Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since facts and common sense get nowhere with you, Stone Is., could you give us the quotes from the Bible that we are to get these morals from? I'd like to look at some of the specifics to see if they are complete and if they actually influence people's behavior.

 

[joobz]

Wait, why not? Let's think through this. An atheist could go to church, take the liturgy, do good works, give a portion of his wages as a tithe, and do all the actions that one would expect of and praise in a good Christian.

Except that she wouldn't believe. She would lack faith in the fundamental truth of Christianity. She wouldn't be able to offer a morally compelling accounting of the truth of Christianity that wasn't hypocritical. And all that happens in her head, where nobody can see.

So, if an atheist couldn't be a good Christian on the basis of her lack in a belief in the ultimate reality of Christianity's truth, how can someone be a good citizen if they lack a belief in the ultimate reality and truth of natural law?

being christian is defined by belief not by actions.
Being a citizen is defined by actions not belief.

 

[godless dave]

So, if an atheist couldn't be a good Christian on the basis of her lack in a belief in the ultimate reality of Christianity's truth, how can someone be a good citizen if they lack a belief in the ultimate reality and truth of natural law?

Because belief in the ultimate reality and truth of natural law is not required to be a good citizen. Being a good citizen only requires actions; it doesn't require any beliefs.



ETA: As joobz already said.

 

[joobz]

But we're not talking about mere citizenship, but, rather, good citizenship. Good citizenship, according to Neuhaus, is predicated on certain beliefs and the ability advocate them.

even good citizenship is determined by the actions one does in that society.

Again, there is no reason to accept Neuhaus' or your definition of good citizen. Working purely off of the terms in how they are used in a day-to-day life, atheists can be good citizens.

Remember,
if christian = integer and evil = real numbers,
Than All christians are evil.

Does this mean that all christians are evil?

 

[GreyICE]

But we're not talking about mere citizenship, but, rather, good citizenship. Good citizenship, according to Neuhaus, is predicated on certain beliefs and the ability advocate them.

What do you think? Is Neuhaus correct? Do you have any ability to think on your own? Were you programmed in one of those creepy Christian camps where they systemically force fed you garbage like this? Are you a computer algorithm? Is there any explanation for why you can't come up with a single opinion of your own?

 

[Stone Island]

The wheat:

Because belief in the ultimate reality and truth of natural law is not required to be a good citizen. Being a good citizen only requires actions; it doesn't require any beliefs.

being christian is defined by belief not by actions.
Being a citizen is defined by actions not belief.

Now, I think, we're are getting to the nub of the disagreement. If we don't believe in the ultimate truth of natural law, what are we saying when we talk about our rights?

In his paper, The Curious Persistence of Rights Talk in the "Age of Interpretation", Thomas L. Haskell asks,

What is the difference between saying, "I have a right to x," and saying simply, "I want x"?

The chaff:

Since facts and common sense get nowhere with you, Stone Is., could you give us the quotes from the Bible that we are to get these morals from? I'd like to look at some of the specifics to see if they are complete and if they actually influence people's behavior.

Don't know. Not really my field, natch. Though, I think you will find that they do influence people's behavior, for good or for ill.

According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own.

Is this where the horse laugh I've heard so much about applies?

 

[godless dave]

Now, I think, we're are getting to the nub of the disagreement. If we don't believe in the ultimate truth of natural law, what are we saying when we talk about our rights?

We're talking about the freedom that many of us think each individual human should have. It's not just about "I want" (although that's a big part of it), it's about what makes a fair, just, and sustainable society.

I want certain freedoms. Joobz wants certain freedoms. There's nothing obviously different between me and joobz, or between either of us and any other human. So if I want something for myself, I have no good reason to put forward why I should get it and joobz shouldn't. Hence equality under the law.


I believed we discussed this about 11 pages ago.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But we're not talking about mere citizenship, but, rather, good citizenship. Good citizenship, according to Neuhaus, is predicated on certain beliefs and the ability advocate them.

Why should anyone care what Neuhaus says? He's a bigot and a moron.

Do YOU believe an atheist can be a good citizen?

 

[KingMerv00]

But we're not talking about mere citizenship, but, rather, good citizenship. Good citizenship, according to Neuhaus, is predicated on certain beliefs and the ability advocate them.

So you define "good citizen" as someone who believes in a supreme being that dictates rights. Obviously, atheists can fit in that category.

If I define "good citizen" as someone who obeys the law and makes contributions to the well-being of other's. Then atheists can fit in that category. My definition is probably closer to the most common definition.

You are trying to disprove X by disproving Y.

 

[godless dave]

I think you mean "can't" not "can" in the first sentence there, KingMerv.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I can imagine Stone Island on a date. The woman asks "so what did you think of the steak?"

"Well, according to Neuhaus....."

"But what did YOU think of the steak?"

"Iron Chef Morimoto says that....."

"WAS THE STEAK GOOD?!"

"If you look on the menu, it says that it's the best steak in town."

 

[Stone Island]

So you define "good citizen" as someone who believes in a supreme being that dictates rights.

Well, no, not really. This is where, I think, Neuhaus and I differ. I'm trying to show you that on the grounds that you use to reject belief in God or gods (maybe even fairly!), you will also be forced to reject natural law as the Founders understood it. (Assuming consistency plays any part in your thinking.)

Some have said they're fine with that.

Some of you haven't quite seen it yet.

None of you have acknowledged the consequences of such thinking.

 

[joobz]

I feel a desire to elaborate on this:

So, if an atheist couldn't be a good Christian on the basis of her lack in a belief in the ultimate reality of Christianity's truth, how can someone be a good citizen if they lack a belief in the ultimate reality and truth of natural law?

Here, we come to the exact point of how Neuhaus and Stone Island have attempted to redefine citizen to be equivilent to chistian, or better yet require being christian to be a citizen.

As everyone here has implicitly understood (even Radrook's post pages back agreed), citizenry is defined by a person's actions within a society. If they conform to that society's will, they are a good citizen. That doesn't mean the society is good. This seems to be what Neuhaus found detestable. As such, he wished to redefine good citizen to mean a person who will function in the best interests of all based upon some external code (regardless if the society adopts to that same code).

Now, the trouble is what external code do we adopt and why? For convienience, natural law and god is invoked in some shear horror show of circular reasoning. During the argument, it is claimed that this code must come from god becuase it exists and that since the code exists god must be real. Along the way, by defining citizen in terms of what a person believes, Neuhaus gets to claim that atheists are excluded from the good citizen club.

If allowed to continue, there is no reason for Neuhaus to stop at excluding atheists. By changing the standard of good citizen from from Belief in natural laws to belief in christian natural laws, we could start to exclude Jews, muslims, hindus, Buddhists,... from being good citizens. Afterall, if we assume that these axiomatic laws must have a generic divine origin (one with no proof to exist), why couldn't it have a specific divine origin (one that equally has no proof).

Stone Island and Neuhaus continually beg the question, why does this code equal the one true code. The answer is, it doesn't. There is no "one true code". It's merely an axiomatic set of standards which were used to establish the society we currently live in. These axiomatic standards work, mainly becuase empirical observation of other sets of axioms were found wanting.(theocracies, monarchies, oligarchies, ..) This doesn't mean that our current system is the one true system, but the best we've come to. Indeed, the primary principle that the USA was built upon was the notion that this system might not be the best, so they built in corrective algorithm to allow the government to adapt to changing needs. Even within the history of the US, the definition of a good citizen (formerly a white male who could own slaves and viewed women as secondary unworthy of voting rights) has changed.

There is no standard set of beliefs one must have to be a good citizen. There are standards of beliefs one must be to be a good theist. Neuhaus and stone island equate these concepts, and in so doing demonstrate a naive prejudice that must be exposed openly to prevent it from ever fostering. Our society operates on the principle of free speech. As such, I expose these prejudices and am a good citizen for doing so.

 

[godless dave]

I've said I'm fine with it, and I think we've all seen it. As to the consequences of such thinking - there aren't any consequences of such thinking. It's irrelevant to good citizenship and government in general.

 

[joobz]

Well, no, not really. This is where, I think, Neuhaus and I differ. I'm trying to show you that on the grounds that you use to reject belief in God or gods (maybe even fairly!), you will also be forced to reject natural law as the Founders understood it. (Assuming consistency plays any part in your thinking.)

wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong.

Not believing in Santa claus doesn't determine my quality of life.

Axiomatically following a set of principles which a government is based on has a real effect on the quality of life. These are completely different things. History shows the logical benefits for adopting a concept like equality.

 

[godless dave]

But if you don't believe in Santa Claus, how do you justify giving gifts to your children at Christmas?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't know. Not really my field, natch. Though, I think you will find that they do influence people's behavior, for good or for ill....

It takes god beliefs to be a good citizen but you cannot even point to the specifics on what those god beliefs are?

I must have missed something here.

 

[Stone Island]

I must have missed something here.

Clearly.

 

[Ateius]

This doesn't mean that our current system is the one true system, but the best we've come to.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Really great post, joobz.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It takes god beliefs to be a good citizen but you cannot even point to the specifics on what those god beliefs are?

I must have missed something here.

Don't forget that lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence is unjustified, while belief in that unsubstantiated thing is justified.