Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

It's enough to make you wonder if theists are coherent enough to be good citizens...

(Pride is the worst sin according to Mere Christianity- a sophomoric piece of literature that only a brain damaged by faith could find value in... I let some theists talk me into reading it, and it lowered my opinion of them and C.S. Lewis considerably...)
 
articulett said:
Beer? getting closer-- the biggest sin according to the self important C.S. Lewis is PRIDE
Click to expand...

Aren't they one and the same?


1417.jpg


Proverbs 16:18 - Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.
​

Well... this train-wreck of a thread merits some eye candy... and it's a change from kittens and recipes
 
articulett said:
It's enough to make you wonder if theists are coherent enough to be good citizens...

(Pride is the worst sin according to Mere Christianity- a sophomoric piece of literature that only a brain damaged by faith could find value in... I let some theists talk me into reading it, and it lowered my opinion of them and C.S. Lewis considerably...)
Click to expand...
You should try "Problem of Pain", especially the chapter on Animal Pain. It is a hoot.
 
Stone Island said:
Robin,

According to whom?
Click to expand...
According to you.

You are arguing that a belief in Natural Law is essentially the same as a religious belief and you insist that religious language is meaningless.

So if you are saying that good citizenship depends upon a belief in Natural Law then clearly you are saying that good citizenship is in itself meaningless.

It follows that if the concept of good citizenship is meaningful then it must depend - according to your own argument - upon something other than a belief in Natural Law.

I more or less agree with you in this.
 
JoeEllison said:
That's a question we both know he doesn't have the cojones tp answer.
Click to expand...

To be quite fair he has never asserted the truth of natural law.


In fact my reading is that he believes natural law to be a meaningless concept and that related concepts like the US of A are also meaningless. After all he has previously cited a defence of Nihilism expressing admiration for the author.
 
joobz said:
*Thwack*
Did you just ante yours up on the table?

It's our Battle cry, "These Balls aren't round!"
Click to expand...

I can't ante them up, because I've got them whether I win or lose. :D Anyone who will throw them up always has them, and anyone who won't never had them to begin with.

Mine are made of lead, with a Kevlar coating... just for reference.
 
Stone Island said:
....

Call me an Aristotelian, but I would think the best person is one who does the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason. Someone could follow the law slavishly for a number of bad reasons, including fear of punishment, hope of reward, or completely arbitrarily. That's why knowledge is justified, true belief.
Click to expand...
Like hell and heaven you mean?

:id:
 
Stone Island said:
Who gets to decide what "good" means? Whose standard of good? I mean, it's possible to defend utilitarianism, but don't make it more simplistic than it is.
Click to expand...

Society.

Stone Island said:
In any case, is an appeal to God or the Bible really my argument? Is it even really Neuhaus's argument? Forgive me, but I don't remember writing that.
Click to expand...

You (sorry, Neuhaus) claims that atheists cannot be good citizens. Since the one and only characteristic all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in a god, and according to you (sorry, Neuhaus) all atheists are de facto not good citizens, then, yes, you and Neuhaus are arguing precisely that.
 
Stone Island said:
Call me an Aristotelian, but I would think the best person is one who does the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason. Someone could follow the law slavishly for a number of bad reasons, including fear of punishment, hope of reward, or completely arbitrarily. That's why knowledge is justified, true belief.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for the italicisation of the word justified, I'd be tempted to dismiss Stone Island as nothing more than a crude bot, one that is incapable of (rather than unwilling to) answer the simple question: Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

In light of the italicisation, I suspect that Stone Island is a crude bot that has access to a vBulletin library of mark-up codes
 
19thomas-600.jpg


Oh No! FSM Forbid! Not another train wreck!

Can Pastafarians Be Useful Engines?

Tune in next week...​
 
Who gets to decide what "good" means?
Click to expand...
Don't say the Bible. Even if the Bible was written by God and this somehow did give it some sort of heightened importance and accuracy, it's still subjectively written down, translated and interpreted by mortal humans, so you're stuck back at square one, with societies deciding collectively what is good and what is bad.

Who decides whether the rules on stoning adulterers should be followed? Society.
Who decides whether the rules on homosexuality should be followed? Society.
Who decides whether the Bible should be consulted for guidance when discussing abortion? Society.

People don't use the Bible for moral guidance. They make the Bible say what they want it to say and then fool themselves into thinking they use it for moral guidance. There's a big difference.
 
Belz... said:
More-or-less.



It is correct, but is it "justified" ? Not if the premises are untrue, I'd say.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, but in the example he gives, it's obviously more than just a mouthy feline, it's also the fact that he sees the sun rise. His belief that the sun rises is justified by the sun rising, the talking cat is simply a useless addition.
 
Stone Island said:
Who gets to decide what "good" means? Whose standard of good?
Click to expand...

This again?

Humans, atheist or theist, decide what good means based on their own subjective values informed by millennia of human experience. Some theists claim that their god decides what "good" means, but they rely on other humans to subjectively decide who their god is and what he wants.

Stone Island said:
So, is there any non-arbitrary, justified, and true reason not to hang atheists from trees until they're dead?
Click to expand...

Once again, arbitrary and subjective are not synonyms.

If you don't want to be hung from trees because of your metaphysical beliefs, then it is in your self interest not to hang others from trees because of their metaphysical beliefs. This is enlightened self interest and there's nothing arbitrary or subjective about it. It's also Intro to Philosophy material so I'm surprised you're having so much trouble with it.

In addition, people who value human life (which is a subjective moral value) generally don't want to hang other people from trees.

I have two questions for you, Stone Island. Is there any objective reason to think "natural law" exists? Is there any objective way of determining what that law is?
 
Last edited:
Must say I'm still baffled by this thread. :confused:

If Neuhaus' question, and SI's by proxy, is "can atheists believe in the words of the founders' DoI; i.e., 'natural law'?":

-- Hobbes argues that Natural Law comes from human reason;

-- Grotius argues that Natural Law applies even to atheists;

-- Spinoza argues that Nature and God are the same;

all of these interpretations predate the DoI by a century, and so were available to its authors;

where's the contradiction in atheists believing in Natural Law, if, for the sake of argument, that's what it takes to defend the DoI and be a "good citizen"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom