Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Stone Island said:
He's pointing out Locke and Rousseau's argument and his own argument differs.
Click to expand...
His argument is specious. He claims that only a moral authority that is higher than man can guarantee good citizenship. Since god is nothing more than a convenient fiction which men project their morality on to stifle discussion of what is and is not moral, his premise is an error at best and most likely a deliberate lie.

Adherence to the laws of the nation is all that is required for good citizenship. The moral pronouncements of the "higher authority" which have not been codified in a nation's laws ("No shellfish!") are rules which the nation has deemed no longer applicable. The laws which have no support in the dusty pages of the "higher authority" ("Two passengers or more in the carpool lane!") are rules which the people (without any prompting from God) have decided are right and proper for their society.

Bigots like what's-his-name may think that atheists are undesirables, but he has not made a case that they're bad citizens. I think bigots like what's-his-name are undesirables, but as long as they obey the laws, I can't really argue that they're not good citizens.

Last time I checked, there were no additional rights or privileges conferred on those who claim the title "Good Citizen," so I'm not really sure what the point of the question is in the first place. I suspect it's merely an excuse to spew a lot of philosophical buzzwords to express the simple idea that he doesn't like atheists. Unless he's trying to take away my right to vote, serve on the local school board, check out library books, or use the carpool lane, I don't really care what a hateful little bigot thinks about my position on "higher authority."
 
bokonon said:
His argument is specious. He claims that only a moral authority that is higher than man can guarantee good citizenship. Since god is nothing more than a convenient fiction which men project their morality on to stifle discussion of what is and is not moral, his premise is an error at best and most likely a deliberate lie.

Adherence to the laws of the nation is all that is required for good citizenship. The moral pronouncements of the "higher authority" which have not been codified in a nation's laws ("No shellfish!") are rules which the nation has deemed no longer applicable. The laws which have no support in the dusty pages of the "higher authority" ("Two passengers or more in the carpool lane!") are rules which the people (without any prompting from God) have decided are right and proper for their society.

Bigots like what's-his-name may think that atheists are undesirables, but he has not made a case that they're bad citizens. I think bigots like what's-his-name are undesirables, but as long as they obey the laws, I can't really argue that they're not good citizens.

Last time I checked, there were no additional rights or privileges conferred on those who claim the title "Good Citizen," so I'm not really sure what the point of the question is in the first place. I suspect it's merely an excuse to spew a lot of philosophical buzzwords to express the simple idea that he doesn't like atheists. Unless he's trying to take away my right to vote, serve on the local school board, check out library books, or use the carpool lane, I don't really care what a hateful little bigot thinks about my position on "higher authority."
Click to expand...

Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Click to expand...
 
Stone Island said:
The author explicitly says that they can be citizens (they follow the law, don't they?). That's why I know you didn't read the article. He denies that they can be good citizens.

It's an important distinction.
Click to expand...

Pat Tillman's story pretty much deep-sixes that argument.
 
Stone Island said:
Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?
Click to expand...


Who cares if he or she can? Doing so is not required for good citizenship.
 
Stone Island said:
Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority.

The Declaration of Independence is not an article of U.S. Government. It was a piece of political rhetoric.

An atheist can hold that all humans have equal rights regardless of statements like "self-evident" and "created". A theist can hold that some people are superior to others and that these "inferiors" deserve less rights. Your argument is fallacious.
 
Stone Island said:
Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

Axiomatic truths, are not, if I'm not mistaken, the same as scientific truths.
Click to expand...
Self-evident is self-evident. The law should apply equally to all men.

As for another passage in the Declaration, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," that's just another projection. The government deprives men of life and liberty all the time, so the right is hardly as "inalienable" as is claimed.

Men make the laws, and appeals to higher authority don't mean squat. Slaveholders in the old south appealed to biblical authority to justify their peculiar institution, but the claimed endorsement from the almighty didn't make the practice any more moral.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Appeal to authority.

The Declaration of Independence is not an article of U.S. Government. It was a piece of political rhetoric.

An atheist can hold that all humans have equal rights regardless of statements like "self-evident" and "created". A theist can hold that some people are superior to others and that these "inferiors" deserve less rights. Your argument is fallacious.
Click to expand...
Begging the question.

The Constitution refers to the establishment of a "more perfect union", leading one to believe that there was a less perfect union already in existence. What created this less perfect union? According to Abraham Lincoln is was the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. These documents are our tradition which the Constitution continues.
 
Stone Island said:
According to Neuhaus it does. Why do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Once again. Circular reasoning.

You are basing your entire argument on this mans semantics and ideas. Neuhaus is a bigoted, social conservative, with a whip to crack. He is an adviser to Pres. Bush, and a very politically active Catholic priest.

Yes, if you predicate the basis for right and wrong in your argument on the views of this man, you are correct within that framework. I am also correct in my above post that 2+2 = 2501 using this same brand of reasoning.
 
Stone Island said:
According to Neuhaus it does. Why do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Neuhaus is just another ventriloquist, who finds an imaginary (and thus always silent) deity to be the perfect ventriloquist's dummy. Neuhaus and others love putting words in God's mouth, as though this gives their ideas extra weight. It doesn't.

Neuhaus's argument begins and ends in speciousness.
 
bokonon said:
Self-evident is self-evident. The law should apply equally to all men.

As for another passage in the Declaration, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," that's just another projection. The government deprives men of life and liberty all the time, so the right is hardly as "inalienable" as is claimed.

Men make the laws, and appeals to higher authority don't mean squat. Slaveholders in the old south appealed to biblical authority to justify their peculiar institution, but the claimed endorsement from the almighty didn't make the practice any more moral.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe that the claims are true and important than you cannot defend it on its own terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom