Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Belz...]

If their reasons are subjective, and your values are subjective, then it would seem to me that "good citizen" itself is subjective, i.e., arbitrary. And if "good citizen" is arbitrary, and Neuhaus has not called for any action to be taken on its basis, then what do you care?

So you admit that the OP is meaningless ?

 

[Belz...]

Stone Island is a troglodyte.

Notice how he only answers some questions, and ignores the really tough ones ?

Science is a method for justifying beliefs.

That makes no sense whatsoever except in the mind of someone who has no idea what science is.

Did you ever go to school, sir ?

 

[tuc0]

Stone Island, do you agree with Neuhaus?

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is no comma in what you quoted. The phrase "without justification" modifies "beliefs".

So you believe in leprechauns then?

You completely ignored the questions and points in my post so I know that you have no answer. But let me repeat it just to make this clearer to you. Let me separate them so you can refuse to address them individually.

How is one not justified to reject belief in something for which there is no evidence?

There is no evidence for the existence of gods. In the absence of this evidence I do not believe in gods.

If anything, it is the belief in gods that is not justified because there is no evidence of their existence. I assume that you do not believe in leprechauns, yes? Your lack of belief in leprechauns is no more unjustified than my lack of belief in gods.

Unless you are willing to provide some evidence for the existence of gods then you must, if you are honest, admit that your statement that being an atheist implies the rejection of beliefs without justification is erroneous.

Science is a method for justifying beliefs.

You could not be more wrong. If you don't believe us then might I suggest going to any of the science departments at your school and asking any random faculty member if science is a method for justifying belief. Seriously, this sounds like the sort of rubbish one would find on a young Earth creationist website. All the academic quotes you throw around in an attempt to sound learned cannot cover up such errors. You've stated that you are a student so I would like to offer some advice: Stop trying to impress everyone. You still have a lot to learn yet and the best way to learn is to concern yourself with what you don't know. Your desire to act like the smartest person in the room is causing you to overlook the serious deficiencies in your argument. These tactics may be sufficient to impress some of your peers, but those of us who have been around the block a few more times only see you obstinately making a fool of yourself.

Science may be the only method for justifying beliefs for the atheist.

Wrong. Wolfman has sometimes brought up the example of the Raelians. They hold beliefs without any scientific justification at all. The same for the Scientologists. Even scientifically minded atheists can easily hold beliefs that they do not feel compelled to justify scientifically.

What beliefs, not justified by science, and not merely expressions of arbitrary preference, is an atheist allowed to hold, if we are to believe that their rejection of belief in God is itself not an arbitrary pose?

You did not answer my question. How does atheism imply the rejection of non-scientific claims?

 

[joobz]

There are times when movies imitate life. And then there are other times when life imitates movies.
{This video is rated BA-17: Warning video contains slight , bad Boston Accents, Bad Attitudes and Ben Affleck: Viewer discretion is advised (also, there are some naughty words)}

 

[Stone Island]

Science is not a method for justifying beliefs, that is just horribly stupid. Science is all about finding natural explanations for what we observe. A system of acquiring knowledge via research.

Maybe I have been influenced more by Kuhn than I ought.

But, anyway, isn't knowledge defined as justified true belief? If science is a naturalistic method of increasing knowledge is it then also true to say that it is in the business of creating justified true beliefs in its practitioners?

Think of it this way. Honestly, I haven't observed much evolution (though I do get the flu every year, so maybe that's something). Or , for that matter, tectonic plate movement (despite living in California). I have a belief that these things occur. Many different authorities have told me so. However, because I have a distinct lack of education in these matters (no biology or epidemiology, and I couldn't even tell you what field studies tectonic plate movements), you might say that I don't have knowledge. Why? Because my beliefs aren't justified, even if they are true.

Scientific enterprises of various kinds, should I desire to enter into them, would justify my beliefs.

I would dare say that most people walk around with their heads filled with beliefs that are true but are not, for one reason or another, justified.

Now, to bring it around to the question at hand, this country was founded on the proposition that all man are endowed by nature and nature's God with certain unalienable rights, i.e., natural law exists, is true, and is operative in human life. Is the belief in natural law justified or is it, at least, theoretically justified? (Maybe I or you aren't smart enough to have justified true beliefs in natural law, but somewhere, someone is.)

 

[joobz]

Maybe I have been influenced more by Kuhn than I ought.

But, anyway, isn't knowledge defined as justified true belief? If science is a naturalistic method of increasing knowledge is it then also true to say that it is in the business of creating justified true beliefs in its practitioners?

Think of it this way. Honestly, I haven't observed much evolution (though I do get the flu every year, so maybe that's something). Or , for that matter, tectonic plate movement (despite living in California). I have a belief that these things occur. Many different authorities have told me so. However, because I have a distinct lack of education in these matters (no biology or epidemiology, and I couldn't even tell you what field studies tectonic plate movements), you might say that I don't have knowledge. Why? Because my beliefs aren't justified, even if they are true.

Scientific enterprises of various kinds, should I desire to enter into them, would justify my beliefs.

I would dare say that most people walk around with their heads filled with beliefs that are true but are not, for one reason or another, justified.

Now, to bring it around to the question at hand, this country was founded on the proposition that all man are endowed by nature and nature's God with certain unalienable rights, i.e., natural law exists, is true, and is operative in human life. Is the belief in natural law justified or is it, at least, theoretically justified? (Maybe I or you aren't smart enough to have justified true beliefs in natural law, but somewhere, someone is.)

You are now claiming that because people can be lazy and not confirm the validity of a scientific principle, that this somehow renders science as simply a matter of belief. Perhaps for that individual it is true, but that doesn't translate into the concept itself being one of mere belief. That's just a poor argument and misses the point. Stop playing the science=faith game. It's dumb and clearly only a smokescreen.

It was clearly highlighted for you and you continue to ignore the question. Using the common usage of atheist and good citizen, do you believe that atheists can be good citizens?

 

[godless dave]

Now, to bring it around to the question at hand, this country was founded on the proposition that all man are endowed by nature and nature's God with certain unalienable rights, i.e., natural law exists, is true, and is operative in human life. Is the belief in natural law justified or is it, at least, theoretically justified?

No. There is no such thing as "natural law" as the term is usually used. There is nothing in nature, besides humans themselves, that cares how humans are governed.

If there were such a thing as "natural law", they only way to determine what that law is would be with science.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Odd that you call me a coward. What's funny is that you threatened me with violence twice. The second time I called you out and gave you the chance to follow through on your threat and set up a time and place where we could kick off. I haven't heard from you yet. Come on bully boy, let's have it: 310-361-7271

Somebody doesn't understand the point of my posts. First of all, I wouldn't beat the crap out of you because it would be wrong, even if you deserve it. Secondly, it's against the law, I would be foolish to do so. Third, the point is that just because I'm atheist doesn't mean I would do this, which was totally lost on you. Instead, you take it as a physical threat and invite the violence. That's interesting and says much about you. Not only are you an intellectual coward, but you feel you can intimidate people as well. Who is the bully here? Not I.

 

[Stone Island]

You are now claiming that because people can be lazy and not confirm the validity of a scientific principle, that this somehow renders science as simply a matter of belief.

Uh, no, I'm not. I'm saying that as a matter of fact a lot of our beliefs are unjustified. And it has nothing to do with lazy. I spend a lot of my time trying to gain knowledge (justified true belief) about politics and political behavior. It doesn't bug me particularly that my beliefs in the realms of physics, biology, or chemistry, not to mention automotive mechanics, are unjustified. Nor should it.

The question is, what justifies belief? And, if you applied that level of justification that causes you to reject as unjustified a belief in God or gods, would the founding principles of natural law survive? Could you consistently reject as unjustified the belief in God or gods while maintaining a belief in natural rights and natural law as the Founders of this country understood those two concepts? How?

 

[Stone Island]

Somebody doesn't understand the point of my posts. First of all, I wouldn't beat the crap out of you because it would be wrong, even if you deserve it. Secondly, it's against the law, I would be foolish to do so. Third, the point is that just because I'm atheist doesn't mean I would do this, which was totally lost on you. Instead, you take it as a physical threat and invite the violence. That's interesting and says much about you. Not only are you an intellectual coward, but you feel you can intimidate people as well. Who is the bully here? Not I.

If that's your apology, you're going to have to do better. I don't accept because I'm not getting the sense that you're truly remorseful.

 

[GreyICE]

Uh, no, I'm not. I'm saying that as a matter of fact a lot of our beliefs are unjustified. And it has nothing to do with lazy. I spend a lot of my time trying to gain knowledge (justified true belief) about politics and political behavior. It doesn't bug me particularly that my beliefs in the realms of physics, biology, or chemistry, not to mention automotive mechanics, are unjustified. Nor should it.

The question is, what justifies belief? And, if you applied that level of justification that causes you to reject as unjustified a belief in God or gods, would the founding principles of natural law survive? Could you consistently reject as unjustified the belief in God or gods while maintaining a belief in natural rights and natural law as the Founders of this country understood those two concepts? How?

Can you? Yes.

How? I dunno. Can you reject the concept of pixies and still understand the words of the founding fathers? What do those two have in common?

Hell, it was written by an atheist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Scientific enterprises of various kinds, should I desire to enter into them, would justify my beliefs.

But what if they didn't? The aforementioned young Earth creationists are the only people I can think of off-hand who would agree with your statement. They use science (pseudoscience, actually) to justify their beliefs all the time.

You still aren't addressing the problem: You claim that atheists are unjustified in having no belief in something for which there is no evidence. I'm asking you to justify this statement in some way. Can you provide some evidence of the existence of gods?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Somebody doesn't understand the point of my posts. First of all, I wouldn't beat the crap out of you because it would be wrong, even if you deserve it. Secondly, it's against the law, I would be foolish to do so. Third, the point is that just because I'm atheist doesn't mean I would do this, which was totally lost on you. Instead, you take it as a physical threat and invite the violence. That's interesting and says much about you. Not only are you an intellectual coward, but you feel you can intimidate people as well. Who is the bully here? Not I.

I've seen your picture so I think it's wonderful that you aren't a bully.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If that's your apology....

It's not. I only apologize when I've done something wrong.

Do you think atheists can be good citizens?

 

[Stone Island]

Can you provide some evidence of the existence of gods?

Can you provide some evidence of the existence of natural law?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Uh, no, I'm not. I'm saying that as a matter of fact a lot of our beliefs are unjustified. And it has nothing to do with lazy. I spend a lot of my time trying to gain knowledge (justified true belief) about politics and political behavior. It doesn't bug me particularly that my beliefs in the realms of physics, biology, or chemistry, not to mention automotive mechanics, are unjustified. Nor should it.

The question is, what justifies belief? And, if you applied that level of justification that causes you to reject as unjustified a belief in God or gods, would the founding principles of natural law survive? Could you consistently reject as unjustified the belief in God or gods while maintaining a belief in natural rights and natural law as the Founders of this country understood those two concepts? How?

What justifies belief? Evidence.

Where is your evidence that belief in gods is more justified than a lack of belief in gods?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Can you provide some evidence of the existence of natural law?

Predictable dodge. I now accept that you realize, but are dogmatically unwilling to admit, that your statement that atheism is unjustified is erroneous.

As for natural law: I have never argued that such a thing exists. You seem to be arguing by proxy, or at least defending the argument that humans can only discover these laws, not create them, because they are built into the fundamental fabric of the universe. I however, see no evidence that human morality has any source other than humanity itself. The Declaration of Independence is certainly not evidence of the existence of such universal constants any more than the Bible is evidence of the Noachian flood. Your assertion, sorry, Neuhaus' assertion that only by acknowledging natural law can one be a good citizen is asinine. The Declaration of Independence establishes neither the United States nor citizenship. Neuhaus has failed.

 

[Stone Island]

But what if they didn't? The aforementioned young Earth creationists are the only people I can think of off-hand who would agree with your statement. They use science (pseudoscience, actually) to justify their beliefs all the time.

Good point, I wasn't clear. If I had a belief that wasn't true (let alone justified), no amount of scientific work would change that. I think Kuhn's account is fairly close to what actually does happen when scientists develop a unjustified false belief.

Now, assuming for a moment that natural law is true, is a belief in it ever justified?

 

[GreyICE]

Good point, I wasn't clear. If I had a belief that wasn't true (let alone justified), no amount of scientific work would change that. I think Kuhn's account is fairly close to what actually does happen when scientists develop a unjustified false belief.

Now, assuming for a moment that natural law is true, is a belief in it ever justified?

There are words. Many words. The sense, they do not make any.