Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Robin]

Must say I'm still baffled by this thread.

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"?

This is similar to the points I was making earlier. There are so many controversies and disagreements even among the supporters of the concept of Natural Law that it unlikely that there exists any person who can give a compelling account of a society based on Natural Law - hence according to SI and Neuhaus, no good citizens.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is similar to the points I was making earlier. There are so many controversies and disagreements even among the supporters of the concept of Natural Law that it unlikely that there exists any person who can give a compelling account of a society based on Natural Law - hence according to SI and Neuhaus, no good citizens.

We're talking about a person who implied in another of his threads that atheists are ashamed to admit that they lack "the faith that binds the rest of mankind together". He also implied that people are justified in hating atheists because, after all, they hate child molesters too. He never commented on the implication this reasoning has for Jews.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Must say I'm still baffled by this thread.

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"?

I may be an atheist, but like Spinoza, Einstein, Sagan etcetera I have a deep sense of religious wonder for nature. Far deeper in fact than any I gained from my days as a born again Christian. So it seems that even if I think that human morals are a product of our biological and social evolution and are subjective I can still call them "natural laws" and be a good citizen. Whew! What a relief!

 

[Robin]

We're talking about a person who implied in another of his threads that atheists are ashamed to admit that they lack "the faith that binds the rest of mankind together". He also implied that people are justified in hating atheists because, after all, they hate child molesters too. He never commented on the implication this reasoning has for Jews.

And in another place has cited a defence of Nihilism, expressing admiration for it's author and in another place has insisted that all religious language is meaningless.

Basically he is all over the place with nonsensical and contradictory positions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And in another place has cited a defence of Nihilism, expressing admiration for it's author and in another place has insisted that all religious language is meaningless.

Basically he is all over the place with nonsensical and contradictory positions.

I get the impression that it depends on what he's reading at the moment.

 

[joobz]

I get the impression that it depends on what he's reading at the moment.

For some reason I'm reminded of the back of "America: the Book" by the daily show writers.

Praise for America the book:
...
"This is similar to my works in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an ****** for at least a month afterward." -Ayn Rand

 

[blobru]

I may be an atheist, but like Spinoza, Einstein, Sagan etcetera I have a deep sense of religious wonder for nature. Far deeper in fact than any I gained from my days as a born again Christian. So it seems that even if I think that human morals are a product of our biological and social evolution and are subjective I can still call them "natural laws" and be a good citizen. Whew! What a relief!

Just remember FZ, next time you're on the verge of one of those tri-state atheistic killing sprees we're always hearing so much about, to just take a moment, put the safety back on, sit down, nice big comfy chair... and recite the Declaration of Independence.

(Usually) works for me, and I ain't even 'merican.

 

[m_huber]

I find this amusing.

 

[blobru]

I find this amusing.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2104647f1c21f157fb.png[/URL]

Our dark lord and master will be pleased...
[cue Beelzebub laughtrack, echo fx, up volume, fade]

 

[six7s]

I found this to be verging on wooishly bizarre

​

 

[PBTree]

Not sure if it has been asked before but those disgusting morons who stand outside cemeteries whilst funeral services are being held for Iraq KIAs with signs such as; "god hates you" etc. Are they good citizens?

 

[Robin]

Not sure if it has been asked before but those disgusting morons who stand outside cemeteries whilst funeral services are being held for Iraq KIAs with signs such as; "god hates you" etc. Are they good citizens?

If they really do answer to a higher authority then technically it is not they who are disgusting morons, it is the higher authority.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder about the "goodness" of a citizen whose religion preaches to them that they are inherently evil and need to ask forgiveness for the sin of being born.

 

[KingMerv00]

Has anyone brought up the fact that the people who approved the DOI are not the same people who approved the Constitution? The signers of the USC did not necessarily approve of God in government even if the the signers of the DOI did.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, King, why should that fact matter? Facts play no part in this discussion, for some people. Heck, some people are too cowardly to even post what their opinion is, let alone want to discuss facts.

 

[Polaris]

So you realize I'm gonna beat the crap out of you, have my way with you and then leave you on the street with no way home, right? I only do this because I'm atheist and we can't be good citizens.

Betcha ya didn't know thaiboxerken ran the BangBus did ya?

 

[Empress]

Has Stone just given up on this thread?

 

[X]

Who gets to decide what "good" means? Whose standard of good?

A good question.

How do you decide what is good?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It would not surprise me if Stone did give up on the thread. He never owned up to his actual position on the topic and only likes to argue via proxy. Ask him questions and he'll give you the answers of other people.

 

[tsig]

It would not surprise me if Stone did give up on the thread. He never owned up to his actual position on the topic and only likes to argue via proxy. Ask him questions and he'll give you the answers of other people.

Stone is just someone else's dust in the wind.