Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again, if you are the sort of person who requires belief in a supernatural being to do the right thing then I am glad you are nobody I associate with.
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, Grinspittle invokes Aristotle also, but comes to a different conclusion than Neuhaus. Acording to Grinspittle, a theist could do the right thing, but not for the right reason. Theists (at least, those of the Abrahamic traditions) are always ultimately motivated by the fear of judgment and the hope of eternal reward. Their actions are necessarily selfish, being concerned first and foremost with their own PERSONAL salvation, which they will place even above the common good.

For this reason, Grinspittle argues, it is impossible for the true theist to be a good citizen.
 
Stone Island said:
**plonk**
Click to expand...

Ah, the way out of the intellectual coward. Following in the footsteps of such logical luminaries as T'ai Chi and Radrook. I must say I am not surprised. Although SI has confirmed for me that he is using Neuhaus as a proxy for his own opinions. Why else should he take such offense at me calling Neuhaus a self-righteous bigot and an idiot? Unless maybe he is Neuhaus...

At any rate, might I impose a request on those whom Stone Island has not yet run away from? Would you continue to ask for a straight, honest answer to 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?

Thank you.
 
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?
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's right SI, just try to stuff the genii back in the bottle :) I believe you, millions wouldn't.
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?
Click to expand...
I really enjoy your habit of listing arbitrary and unrelated fallacies when you are losing the argument badly.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
According to Neuhaus, an atheist could do the right thing but not for the right reason.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....

I wonder....

According to anyone who eschews fantasy-based philosophies, a believer compelled by woo to 'do the right thing' can only do so for a wrong reason...

Doesn't necessarily make 'em 'bad' citizens... I guess

Just misguided...

Is that the path a 'good' citizen can follow?

:confused:
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well let's face it, nobody could do the right thing for the right reason, just so long as somebody else is allowed to decide arbitrarily what the right reason is.

An atheist can do the right thing for what they consider to be the right reasons and can give a full, open and honest account of what those reasons are.

But you are seriously deluding yourself if you think that Neuhaus's "right reasons" are anything other than arbitrary.
 
Here is a pretty compelling account of modern democracy which Neuhaus would dismiss as wickedness and unreason:
Rorty said:
These facts of the history of my country are sometimes cited to show that America is an utterly hypocritical nation, and that it has never taken seriously its own protestations about human rights. But I think that this dismissal of the US is unfair and misleading. One reason it became a much better, fairer, more decent, more generous country in the course of two centuries was that democratic freedoms – in particular freedom of the press and freedom of speech – made it possible for public opinion to force the white males of European ancestry to consider what they had done, and were doing to the Indians, the women, and the blacks.

The role of public opinion in the gradual expansion of the scope of human rights in the Western democracies is, to my mind, the best reason for preferring democracy to other systems of government that one could possibly offer. The history of the US illustrates the way in which a society that concerned itself largely with the happiness of property-owning white males could gradually and peacefully change itself into one in which impoverished black females have become senators, cabinet officers, and judges of the higher courts. Jefferson and Kant would have been bewildered at the changes that have taken place in the Western democracies in the last two hundred years. For they did not think of equal treatment for blacks and whites, or of female suffrage, as deducible from the philosophical principles they enunciated. Their hypothetical astonishment illustrates the anti-foundationalist point that moral insight is not, like mathematics, a product of rational reflection. It is instead a matter of imagining a better future, and observing the results of attempts to bring that future into existence. Moral knowledge, like scientific knowledge, is mostly the result of making experiments and seeing how they work out. Female suffrage, for example, has worked well. Centralized control of a country's economy, on the other hand, has not.
Click to expand...
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-06-11-rorty-en.html
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well according to me, Neuhaus is a self-righteous bigot and a bit of an idiot.
Click to expand...

Stone Island said:
**plonk**
Click to expand...

Nice - Being a bigot will get Stone Island to start a thread dedicated to some of your ramblings. Pointing out that a bigot is a bigot will get Stone Island to *plonk* you. Got it.

**plonk**
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing by this point it doesn't take SI very long to peruse the JREF. How long is this thread for you, SI? 8 pages? 12?
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not pretending, I'm stating. Where's, I don't know, the Founding Fathers saying this? Thomas Pangle? Where's something saying that by Thomas Paine?

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.
Click to expand...
The good of society. That's trivial. Nevermind a logically based ethical system which has been thoroughly developed by philosophers and which you'd certainly know about if you read any philosophy. Your entire argument dies with but a single counterexample, based as it is upon baseless assertions and fancy latin.
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.
Click to expand...
The good of society and individual freedoms, as based on statistical analysis of happiness in a population.

Now lets try one. Can you give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary reason why you make decisions? Please try not to refer to anything which contains self-contradictions (self contradictions always render a system invalid, regardless of external inputs. You do not need external inputs to determine the two statements 'A) B is a lie and B) A is the truth' is invalid).
 
Stone Island said:
**plonk**


**plonk**
Click to expand...
That's rather unfortuante Stone Island, becuase you "plonked" solid arguments that demonstrated the irrational basis for your position.

1.) Neuhaus' argument is nonsense. He's not the arbiter of what makes a good citizen.

2.) You have still failed to answer this 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?
 
slingblade said:
Oh, goodie. He makes sound effects. Too bad he doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
It's a good sound effect.
joobz said:
When I first read this (with your post to Mark), , I thought you were giving the sound effect of your balls being added to the table. :)

A quick google has informed me of my error, but i still like the onamonopeia:
***plonk***
"these balls aren't round."
Click to expand...
 
Stone Island said:
According to Neuhaus, an atheist could do the right thing but not for the right reason.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone give a frying frack what the hell Neuhaus says? Could you do yourself a favor and come up with some logical points on your own without referring to false premises stated by false authorities?
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well according to me, Neuhaus is a self-righteous bigot and a bit of an idiot.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you - he is certainly a self-righteous bigot of that there can be no disagreement (simply based on his words and the common definitions of those words) however I do not think he is an idiot. What he actually is is a quite clever person trying to fool people into accepting his bigoted opinions based on his sophistry.

Fortunately unless you are already a person who requires a belief in a supernatural being to do the right thing you will easily see through his sophistry. However if you are also a bigot (like Neuhaus) you probably will not like Neuhaus's bigotry and sophistry exposed and see such exposure as a personal attack rather than an attack on bigoted and unsupported claims.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom