Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[KingMerv00]

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but if Stone doesn't want to answer (and it appears he doesn't), he won't. By now, I think anyone reading this thread realizes that Stone has no interest in addressing this question directly, as he would much rather let others such as Neuhaus answer for him. I feel this is intellectually dishonest (as does joobz apparently), but at this point beating it into the ground isn't going to help, and some of the side conversations have become much more interesting than anything Stone has to say cite.

So please forgive me if I respond to Darth rather than feeding the troll.

Forgiven.

I just don't think Stone deserves the respect of a direct answer if he will not respond in kind. I suppose it is unfair to silence everyone involved in a side-conversation though.

 

[Hokulele]

Is your agreement arbitrary, i.e., a matter of will, or bounded by the same assumption of self-evident truth?

Self-evidence is useless when constructing a code of ethics.

Can someone who subscribes to a verificationist theory of truth argue for a natural rights republic in a morally convincing manner?

Yes.

 

[Hokulele]

Forgiven.

I just don't think Stone deserves the respect of a direct answer if he will not respond in kind. I suppose it is unfair to silence everyone involved in a side-conversation though.

Whoops, I hadn't seen this when I responded to Stone.

You are probably right, but I think his avoidance of the question speaks louder than any answer he could possibly give. I suppose it would be morally correct () to provide him direct answers in the spirit of community, while still reminding him of the fact that he cannot reciprocate basic respect.

 

[Stone Island]

Self-evidence is useless when constructing a code of ethics.




Yes.

1.) How so?

2.) Right. And?

 

[joobz]

Stone Island. You appear as an intellectually dishonest coward when you avoid direct critiques of your argument (and by Your argument I mean Neuhaus').

This is not an emotional or personal attack.

I don't see how your attack could be any more personal.

You are fully responsible for your own actions. I did not call you an intellectual coward. I said your avoidance of direct questions and presenting proxy arguments are actions of a intellectually dishonest coward. I am certain you are better than that, and that is why I continue to treat you with respect.

Now, will you address my point:

I suspect that Stone Island may not understand my argument. As such, I am going to try and explain why the argument he presents doesn't require any debunk beyond what Darth Rotor provided in post 9.

Consider this analogy.

I could make the following argument,
"All Christians are evil. By Christians I mean integers and by evil I mean real numbers"

This would make my argument, All integers are real numbers, which is exactly true. As such the statement, "All christians are evil," is true when I apply the definitions I gave. Yet, this doesn't mean that the statement is true when applying the common usage of christian and evil. Any attempt to make such an implication is inherently intellectually dishonest.

By the common use of athiest(one who doesn't believe in a god or gods) and good citizen (A positively productive member of society), the statement "Atheists can't be good citizens" is simply wrong. As such, Neuhaus' entire argument is simply an intellectually dishonest exercise.

Further, many people would view the presentation of such an argument in a third party fashion, while simultaneously evading direct questions regarding their views, as a cowardly act.

Can you understand why I would consider Neuhaus' argument to be nothing short of nonsense?

 

[Hokulele]

1.) How so?

Self-evidence lends itself to redefinition quite easily. For example, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The founding fathers then went on to define "all men" to exclude slaves (you know, that whole Liberty bit?). Self-evident can often turn into self-deceiving. By assuming nothing is self-evident and everything should be subject to scrutiny, self-deception becomes more difficult, although certainly still possible.

2.) Right. And?

And what? You asked a yes or no question. Sort of like . . .

Stone Island, do you personally feel atheists cannot be good citizens?

 

[KingMerv00]

Whoops, I hadn't seen this when I responded to Stone.

You are probably right, but I think his avoidance of the question speaks louder than any answer he could possibly give. I suppose it would be morally correct () to provide him direct answers in the spirit of community, while still reminding him of the fact that he cannot reciprocate basic respect.

I think 10 pages of straight answers from us is enough. If you keep encouraging him, he will never learn.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Pointing out your circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is not special pleading.

It is not an ad hominem attack if it is relevant to the argument. If we were discussing Jefferson's position on taxation or foreign policy an someone said "Well Jefferson owned slaves" that would be an ad hominem attack. But we are, as you yourself stated, discussing the "self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence". In this case, pointing out the fact that the men who proclaimed that truth owned slaves is not an ad hominem attack, it is in fact perfectly relevant.

What's ironic is that you aren't willing to examine the argument as he meant it, you keep putting it in your bigotry mold, as if that was enough to answer the question.

"The argument as he meant it"? His argument is that atheists cannot honor the Declaration of Independence because they supposedly can't hold to any convictions higher than themselves. He is quite wrong. He also claims that the Declaration of Independence is the foundational document of the United States. He is quite wrong about that too. The DoI is a political statement, it makes no guarantee of rights to anyone, that is done by the Constitution which makes no mention of any gods.

What weaknesses are those?

See above.


Now just once more, so we can all see you demonstrate your unwillingness to answer the question and have to commit to actually defending your own position:

Can an atheist be a good citizen.

 

[Stone Island]

Can you understand why I would consider Neuhaus' argument to be nothing short of nonsense?

No, because you haven't shown why you think Neuhaus's definitions of atheism and good citizenship to be deficient.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Self-evidence lends itself to redefinition quite easily. For example, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The founding fathers then went on to define "all men" to exclude slaves (you know, that whole Liberty bit?). Self-evident can often turn into self-deceiving. By assuming nothing is self-evident and everything should be subject to scrutiny, self-deception becomes more difficult, although certainly still possible.

What I find amusing is that Neuhaus apparently seems to accept that what the authors of the DoI stated to be God's will really is God's will, as though we cannot question their motives or the truth of their statement.

 

[joobz]

No, because you haven't shown why you think Neuhaus's definitions of atheism and good citizenship to be deficient.

Again you are confused. I do not have to elaborate on his defintion but simply show that by commonly accepted notions of athiesm and more importantly, the definition of a good citizen, Atheists can be good citizens.

See post #9 for examples of good citizens who are atheists. This proves the argument wrong. Unless, of course, you agree that All christians are evil.

 

[Stone Island]

Again you are confused. I do not have to elaborate on his defintion but simply show that by commonly accepted notions of athiesm and more importantly, the definition of a good citizen, Atheists can be good citizens.

Why should we accept the common definition? As one professor once said to me, who made Webster an arbiter of truth?

 

[Stone Island]

the truth of their statement.

That's the thing, the truth of their statement is self-evident. That's the rub. Can an atheist accept any moral proposition as self-evident?

 

[Stone Island]

The DoI is a political statement, it makes no guarantee of rights to anyone,

Actually, if you look at the list of "crimes" attributed to George III, you can match them up quite closely to a whole slew of rights.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why should we accept the common definition? As one professor once said to me, who made Webster an arbiter of truth?

Who made Neuhaus the arbiter of truth? Or the "Founding Fathers" for that matter?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Why should we accept the common definition?

By all means. Watch me redefine 'Christians' to 'someone who commits murder', for then to cry out that 'all Christians are murderers'.

Two can play the Humpty-Dumpty game, Stone Island.

ETA:

Who made Neuhaus the arbiter of truth? Or the "Founding Fathers" for that matter?

Or God, for that matter?

 

[joobz]

Why should we accept the common definition? As one professor once said to me, who made Webster an arbiter of truth?

I fully agree. Your professor is obviously a smart man. But he would also note that I didn't refer to the dictionary definition. I refered to the common definition used. There is a difference. I would parrot back, Why accept Neuhaus' definition? But I see that has already been done and there is no need to repeat this argument.

By your accepted logic, my statement that All christians are evil is a true statement. This is simple nonsense and I hope that you recognize it as such. I'm certain your professor would accept that fact as well.


Let's try another tact:
When using the common usage of athiest and good citizen, where
atheist = one who does not believe in gods
good citizen = a postively productive member of society,
Do you agree that atheists can be good citizens?

 

[Foster Zygote]

That's the thing, the truth of their statement is self-evident. That's the rub. Can an atheist accept any moral proposition as self-evident?

Yes. Yes they can. Atheists are people, Stone. They have many varied backgrounds and hold to a variety of convictions. As an atheist I hold that the betterment of society through the assurance of the freedoms and protection of its citizens is a self-evidently beneficial proposition. I don't need to appeal to any invisible beings to live by this axiom.

I have read quite enough of you to reach the following conclusion about you: You, for some reason, have a dislike of atheists generally. You really want to believe that atheists can't be good citizens and are therefor inferior to you. You wish to announce this to atheists but lack the courage to openly state your prejudices, even shielded by the anonymity of the internet, so you use proxies like Neuhaus to deliver your insulting bigotry for you. I welcome you to prove me wrong by telling us whether you think atheists can be good citizens or not without hiding behind the writings of someone else.

 

[Stone Island]

atheist = one who does not believe in gods
good citizen = a postively productive member of society,
Do you agree that atheists can be good citizens?

Why doesn't an atheist believe in God or gods? Is there a reason? Or, Neuhaus is operating under the assumption that there is a reason for an atheist to reject the notion of God.

Remember, Neuhaus separated those who believe in different gods, those who didn't believe they had the justification for believing in God or gods, and those who rejected the possibility of believing in God.

As for the other, Neuhaus again argues that "produce member of society" sets the bar too low. A Good citizen is someone who can give a morally compelling account of his country. This allows us to see that a bad German (circa 1933-1945) might be better in some absolute sense than even a good American (circa 1945-2008). A positive productive member of a bad society isn't necessarily a very good thing, generally.

 

[Stone Island]

Yes. Yes they can. Atheists are people, Stone. They have many varied backgrounds and hold to a variety of convictions. As an atheist I hold that the betterment of society through the assurance of the freedoms and protection of its citizens is a self-evidently beneficial proposition. I don't need to appeal to any invisible beings to live by this axiom.

Except that being an atheist implies the rejection of beliefs without justification. It also implies the rejection of non-scientific claims. "Self-evident" means accepted as true without evidence; axiomatic.