of those words) however I do not think he is an idiot. What he actually is is a quite clever person trying to fool people into accepting his bigoted opinions based on his sophistry.

Fortunately unless you are already a person who requires a belief in a supernatural being to do the right thing you will easily see through his sophistry. However if you are also a bigot (like Neuhaus) you probably will not like Neuhaus's bigotry and sophistry exposed and see such exposure as a personal attack rather than an attack on bigoted and unsupported claims.
Click to expand...

Oh he's a clever idiot, to be sure. He knows how to mask his hate and contempt in language. But according to Neuhaus (copyright 2008) if a car spun on ice and plunged into a freezing river and a passing atheist jumped into the icy water and saved the driver and her two young children, but then was too exhausted to save himself and was swept away and drowned, he would have done "the right thing but not for the right reason". To me, that's just ****in' stupid.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Oh he's a clever idiot, to be sure. He knows how to mask his hate and contempt in language. But according to Neuhaus (copyright 2008) if a car spun on ice and plunged into a freezing river and a passing atheist jumped into the icy water and saved the driver and her two young children, but then was too exhausted to save himself and was swept away and drowned, he would have done "the right thing but not for the right reason". To me, that's just ****in' stupid.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you regarding this - all the stuff espoused by Stone Island in this thread regarding Neuhaus's bigoted opinions and unsupported claims is absolutely stupid.
 
Darat said:
I do agree with you regarding this - all the stuff espoused by Stone Island in this thread regarding Neuhaus's bigoted opinions and unsupported claims is absolutely stupid.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the *plonk* club. Beer and sandwiches are served at noon.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Oh he's a clever idiot, to be sure. He knows how to mask his hate and contempt in language.
Click to expand...

Not really well. It didn't fool many people here, apparently.

But according to Neuhaus (copyright 2008) if a car spun on ice and plunged into a freezing river and a passing atheist jumped into the icy water and saved the driver and her two young children, but then was too exhausted to save himself and was swept away and drowned, he would have done "the right thing but not for the right reason". To me, that's just ****in' stupid.
Click to expand...

To you and 99% of mankind, religious or not.



Are wine and sushi ok for the *plonk* club ?
 
So if Neuhaus was the one whose car spun into the river, I'll bet he wouldn't give a damn about the religious views of the one saving his miserable ass.
 
I'm an atheist and I've hidden my shame for around a month but I want to come out as being a bad citizen. Texas has very liberal early voting laws for presidental primaries and yet wasn't motivated enough to vote either early or on election day.

Perhaps my lack of faith in a deity was to blame, or perhaps it was McCain, who I will be voting for in November had already locked up the nomination and I wasn't sufficiently motivated to play with the nomination process and vote for Obama or Hillary.

Though I guess that SI is actually referring to the "moral" and ethical components to being a "good citizen" and not shirking one's duty in a liberal democracy to vote in elections so he'll get back to things like not speeding in school zones because we're afraid of getting a ticket, which is a carrot/stick issue that one would suspect crosses "good citizen" lines of belief if I didn't see so many cars with Ichthyos placques, pithy bumper stickers and "my child blah blah at St. Anselms Academy" applicades ignoring or flaunting traffic laws/speed limits.

Believers might be forgiven of their sins, but they won't be forgiven of going 35 in a 25 marked school zone or running red lights.
 
joobz said:
That's rather unfortuante Stone Island, becuase you "plonked" solid arguments that demonstrated the irrational basis for your position.
Click to expand...

No, I *plonked* personal attacks.

GreyICE said:
The good of society and individual freedoms, as based on statistical analysis of happiness in a population.
Click to expand...
"The good of society" is an evaluative concept that assumes a standard of evaluation. Is that standard something that can be applied across time? Is slavery good in some situations but evil in others?

While you can certainly ask people whether, given certain social situation, they're happy or not, you still haven't answered the central question: is it good? Remember, there have been times when people answers as to whether they thought some social construction was good or not varied wildly from what we might see as good. My question is, "Is there any ground for judging them?" The Founders of the USA thought that there was; their moral philosophy is based on the notion that there was.
 
Darat said:
I do agree with you regarding this - all the stuff espoused by Stone Island in this thread regarding Neuhaus's bigoted opinions and unsupported claims is absolutely stupid.
Click to expand...
Not very friendly or lively, in my opinion.

**plonk**
 
Stone Island said:
No, I *plonked* personal attacks.


"The good of society" is an evaluative concept that assumes a standard of evaluation. Is that standard something that can be applied across time? Is slavery good in some situations but evil in others?

While you can certainly ask people whether, given certain social situation, they're happy or not, you still haven't answered the central question: is it good? Remember, there have been times when people answers as to whether they thought some social construction was good or not varied wildly from what we might see as good. My question is, "Is there any ground for judging them?" The Founders of the USA thought that there was; their moral philosophy is based on the notion that there was.
Click to expand...
Hey you know what happens if you strip a single sentence of mine from any context whatsoever and then respond to it with a tangent that was partially addressed in the original post?

I block you for being a complete jerk. Respond to my post or don't respond to my post, but don't quote it out of context. I have no intention of addressing you ever again.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
No, I *plonked* personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Wait...so you're a mature adult, and you have a smattering of deductive logic, but your best and most logical response to an ad hom is plonk?

I find myself unimpressed.

"The good of society" is an evaluative concept that assumes a standard of evaluation. Is that standard something that can be applied across time?
Click to expand...

In that what constitutes the "good of society" can change over time, then one would have to answer a provisional "yes" to this. I think. Frankly, your question is not as clear as it could be.

Is slavery good in some situations but evil in others?
Click to expand...

It's only good if you're the slave-owner. Never for the slave.

While you can certainly ask people whether, given certain social situation, they're happy or not, you still haven't answered the central question: is it good? Remember, there have been times when people answers as to whether they thought some social construction was good or not varied wildly from what we might see as good.
Click to expand...

These times are now as well, not just in some vague "past."

Clitoridectomy is bad. If you had a clitoris, you'd likely see that immediately, without any real need for argument. And yet, even though I can't wrap my own head around the idea of having my clitoris removed, there are apparently a certain, unspecified number of girls who are eager to have it done to themselves. Clitoridectomy could easily be seen as a "social construction," as one is expected by one's society to undergo it in order to be a "good" wife.

It reminds me of a past social construction: foot binding. Very much a social construction, but in my society, very wrong. And yet, many women underwent this painful and protracted form of social construct in order to fit into their society. And that's all it was. It certainly wasn't some sort of necessary medical procedure done to improve quality of life or to save a life. It was a purely cosmetic procedure and it rendered women's feet deformed and all but useless. To the best of my knowledge, it's now illegal to practice foot-binding. Did that society's standard of morality, of good and bad, right and wrong, change over time?

My question is, "Is there any ground for judging them?" The Founders of the USA thought that there was; their moral philosophy is based on the notion that there was.
Click to expand...

And they created one of their major documents to reflect change over time: the Constitution. It is a living document, capable of change, and it has undergone change, over time. It is not the same document framed by the founders, for the very fact that what could be considered good or bad for society can and does change over time.

Morality is judged, by each of us, in at least two ways: personally, and societally. Sometimes the two coincide neatly, and sometimes they most certainly don't.

For instance, I know of people who are perfectly law-abiding in every way save one: they like to smoke a little marijuana now and then. Pesonally, they see no immorality in it, any more than most people see any immorality in having a beer. But their society has judged this activity a crime, and so they break a law by imbibing.

Can I plonk you now, or does it not work in this context?

At any rate, the fact that I do not ascribe to a belief in magical beings is not sufficient to render a judgement that I cannot behave as a good citizen, nor that I do not and cannot know the difference between right and wrong.

A good citizen pays his or her taxes. I have on my desk, as I write, a check for $139 that I am sending to the IRS. I owe taxes, and I'm paying them. I didn't need a god to tell me I ought to pay my taxes.

A good citizen obeys the laws of her country and locality. I do so. I am not a law-breaker. I do not need a god to tell me that it is good for me and my society that I do so.

I vote. I don't know specifically that this makes me a good citizen, but my society tends to think so.

I do not help out in my community at present, because of a mental condition that makes it very, very hard for me to trust people anymore. I would like to help in my community, though. I have the desire to do so. I think I could help a great deal, if only I hadn't been so traumatized recently. Perhaps one day I'll get better, and can rejoin society, but that day is not today.

What else do I need to do, in America, to be considered a good citizen?

Answer me that, and I will respond. And not with "plonk." I ask you, respectfully, not to use that device on me or my responses. I consider it childish and not forwarding of any discussion.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
No, I *plonked* personal attacks.
Click to expand...

So Stone Island really is Neuhaus? 'Cause I could swear that I stated my opinion that Neuhaus is a self-righteous bigot and an idiot.

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?
 
GreyICE said:
Hey you know what happens if you strip a single sentence of mine from any context whatsoever and then respond to it with a tangent that was partially addressed in the original post?

I block you for being a complete jerk. Respond to my post or don't respond to my post, but don't quote it out of context. I have no intention of addressing you ever again.
Click to expand...

Listen, you're begging the question of "the good society" by using an evaluative criteria, which is at the heart of the "good citizen", without answering the question of whether any evaluative criteria can be non-arbitrary or morally compelling. Answering the rest of your question is besides the point.
 
Stone Island said:
Not very friendly or lively, in my opinion.

**plonk**
Click to expand...

How interesting you stated that "No, I *plonked* personal attacks." yet you say you are "plonking" me even though the statement from me that you quoted did not contain one iota of a personal attack...

Can you please point to the personal attack I have made that instigated your plonking?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
How interesting you stated that "No, I *plonked* personal attacks." yet you say you are "plonking" me even though the statement from me that you quoted did not contain one iota of a personal attack...

Can you please point to the personal attack I have made that instigated your plonking?
Click to expand...

Since you're unplonkable, I'm also dying to find out if Stone Island thinks that I, as an atheist, could value the lives of my wife and son more than my own.




BTW, my spell-check wanted to change "unplonkable" to "unlikeable", but we know better than it does.;)
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Since you're unplonkable, I'm also dying to find out if Stone Island thinks that I, as an atheist, could value the lives of my wife and son more than my own.
...snip...
Click to expand...

Well since Stone Island is either not capable or not willing to advance any of his (or is it her?) own arguments the best you can hope for would be a quote from some article Neuhaus has published that Stone Island would consider a response to that type of question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom