Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

What's the definition of a "good citizen"? What's the definition of a "bad citizen"?
 
godless dave said:
So Locke knew what God wanted?
Click to expand...

Your question leads me to believe that you haven't read it. Am I wrong?

Read it carefully. It can't be that hard because apparently Gord_in_Toronto read the whole thing in 10 minutes.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
Here.

Or, do you just want to accuse people of cowardice and bigotry?
Click to expand...

I won't actually directly address the content of the post since it is from a few pages back. Let's take a look here:

In a commercial for some new drug, Jarvic talks about going into medicine because his father almost died of a heart attack. Is this revelation of his motivations important for evaluating the contributions of his research?
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking for motivation...so this isn't relevant.

I would like to have the freedom to try out all sorts of different arguments without the constant, nagging insinuation that I'm contradicting myself (as if contradicting myself on an internet forum is some great sin). Some, like Foster Zygote, have already tried bringing up what I've said in other threads, as if that had any relevance to what Neuhaus said in his article.
Click to expand...

Nope not here either.

I guess I don't know what you mean by a real discussion. A discussion about arguments is a real discussion. A discussion about my opinions is probably more akin to therapy. Let's try and be scientific and ignore our biases.
Click to expand...

Also nope. In fact the bolded part actually suggests you have NOT given me your opinion.

Everyone else here is thrilled to give their opinion and it doesn't seem like therapy to them. I promise I will not post in this thread anymore if you simply type "yes" or "no" to the following question:

Can atheists be good citizens?
 
Last edited:
Rousseau said:
Those who distinguish civil from theological intolerance are, to my mind, mistaken. The two forms are inseparable. It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned; to love them would be to hate God who punishes them: we positively must either reclaim or torment them.
Click to expand...

Rousseau's point is that intolerant religions are an impediment to cooperative free societies. He continues:
Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State [...] Such dogma is good only in a theocratic government; in any other, it is fatal.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like Rousseau might think we should get rid of anyone who says atheists can't be good citizens, and the god they rode in on.
 
Last edited:
bokonon said:
Rousseau's point is that intolerant religions are an impediment to cooperative free societies. He continues:


Sounds to me like Rousseau might think we should get rid of anyone who says atheists can't be good citizens, and the god they rode in on.
Click to expand...

Nice quote mine.
 
How about this: Stone Island, would you agree that it is only necessary to provide an example of an atheist who is or was a good US citizen in order to determine that the answer to the question posed by the thread title is "yes" and that Neuhaus is wrong?
 
Contradicting oneself is no greater sin than being a bad citizen. :)

I think believers need to believe that their faith is good and makes them better somehow... otherwise, they'll question it.

They do his by feeling special, chosen, and superior--but never admitting that they feel this... "it's their inside secret"-- they pretend this is humble.

They presume the people they like share their beliefs and that they like them because something about those shared beliefs makes them more likable. As long as beliefs aren't probed, you can convince yourself of this readily.

Those whom they know have different beliefs are those they laugh at behind their back... but to their face they are respectful because they don't want to hear how laughable those other guys think their corresponding beliefs are.

But they know an atheist laughs at belief itself. So as soon as they know someone is a non-believer, they must see (invent) the evil caused by atheism. Either that or question faith as a means of knowledge. It takes a brave person to ask that question... they've been lead to believe that faith is the key to salvation. That's a hard thing to let go of. So instead they use confirmation bias to convince themselves that faith IS "salvation worthy".

I think it'll be nice when you can just assume that everyone is a non-believer unless they feel the need to profess their faith for some reason... and then we can weigh their beliefs and opinions with the same respect and logic that is warranted and/or the same respect they give our opinions of their opinions. We can mock all woo beliefs equally without the endless bigotry and raise the general critical thinking ability of humans in general.

Faith hobbles good minds and makes simple minded folks arrogant.
 
Stone Island said:
Is it too much to ask for you to read what I wrote instead of what you think I should have written? Remember, charity is the most important of the virtues when it comes to philosophical argumentation.
Click to expand...
I did read what you wrote, and commented on the fact that your claim of Jefferson viewing christianity as important (assuming you mean important in defining morality) is only true if you have the loosest definitions of christianity. In particular, Jefferson found the philisophical teachings of Jesus as important, but found the concept of jesus as the son of god as insanity. There's worlds of difference between finding a set of morals important and finding a religion as important.

And your claim of charity is simply diversionary nonsense since you did not find it charitible to accurately portray Articulett's argument that Jeff and Linc were simply not religious in the way most people consider being religious today. Thier brand of faith would likely earn them the title of spiritual rather than religious.
 
Foster Zygote said:
How about this: Stone Island, would you agree that it is only necessary to provide an example of an atheist who is or was a good US citizen in order to determine that the answer to the question posed by the thread title is "yes" and that Neuhaus is wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, if you wanted to prove Neuhaus wrong, or, at least, to show that his argument isn't an conclusive as he might have thought, the first thing I suggest you do is to define, very carefully and very charitably, the strongest possible formulation of his argument. You would have to define exactly what he meant by a good citizen, what he meant by an atheist, and why it is that he thinks that atheists can't meet that criteria. You could then show how his terms are wrong, trivial, tautological, don't take into account other relevant facts, have perverse consequences that he might wish to avoid, etc...

What about this business with Sidney Hook? Is he trying to have his cake and eat it too? According to Neuhaus, what distinguishes Sidney Hook's atheism from the other atheisms he describes (Greek, Modern, Practical, Academic, Liberal). On Neuhaus's own terms, does this analysis hold? Are Neuhauses's distinctions fair? Saying yes or no isn't enough, you have to give reasons.

You would then have to think for a moment about anything Neuhaus might have missed. Whether, for example, there were better ways of defining atheist or good citizenship that would have made his argument stronger or weaker. You basically would allow him to take moves back, to reformulate his argument, so that your eventual conclusion is all the more stronger.

You might even find yourselves agreeing in part and disagreeing in part.

Of course, to make it philosophical, the key is charitableness. You want Neuhaus with you at ever moment, so that when you deliver the killing blow, he can't help but agree. (This assumes that he has sufficient charitableness himself, which I can't vouch for, never having met the man.)
 
joobz said:
you did not find it charitible to accurately portray Articulett's argument that Jeff and Linc were simply not religious in the way most people consider being religious today. Thier brand of faith would likely earn them the title of spiritual rather than religious.
Click to expand...

But, that's not what she said or how she said it. Anyways, even I am not free from the stain of hypocrisy.

Henry Fool said:
She was an ugly and mean-spirited kid, but she knew how to play upon my weaknesses, which, I admit, are deep and many.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom