Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Stone Island]

It's not an argument from ignorance. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document...

So, what do you make of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn? You might want to pay particular attention to the final chapter titled "Fulfillment" which is all about the Constitution. What about the argument about the purpose of the Constitution from The Federalist? Pray tell, have you looked at Pangle's The Spirit of Modern Republicanism? Disagree all you want, there's much to be disagreeable about, but don't pretend that no one serious has never made the case.

Stone Island, are you maintaining that atheists are incapable of valuing themselves less than others? Are you stating that an atheist cannot determine that his or her needs, desires or even personal safety must sometimes be put aside for the benefit of the community?

Following the distinction of an atheist as one who accepts the possibility of God or gods but rejects the God or gods of the city and an atheist who rejects the possibility of God or gods, an atheist qua atheist cannot give a non-arbitrary. morally compelling reason why they, or anyone else, should act in any particular way.

Please, come visit me someday and call me a bad citizen to my face. I'd love to discuss it in person with you ...

Can you give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why anyone else ought to do what you did? Can you give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why you did what you did? Please do try and not refer to anything that isn't scientifically or empirically verifiable.

 

[Fiona]

The idea of God is not arbitrary?

 

[bokonon]

So, what do you make of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn?

A doorstop?

What about the argument about the purpose of the Constitution from The Federalist?

What argument would that be?

Pray tell, have you looked at Pangle's The Spirit of Modern Republicanism?

Nope.

Disagree all you want, there's much to be disagreeable about, but don't pretend that no one serious has never made the case.

Fair enough, as long as you don't pretend that by repeating the title of three reference works, you have made a case.

Following the distinction of an atheist as one who accepts the possibility of God or gods but rejects the God or gods of the city and an atheist who rejects the possibility of God or gods, an atheist qua atheist cannot give a non-arbitrary. morally compelling reason why they, or anyone else, should act in any particular way.

Sure they can. The argument that one should act in accordance with what the community has determined is the common good is not arbitrary, merely flexible, as long as one has the options of withdrawing from the community or persuading the community that a different course of action is better.

Before the theist qua theist can reach this point, he has to arbitrarily decide which god or gods he will defer to, and what authority he will accept for communicating the wishes of the god or gods.

 

[Stone Island]

The idea of God is not arbitrary?

False dilemma; maybe it is.

 

[Stone Island]

A doorstop?


What argument would that be?


Nope.


Fair enough, as long as you don't pretend that by repeating the title of three reference works, you have made a case.


Sure they can. The argument that one should act in accordance with what the community has determined is the common good is not arbitrary, merely flexible, as long as one has the options of withdrawing from the community or persuading the community that a different course of action is better.

Before the theist qua theist can reach this point, he has to arbitrarily decide which god or gods he will defer to, and what authority he will accept for communicating the wishes of the god or gods.

Argument from ignorance.
False dilemma.
Misstating the argument.

Can't you see that acting in accordance with the community is as arbitrary as not, without some standard? The question is really whether any standard is possible. The atheist, for one, says not.

 

[bokonon]

Can't you see that acting in accordance with the community is as arbitrary as not, without some standard? The question is really whether any standard is possible. The atheist, for one, says not.

The community sets the standard, just as the Declaration of Independence prescribes:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If you want to call this "arbitrary" and label it a bad thing, I suppose a case can be made. I want to call it "flexible" and label it a good thing. Why should a modern community of the living be bound by the "standards" written by centuries-dead goat herders? Men have the ability to reason together, and come to a consensus on their own standards. Since they have been freely chosen, the community which is called on to conform to the standards will probably regard them as less "arbitrary" than a standard dictated by ancient Greeks or Babylonians.

 

[Robin]

Can't you see that acting in accordance with the community is as arbitrary as not, without some standard? The question is really whether any standard is possible. The atheist, for one, says not.

The theist, on the other hand, says it is, but is absolutely unable to back up the claim.

So both end up at the same point, but the atheist is, at least, honest about it.

 

[slingblade]

The question is really whether any standard is possible. The atheist, for one, says not.

No, I don't say that. Be more careful with these overly broad generalizations. I am so farking tired of it, from a farking lot of people lately.

I say that I don't have to believe in an invisible man in the sky in order to know right from wrong. All I need is to be taught, and to have enough empathy to comprehend.

I am a good citizen, thanks. You opinion doesn't change that fact.

I know plenty of religious who aren't good citizens, though, in spite of the fact that they think they get their morals from SkyDaddy. Or maybe you think those 50-year-old men having sex with their 12-year-old wives down in Texas are perfectly moral?

You realize that in their community, they are perfectly good citizens.

In my community, they are criminals.

Now, roll that up in a page from your bible and smoke it.

 

[Stone Island]

I say that I don't have to believe in an invisible man in the sky in order to know right from wrong. All I need is to be taught, and to have enough empathy to comprehend.

I am a good citizen, thanks. You opinion doesn't change that fact.

I know plenty of religious who aren't good citizens, though, in spite of the fact that they think they get their morals from SkyDaddy. Or maybe you think those 50-year-old men having sex with their 12-year-old wives down in Texas is perfectly moral?

Begging (or raising?) the question?

And again with the false dilemma. Yes, they're probably not good citizens either. Fair enough.

 

[Robin]

Begging (or raising?) the question?

And again with the false dilemma. Yes, they're probably not good citizens either. Fair enough.

I bet they could give a morally compelling account of the regime. Child molesters are normally first-class liars.

[edit]So by Neuhaus's criteria they would be good citizens.[/edit]

 

[Stone Island]

The theist, on the other hand, says it is, but is absolutely unable to back up the claim.

So both end up at the same point, but the atheist is, at least, honest about it.

Which is something, I suppose.

Of course, at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I must say that we've been here before:

In order to underpin values which have been raised to the level of a moral imperative, the values themselves are attributed Being. But in this context Being basically means no more than the presence of what exists. Only that what is meant is not as crude and palpable as tables and chairs. Once values are endowed with Being the high-point of confusion and rootlessness has been arrived at. However, since the expression 'value' is gradually coming to sound hackneyed, especially since it still plays a role in economic theory, values are now called 'totalities'. In 1928 there appeared the first volume of a complete bibliography of the concept value; 661 works concerning the concept of value are cited. They have presumably grown to a thousand by now. This is all called philosophy. What today is systematically touted as the philosophy of National Socialism, but which has nothing in the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely the encounter of a globally determined technology with the man of the new age), darts about with fish-like movements in the murky waters of these 'values' and 'totalities'.--from Martin Heidegger

 

[Stone Island]

I bet they could give a morally compelling account of the regime. Child molesters are normally first-class liars.

Necessary is not equal to sufficient.

 

[slingblade]

Begging (or raising?) the question?

I have no idea. Could you be a little less vague, perhaps, and specify your objection?

And again with the false dilemma. Yes, they're probably not good citizens either. Fair enough.

What false dilemma? You think atheists, by virtue of being atheists, can't be good citizens because you think without a god, they have no source or standard for morals.

I say your argument is full of effluvium. That good and poor citizens can be found in any cross-section of a population you care to imagine. That being an atheist doesn't determine you are sociopathic or criminal or just a mean person who won't play nice.

As long as a person maintains morals come only from a belief in god, and as long as I can find believers in god who have sex with little girls, I will continue to cry BULL****!

 

[Robin]

Necessary is not equal to sufficient.

What on earth do you mean by that?

The child molester in question could give an account of his regime that would be identical to the account Neuhaus gives of his regime and so would qualify, under Neuhaus's arbitrary criteria, as good citizens.

 

[Robin]

Which is something, I suppose.

You suppose? Do you have something against honesty? What does the theist have?

Do you prefer dishonesty, or obscurantism?

Of course, at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I must say that we've been here before:

Let the record show that you let that particular genius out of the bottle. Although why you think it will be helpful to your argument is anybody's guess.

I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf

And you want Natural Law? ...

We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind.

Adolf Hitler, Speech, Munich 1923

...

We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.

-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

So what exactly was your point in bringing Adolf Hitler into all this?

 

[slingblade]

What on earth do you mean by that?

It's a term used in deductive logic. He seems to think that by tossing deductive terms into his word salad, he's making a point. Except, he's really not.

(unless you knew that already and were instead asking him how his use of it applied to your point. In that case, sorry.)

 

[Foster Zygote]

So, what do you make of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn? You might want to pay particular attention to the final chapter titled "Fulfillment" which is all about the Constitution. What about the argument about the purpose of the Constitution from The Federalist? Pray tell, have you looked at Pangle's The Spirit of Modern Republicanism? Disagree all you want, there's much to be disagreeable about, but don't pretend that no one serious has never made the case.

Another argument from authority. Well here's one for you:

The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.

And another:

[The Ninth Amendment is] a universe of rights, possessed by the people — latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law....a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law."

Please explain again how it is clear that these "unenumerated rights" imply a reference to "natural law". Is a woman's right to an abortion guaranteed by "natural law"?

Following the distinction of an atheist as one who accepts the possibility of God or gods but rejects the God or gods of the city and an atheist who rejects the possibility of God or gods, an atheist qua atheist cannot give a non-arbitrary. morally compelling reason why they, or anyone else, should act in any particular way.

You did not answer my question Stone Island.

Are you maintaining that atheists are incapable of valuing themselves less than others? Are you stating that an atheist cannot determine that his or her needs, desires or even personal safety must sometimes be put aside for the benefit of the community?

Why won't you answer the question? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Can you give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why anyone else ought to do what you did? Can you give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why you did what you did? Please do try and not refer to anything that isn't scientifically or empirically verifiable.

As Slingblade mentioned, those polygamists in the recent news reports out of Texas would certainly claim that they can give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why they are justified in having sex with pre-teen girls.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I bet they could give a morally compelling account of the regime. Child molesters are normally first-class liars.

[edit]So by Neuhaus's criteria they would be good citizens.[/edit]

Perhaps he meant to say "No true Scotsman".

 

[Stone Island]

You suppose? Do you have something against honesty? What does the theist have?

Do you prefer dishonesty, or obscurantism?

Let the record show that you let that particular genius out of the bottle. Although why you think it will be helpful to your argument is anybody's guess.

And you want Natural Law? ...

...

So what exactly was your point in bringing Adolf Hitler into all this?

I didn't bring Hitler into it, I brought Heidegger in. You brought Hitler in. Heidegger's point is that even Hitler was wrong to fish in the murky waters of values.

So, let me just point out what you just did, in your zeal:

1. Missing the point.
2. False Dilemma.
3. Guilt by association.
4. Poisoning the well.

What else?

 

[Stone Island]

What on earth do you mean by that?

The child molester in question could give an account of his regime that would be identical to the account Neuhaus gives of his regime and so would qualify, under Neuhaus's arbitrary criteria, as good citizens.

It's why I mentioned Aristotle previously. Virtue is doing the right thing, for the right reason, in the right way. According to Neuhaus, an atheist could do the right thing but not for the right reason.