Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Atheists are people, Stone.
Click to expand...
I'm amazed by how hard this seems to get for certain fundamentalists. Seriously, the dehumanizing is simply shocking sometimes, and the worst thing is, they don't realize they're doing it themselves. They cringe when they think about how Africans were treated as savage non-thinking beasts without rationality or intelligence, but are more than happy to look at atheists as mindless sociopaths.

But to answer the 'common definition' thing in more detail, if you redefine a word so that it refers to something else, and then use the bad qualities of that something else to attack what the word originally referred to, that's more than intellectually dishonest. Again, it's like me redefining 'Christian' to refer to something entirely different from a Christian (say a lion), for then to attack actual Christians because lions are vicious.

1. Christian: A four-legged, vicious animal also known as a lion.
2. Lions are vicious.
3. Therefore, Christians are vicious.
4. Therefore, Stone Island is vicious (since he's a Christian).
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I just don't think Stone deserves the respect of a direct answer if he will not respond in kind.
Click to expand...
Of course he doesn't deserve direct answers if he will not respond in kind. Still, they demonstrate who has answers and who doesn't. Several people have provided solid rebuttals of Neuhaus. Stone Island has failed even to acknowledge these rebuttals, much less attempt to refute them. He simply continues to repeat his original statement, or some variation of it. I don't see any harm in responding, if one recognizes it is nothing more than a way to exercise the intellect. Stonewaller won't budge, but Stonewaller's opinion is no more significant than Neuhaus'. As people tire of hearing the same positions restated over and over again, they'll naturally move on to other threads.

Can Stone Island pass the Turing test?
 
Robin said:
Can theists?

For example what scriptural authority is there for the idea that the Creator endowed us with inalienable rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Click to expand...

And even if there is a scriptural basis, how do we know that scripture comes from the Creator?
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...

Stone Island said:
"Self-evident" means accepted as true without evidence; axiomatic.
Click to expand...

As a theist, can you offer some examples of things which are accepted as true without evidence and are morally compelling?
 
Stone Island said:
Can atheists provide an objective moral grounding for the Constitution consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of natural law?
Click to expand...

No.

And neither can theists, because religious beliefs are subjective.

And it doesn't matter, because providing an objective moral grounding for the Constitution consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of natural law is about as relevant to being a good citizen as owning a bicycle is to being a fish.
 
Last edited:
Atheists don't believe in gods for the same reason you don't believe in Xenu or fairies or Astrology, SI.

There is no evidence. There's just an assorted lot of people all convinced they know what some invisible man wants-- and they don't agree with each other.

You can't "make yourself" believe. And if it makes a person sound like you-- I think we should do our best to make a lot fewer believers.
 
How often does a man do this in the name of atheism?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/26/national/main3969393.shtml


"I've been numb since I heard the news," Susan Goodner told CBS News affiliate KGAN-TV in Cedar Rapids. "Through the law, through the community service, through service to their church community, they've just been an example of how to be a good citizen."
Click to expand...

One of the messages indicated Sueppel believed his family was in heaven, Steffen said.
Click to expand...

Sending them to heaven...indeed. Disgusting. :mad:
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, now you're telling me that I can't be a good citizen because I'm more rational than you are, and because I don't take figurative language literally?

Your definition of "good citizen" is what the rest of us call "stupid."
 
articulett said:
Atheists don't believe in gods for the same reason you don't believe in Xenu or fairies or Astrology, SI.

There is no evidence. There's just an assorted lot of people all convinced they know what some invisible man wants-- and they don't agree with each other.

You can't "make yourself" believe. And if it makes a person sound like you-- I think we should do our best to make a lot fewer believers.
Click to expand...

What if they don't believe in natural law either, Articulett? Is there any evidence for it? As you said, they can't make themselves believe. I mean, there's a lot of people who have convinced each other that they have some idea of what it means, but even they don't fully agree with one another.

How does anyone come to believe in natural law? Is it merely arbitrary?

In other words, an atheist could lack belief in any number of gods, without reason (Martin argues that they don't even have the burden of proof), and then believe in something truly unusual, that had never in the history of the world been the propositional basis of a nation, without reason. Is that what you're saying?

How is the argument for natural law systematically different than the argument for belief in God or gods?
 
Stone Island said:
As for the other, Neuhaus again argues that "produce member of society" sets the bar too low.
Click to expand...
of course he does. He has an axe to grind. Unfortunately, prejudice doesn't make a very compelling case.

I could (and has others here have alluded to) make the claim that being a good citizen requires the rational and skeptical evaluation of all data without prejudice. In such a definition, I could extrapolate that the acceptance of a god without verifiable evidence as irrational and therefore theists can't possibly be good citizens.

ANd I would hope that everyone would call Bollocks on such an argument as it would make the same foolish mistake that Neuhaus is making.

his desire to reword good citizen to suit his prejudices is simple fallacious nonsense.

Now I addressed Neuhaus' argument on your terms, answer my question on mine. anything less would be dishonorable.:
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?
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pay attention. It's that darn evidence thing again.

How long have you been posting here?
What rock have you been hiding under?
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...
From this, Stone, do you conclude that atheists cannot be good citizens?

(For help in that answer, see post #9 in this very thread.)

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom