Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[PBTree]

ROTFL.

Won't be long and ""Neuhaus"" will have *plonk'd'* us all. Must be a record of some sorts. The only thread to ever finish because the 'starter' can't see answers from anyone on the forum.

LOL

 

[Foster Zygote]

ROTFL.

Won't be long and ""Neuhaus"" will have *plonk'd'* us all. Must be a record of some sorts. The only thread to ever finish because the 'starter' can't see answers from anyone on the forum.

LOL

Nah, T'ai Chi is a hard act to follow in that regard.

 

[Stone Island]

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?

all the stuff espoused by Stone Island in this thread regarding Neuhaus's bigoted opinions and unsupported claims is absolutely stupid.

Of course, personal attacks are not the only reasons to *plonk* someone. Blanket statements like this, which make it clear that you aren't willing to engage in anything like a friendly or lively discussion, is a good reason as well.

On another note, repeatedly calling Neuhaus a bigot isn't much of an argument.

 

[Stone Island]

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

To be a good citizen it's necessary (though not sufficient) that you be able to give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of the society that you live in. It's not obvious that ours is the best society and it's not obvious that we know better than societies that have come before. For many societies this will be impossible because there may be no possible moral justification for them. Just as every mother loves her son, no matter how wayward, it may be impossible for us to not love our country, but impossible to offer a compelling moral justification of it.

It may not be possible for any society, ever.

It's my contention that a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of one's country is impossible for an atheist not because they don't believe in the particular God or gods of one's country (though that is one reason why a Communist can't be a good citizen of American, i.e., because they don't believe in natural rights and reject the freedom of an individual as a symptom of class conflict which will disappear with the Revolution), but because they reject as unreasonable the possibility of believing in God or gods. Belief in natural law is no more justifiable than a belief in God or gods. Natural law, for an atheist, may be a salutary myth, but it is not true in itself, it is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation. And if it is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation it becomes merely a means to an end.

One can follow the laws and norms of a society for any number of non-salutary reasons, including fear of punishment, hope of reward, ignorance of alternatives, etc...

 

[slingblade]

The only reason to plonk someone is if you happen to be five years old.

You use a stupid sound effect as a response, and WE'RE the ones who aren't willing to engage in friendly and lively discussion? I see. All right, I'll try to do it your way and we'll see how friendly and lively we get.


Plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk, plonk plonk plonk. Plonk plonk plonk? Plonk, plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk, plonk plonk plonk plonk. Plonk plonk. Plonk plonk, plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk plonk--plonk, plonk plonk, plonk--plonk plonk plonk plonk.

Plonk plonk!

Respond.

 

[articulett]

Come on... here's here to preach... not to engage in dialogue.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He's not here to preach. He's here to post the sermons of other people.

 

[Ateius]

To be a good citizen it's necessary (though not sufficient) that you be able to give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of the society that you live in.

Says who?

 

[six7s]

To be a good citizen it's necessary (though not sufficient) that you be able to give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of the society that you live in.

Subtly shifting the goal posts, huh?

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.<snip/>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." <snip/>An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith...

You were wrong six days ago

You are still wrong

It's not obvious that ours is the best society

Indeed... especially if you have an objective focus on democracy, human rights, press freedom, corruption and the rule of law, as opposed to subjective criteria of "moral justification", with flimsy, shallow and irrelevant appeals to emotion like "every mother loves her son, no matter how wayward"

www.worldaudit.org

Country | Democracy | Press Freedom | Corruption
Finland|1|1|1
Denmark|2|2|1
Sweden|3|2|4
New Zealand|4|7|1
Switzerland|5|6|6
Netherlands|6|7|6
Norway|7|2|8
Canada|8|15|8
United Kingdom|9|18|11
Australia|9|23|10
Germany|11|11|13
Austria|12|23|12
Belgium|12|2|18
Ireland|14|11|14
United States|15|11|17

source
​

I agree, it's not obvious that yours is the best society

World Audit brings together statistics and reports from highly respected agencies, each with their own developed specialities. Freedom House, Transparency International, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The International Commission of Jurists are THE names where political rights, civil liberties, press freedom, perceptions of corruption, human rights, and the rule of law, are concerned. From their admirable work we present and update the World Democracy Audit. Our reports monitor and rank every one of the 149 nation states with populations in excess of 1 million - thus 99% of the world's population.

Belief in natural law is no more justifiable than a belief in God or gods.

Who cares?

Natural law, for an atheist, may be a salutary myth, but it is not true in itself,

Now it's your turn to "listen"... If nothing else, get one thing straight in that twisted worldview you spout:

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods...

All gods...
Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Allah, Yahweh, Cthulhu, The FSM, Elvis...
The whole damn family
​

Please, do not complicate this simple matter in your mind

it [Natural law] is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation. And if it is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation it becomes merely a means to an end.

Speaking as one atheist (note: unlike the cults/sects of theism, there are no clubs or gangs selling memberships), I am quite content to live in a country where I can follow and shape the laws and norms of society

...non-salutary reasons, including fear of
punishment, hope of reward, ignorance of alternatives, etc...

Ummm... isn't that something that theists have (pretty much) a monopoly on?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Says who?

Dang, beat me to it.

Word-for-word, too.

 

[JoeEllison]

Says who?

Says nobody. His argument is effing stupid beyond belief.

 

[JoeEllison]

He's not here to preach. He's here to post the sermons of other people.

A real man would at least have enough courage to stand behind his own belief, instead of hiding behind the beliefs of others.

 

[joobz]

No, I *plonked* personal attacks.

I can understand plonking attacks, but I didn't see from FZ. I saw him accuse Neuhaus of bigotry, though.

 

[godless dave]

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.

Our choices aren't blind.

Reason does not tell us that our principles are in themselves as good or as bad any other principles.

 

[bobdroege7]

It's my contention that a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of one's country is impossible for an atheist not because they don't believe in the particular God or gods of one's country (though that is one reason why a Communist can't be a good citizen of American, i.e., because they don't believe in natural rights and reject the freedom of an individual as a symptom of class conflict which will disappear with the Revolution), but because they reject as unreasonable the possibility of believing in God or gods.

Um,

No we don't, or lest I put words in another atheist's mouth, no I don't.

I do not reject as unreasonable that you believe in God, I merely reject as unreasonable that I believe in God.

After all, we are reasonable people and good citizens.

 

[godless dave]

Republics?

I'll give him that one. Australia and Canada, and for the most part the UK, are monarchies on paper but in practice the actual government is republican. The heads of state have very little to do with the government.

...an atheist qua atheist cannot give a non-arbitrary. morally compelling reason why they, or anyone else, should act in any particular way.

We've given you several reasons over the course of this thread.

Can you give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why anyone else ought to do what you did? Can you give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why you did what you did? Please do try and not refer to anything that isn't scientifically or empirically verifiable.

Why not? For the thousandth time, there is nothing about atheism that restricts us from referring to things that aren't scientifically or empirically verifiable.

Can't you see that acting in accordance with the community is as arbitrary as not, without some standard? The question is really whether any standard is possible. The atheist, for one, says not.

We don't say that at all. Why do you keep saying we do?

Don't you understand that the gods men believe in, as well as your "natural law", are at least as arbitrary as moral principles men think up? If relying on arbitrary principles prevents someone from being a good citizen, then there are zero good citizens of the United States. One can only conclude from Neuhaus's argument that nobody is a good citizen because theists rely on arbitrary principles just as much as atheists. Therefore, according to Neuhaus, they can't be good citizens.

 

[godless dave]

No, I *plonked* personal attacks.

Only one was a personal attack, and it was an attack on Neuhaus, not on you. If you quote someone espousing bigotry people are going to call him a bigot.

The other was not an attack, but a conclusion based on what you have posted about your views on morality.

 

[six7s]

Our choices aren't blind.

Reason does not tell us that our principles are in themselves as good or as bad any other principles.

Indeed... it takes a conscious effort to cherry pick


David Quinn debates Richard Dawkins
RTE Dublin: The Ryan Tubridy Show

An awful lot of people think they take the Bible literally but that can only be because they’ve never read it.

If they ever read it they couldn’t possibly take it literally, but I do think that people are a bit confused about where they get their morality from.

A lot of people think they get their morality from the Bible because they can find a few good verses.

Parts of the Ten Commandments are okay, parts of the Sermon on the Mount are okay. So they think they get their morality from the Bible.

But actually of course nobody gets their morality from the Bible, we get it from somewhere else and to the extent that we can find good bits in the Bible we cherry pick them.

We pick and choose them.

We choose the good verses in the Bible and we reject the bad.

Whatever criterion we use to choose the good verses and throw out the bad, that criterion is available to us anyway whether we are religious or not.

Why bother to pick verses?

Why not just go straight for the morality?

 

[godless dave]

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.

He doesn't have to answer it because Kant answered it a long time ago.

 

[godless dave]

It's my contention that a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of one's country is impossible for an atheist not because they don't believe in the particular God or gods of one's country (though that is one reason why a Communist can't be a good citizen of American, i.e., because they don't believe in natural rights and reject the freedom of an individual as a symptom of class conflict which will disappear with the Revolution), but because they reject as unreasonable the possibility of believing in God or gods. Belief in natural law is no more justifiable than a belief in God or gods.

But you have yet to show that belief in natural law is in any way, shape, or form necessary to give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary justification of one's country.

In fact, it's impossible to do so, because belief in natural law is arbitrary.

Natural law, for an atheist, may be a salutary myth, but it is not true in itself, it is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation. And if it is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation it becomes merely a means to an end.

So what? What's wrong with adhering to principles for utilitarian reasons?