Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Safe-Keeper said:
Why write a several pages long philosophical essay when you can look at the HDI and compare it to the religious adherence of each nation, for example (hint: the atheist and secular nations dominate the HDI;))?
Click to expand...

Because the article wishes to define a good citizen as one who believes in god, to therefore prove that atheists cannot be good citizens by definition. It is a nasty piece of political rhetoric masquerading as philosophy.
The author has no intention of letting reality get in the way of his bigotry.
 
God as useful lie

I think that in this example, questions around Neuhaus's political activity, and the sponsor of the paper, the Bradley Foundation, are not fallacious. The reason is because they have a vested financial interest in defining "good citizen" in a particular way that is indeed circular. "Good citizen", to their point of view, includes character that is malleable to serving their purposes in the name of God. If you are not willing to be so sent, you are not a "good citizen" in their view.

Neuhaus does hit one nail pretty good - God, whether or not he exists, is at least a useful lie or tool - a virtual point people are directed toward or work for.

But of course he exists, because he is our tool. Your God would not exist if he did not serve our purposes. This is dizzyingly circular.

These kind of papers do raise a question about where religious belief comes from, and who it ultimately serves. Should it surprise anyone to find out that popular theology and beliefs are being influenced (funded) by the munitions industry or certain extremist political viewpoints? There is money and power in it.
 
godless dave said:
If Abraham Lincoln really said that, he was wrong. The less perfect union was the one created by the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence does not create a union at all, nor does it specify a form of government for any of the states.
Click to expand...

By July 4, 1776, the signers of the DOI referred to themselves as the "Representatives of the United States of America, in general congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intension, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States..." Independent from Britain, of course, not independent from each other.

The states had their own Constitutions. Still do. The U.S. Constitution, which, I believe, has the most to say on this subject, only promises a republican form of government. Hell, until the 14th Amendment, the states could establish their own religions. Some did!
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
as history shows, they were not understood as fundamentally true with that belief.
Click to expand...

Well, if they are fundamentally true, then the people who acted contrary to them were either wrong, profoundly ignorant, or hypocrites.
 
Stone Island said:
Well, if they are fundamentally true, then the people who acted contrary to them were either wrong, profoundly ignorant, or hypocrites.
Click to expand...

And if they're not fundamentally true they can still be used equally well as a basis for civil society. The question of whether they are or aren't fundamentally true, indeed whether fundamental truth does or does not even exist are completely irrelevant to the defining good citizenship.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Perhaps you missed it...

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?
Click to expand...
bignickel said:
(With nods to KingMerv)

Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?
Click to expand...

Jimbo07 said:
Stone Island,

Can atheists be good citizens?
Click to expand...
Stone Island, when you get arround to answering that question, I direct you to FZ's post, which you happened to overlook.

Foster Zygote said:
And an atheist who is a good citizen disproves the argument that atheists cannot be good citizens. I'm glad we cleared that all up.
Click to expand...
 
Stone Island said:
By July 4, 1776, the signers of the DOI referred to themselves as the "Representatives of the United States of America, in general congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intension, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States..." Independent from Britain, of course, not independent from each other.
Click to expand...

That establishes neither a union nor a government.
 
But can they be understood as fundamentally true, without that belief?
Click to expand...
Begging the question.

Moving the burden over to God to make it more than 'just someone's opinion' doesn't change a thing. It's still just opinion - God's opinion.

Me: Why do you believe people should be respected?
Fundie: Because God says so.
Me: OK, let me rephrase that. Why does He think people should be respected?
Fundie: ...

It's the same logic as this:

Me: How come the Earth doesn't topple or fall, but appears to hang still in space?
Fundie: Because the Titans hold it up, keeping it from falling.
Me: What hold the Titans up, keeping them from falling?
Fundie: ...
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
But can they be understood as fundamentally true, without that belief?
Click to expand...
Is it possible to understand
[To secure the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...
as fundamentally true without a belief in a deity? Certainly.

The better question is whether anything that depends on a belief in a dubious invention that no one has seen can be seen as fundamentally true. It seems to me that anything that depends on such a belief is, by its very nature, fundamentally doubtful.
 
Would theists behave as morally as we atheists if they weren't imagining a god spying on them ready to damn them to eternity for bad behavior and give them presents and eternal goodies for "faith" promoting activities?

Would Stone Island be more moral and less bigoted if his brain hadn't been seeped in theism? (studies indicate this is likely: http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html)
 
Last edited:
godofpie said:
Well I read it and the author calls the separation of church and state political atheism. I would call the author anti-american.
Click to expand...

And separation of church and state is correctly termed: secularism

It's a position of neutrality so one person invisible savior doesn't have precedence over another's.
 
I don't know about you all, but even if God existed and that God said that some humans were designed by Him to have authority over others, I'd still prefer to live under a system of government that treated all humans as equal.
 
Shalamar said:
Hmm..

I'm not a good citizen.

Well.. Depending. I'm Canadian, but I live in the States.

I'm Catholic, but far far from practicing.

So.. Not a Citizen, not a (true) theist, not an athiest.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're a "true Scotsman"?
(how do you take your porridge?)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom