Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

It's nice to see that you're still dancing around, Stone. He's not necessarily a bad citizen but definitely not a good one ? How is that possible, now ?
 
Stone Island said:
Maybe he's just a citizen, neither good nor bad. Neuhaus never said that a atheist couldn't be a citizen and he didn't say they were necessarily a bad citizen, just that they couldn't be a good citizen. Perhaps our language has become debased enough that good has come to mean the mere minimum.
Click to expand...
So, now you claiming there are levels to citizenry and that what you believe dictates which levels are available to you?

In other words:
So, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes no god is able to be at best a citizen.

Whereas, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in any of the countless number of gods that have been worshiped is able to be a maximum a good citizen.

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the god of abraham is able to be a maximum a great citizen.

or

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the christian god is able to be a maximum an outstanding citizen.

...

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the southern revivalist, northeast chapter of the baptist reformationists 2nd house assembly's god is able to be a maximum a super double secret mega-happy inverted dancing magoo awesomeness great citizen.
 
Stone Island said:
The question is why are democracy, press freedom, and low corruption are objective moral criteria? Why is that a justified position to take? It seems to me that to make that case you would have to appeal to a standard that is no more empirically justified than an appeal to God or gods.
Click to expand...

Why does it need to be empirically justified?

Stone Island said:
The "every mother loves her son..." bit is to remind you that (almost) everyone loves their country, even profoundly screwed up countries. Is their love justified or is it merely the result of arbitrary birth location?
Click to expand...

It's the result of arbitrary birth location, obviously. Country does not equal government.
 
joobz said:
That's a rather odd statement and I do not know what it has to do with neuhaus and his illogical argument. Are you a student doing substitute teaching?
Click to expand...

The point is that I've been busy and I haven't given some very good points the answer they deserve.

ABD, Ph.D. Political Science (Political Theory and American)
 
joobz said:
So, now you claiming there are levels to citizenry and that what you believe dictates which levels are available to you?

In other words:
So, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes no god is able to be at best a citizen.

Whereas, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in any of the countless number of gods that have been worshiped is able to be a maximum a good citizen.

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the god of abraham is able to be a maximum a great citizen.

or

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the christian god is able to be a maximum an outstanding citizen.

...

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the southern revivalist, northeast chapter of the baptist reformationists 2nd house assembly's god is able to be a maximum a super double secret mega-happy inverted dancing magoo awesomeness great citizen.
Click to expand...

That's clever, and I see your point, but it's not my argument. In fact, I've been very careful to make sure that that isn't my argument. Please, try and pay attention.

Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense. Communists because they bow to other gods. Atheists because they reject the possibility of any gods.
 
Flo said:
Not the slightest chance you could ever be in "my" schools. Where I live, you would be barred from teaching for daring to suggest there is more to be a good citizen than to respect the laws of the land.

To link professing a belief to being a good citizen is the apanage of tyrannical theocracies, not of modern civilised democracies.
Click to expand...

Are those laws good? How do you know? Apart from whether you prefer the law to be one way or another, is there some objective standard against which the laws can be judged? Wouldn't a good citizen be one who helps the state make it's laws adhere more closely to what is actually good as opposed to what is apparently good?

So, Flo, in your country I don't suppose they teach Plato's Socrates? That's a shame if they don't.
 
Stone Island said:
What other sort of justification for rights could you offer, other than mere arbitrary preference?

Are cannibal societies less justified than natural rights republics? Why?
Click to expand...

Let's see. I assume you mean societies where people are cannibalized before they die of natural causes, and against their will, as opposed to some cultures where cannibalism is a compontent of funerary rites.

In that society, there would not be any protection of the rights of people to live. If you want to live in a society where you don't have to worry about being next week's dinner (and face it, a human's at least a week's worth of good eating) you need to build a society where the rights of each person belong to every person.

Maybe it bothers you that societies, justice, and morality are mostly human constructs (with some strong evolutionary input, as we are social animals and social animals all over the world seem to have some commonalities) but tough ****, the universe doesn't owe you comfort. Morality is not objective. This is a fact. You cannot find an objective universal moral rubric anywhere you look. Simply examining the variation of human societies puts lie to the idea that there is such a thing as universal human morality.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
That's clever, and I see your point, but it's not my argument. In fact, I've been very careful to make sure that that isn't my argument. Please, try and pay attention.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "your argument." Are you claiming that I'm misrepresenting the argument at hand or are you claiming that this is all Neuhaus' argument? If it is the former, you are wrong. I've simply extrapolated the argument you've made. If it is the later, that's irrelevant as the argument that you presented is weak regardless who came up with it. And it is that argument which I am challenging as poor.

Stone Island said:
Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense. Communists because they bow to other gods. Atheists because they reject the possibility of any gods.
Click to expand...

So how is my argument wrong? You now claim that citizenry requires not JUST the belief in god(s) but the belief in the right god(s). Your are simply reinforcing my critique.

And if you meant that "communists bow to other gods" as a metaphor that a person who is communist can't be a good citizen in a capitalist democracy, then doesn't it stand to reason that a capitalist can't be a good citizen in a communist society?
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense.
Click to expand...

The problem with this, Stone, and I really wish you didn't have me on ignore so you could read this post, is that you have NEVER provided any reason for us to believe that accepting "the possibility that natural rights or natural law" is a prerequisite to being a good citizen. In fact, it doesn't even fit with the definition you gave earlier. You said that, to be a good citizen, somebody had to give an account, or something. Now you say that they have to believe in natural laws. I assume you think both are necessary. You have never explained why you think so. In fact, it's been shown to be untrue.
 
joobz said:
This worries me. Are we simply writing your disertation or class report for you?
Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.

My dissertation is on the theory of the Federative power in Locke, anyway.

I wanted to do something on the conflict between poetry and philosophy in Aristophanes but my professor told me that if I didn't have much Greek this late in the game it was probably too late to get a good start.
 
Stone Island said:
Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.
Click to expand...

Oh?

So is your sense of academic rigor "post a link to something, make no commentary or analysis, and when engaged in a discussion, weasel and dodge?"

This forum happens to be a place where evidence and logic are encouraged, so if it doesn't meet your standards I sumbit that your standards don't involve reason or facts.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
Let's see. I assume you mean societies where people are cannibalized before they die of natural causes, and against their will, as opposed to some cultures where cannibalism is a compontent of funerary rites.

In that society, there would not be any protection of the rights of people to live. If you want to live in a society where you don't have to worry about being next week's dinner (and face it, a human's at least a week's worth of good eating) you need to build a society where the rights of each person belong to every person.

Maybe it bothers you that societies, justice, and morality are mostly human constructs (with some strong evolutionary input, as we are social animals and social animals all over the world seem to have some commonalities) but tough ****, the universe doesn't owe you comfort. Morality is not objective. This is a fact. You cannot find an objective universal moral rubric anywhere you look. Simply examining the variation of human societies puts lie to the idea that there is such a thing as universal human morality.
Click to expand...

Thus Spake Zarathustra:
MANY lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: thus he discovered the
good and bad of many peoples. No greater power did Zarathustra find on
earth than good and bad.
No people could live without first valuing; if a people will
maintain itself, however, it must not value as its neighbour valueth.
Much that passed for good with one people was regarded with scorn
and contempt by another: thus I found it. Much found I here called
bad, which was there decked with purple honours.
Never did the one neighbour understand the other: ever did his
soul marvel at his neighbour’s delusion and wickedness.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
The problem with this, Stone, and I really wish you didn't have me on ignore so you could read this post, is that you have NEVER provided any reason for us to believe that accepting "the possibility that natural rights or natural law" is a prerequisite to being a good citizen. In fact, it doesn't even fit with the definition you gave earlier. You said that, to be a good citizen, somebody had to give an account, or something. Now you say that they have to believe in natural laws. I assume you think both are necessary. You have never explained why you think so. In fact, it's been shown to be untrue.
Click to expand...

quoted because Stone seems to have Belz... on ignore, and Blez... is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom