Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Stone Island said:
Of course, personal attacks are not the only reasons to *plonk* someone. Blanket statements like this, which make it clear that you aren't willing to engage in anything like a friendly or lively discussion, is a good reason as well.
Click to expand...

Many people have already expressed powerful arguments and provide evidecne as to why what you have espoused on behalf of Neuhaus is stupid; that you do not wish to engage in a discussion of those arguments demonstrates clearly that you are either not capable of countering the arguments or that you do not wish to.

Also I find it rather strange in a thread that starts with you espousing blanket statements regarding millions of people you object to blanket statements regarding what you have espoused on behalf of Neuhaus. What you have shown is that in regards to "blanket statements" you take a hypocritical stance regarding your own posts compared to other people's posts.

Stone Island said:
On another note, repeatedly calling Neuhaus a bigot isn't much of an argument.
Click to expand...

It is not meant to be an argument since it is a statement of fact (see your opening post for the evidence of this) or rather as I have put it his opinions as espoused by you are bigoted opinions. Obviously this does not mean that they are your bigoted opinions or that you are a bigot.
 
Where did this "morally compelling, non-arbitrary" thing come from, anyway? Why is it necessary for an atheist to have this in order to prove him/herself a good citizen?

I think the reason you don't like any of the arguments is that the premise you propose is not proper.
 
Last edited:
NobbyNobbs said:
Where did this "morally compelling, non-arbitrary" thing come from, anyway? Why is it necessary for an atheist to have this in order to prove him/herself a good citizen?

I think the reason you don't like any of the arguments is that the premise you propose is not proper.
Click to expand...
Because Neuhaus (and presumably Stone Island) have appointed themselves arbiters of what is and isn't good citizenship.
 
godless dave said:
I'll give him that one. Australia and Canada, and for the most part the UK, are monarchies on paper but in practice the actual government is republican. The heads of state have very little to do with the government.
Click to expand...
That will probably surprise the people that voted against Australia becoming a republic in 1999. There are not many monarchs these days with executive power, but the UK monarch has the power on paper to alter the Australian government.
 
Stone Island said:
To be a good citizen it's necessary (though not sufficient) that you be able to give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of the society that you live in. It's not obvious that ours is the best society and it's not obvious that we know better than societies that have come before. For many societies this will be impossible because there may be no possible moral justification for them. Just as every mother loves her son, no matter how wayward, it may be impossible for us to not love our country, but impossible to offer a compelling moral justification of it.

It may not be possible for any society, ever.

It's my contention that a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of one's country is impossible for an atheist not because they don't believe in the particular God or gods of one's country (though that is one reason why a Communist can't be a good citizen of American, i.e., because they don't believe in natural rights and reject the freedom of an individual as a symptom of class conflict which will disappear with the Revolution), but because they reject as unreasonable the possibility of believing in God or gods. Belief in natural law is no more justifiable than a belief in God or gods. Natural law, for an atheist, may be a salutary myth, but it is not true in itself, it is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation. And if it is only worth preserving from a utilitarian calculation it becomes merely a means to an end.

One can follow the laws and norms of a society for any number of non-salutary reasons, including fear of punishment, hope of reward, ignorance of alternatives, etc...
Click to expand...
You appear to be saying that it is impossible to be a good citizen, full stop.
 
Robin said:
Because Neuhaus (and presumably Stone Island) have appointed themselves arbiters of what is and isn't good citizenship.
Click to expand...

With the goal, I suspect, of declaring their moral superiority over people whom they do not like due to their differing ideologies.
 
I'm finished with asking Stone Island if he thinks atheists cannot hold anything as more important than their individual selves. From his refusal to give a direct answer and his other statements in general I conclude provisionally, pending any denial from him, that he does believe that atheists are all sociopaths who can never make sacrifices for the good of others. This is obviously a ridiculous assertion that is counter-indicated by demonstrable facts. I am insulted by the insinuation that I would rather remain safely outside and preserve my own life than run into a burning building to save my wife and son. And let's face it, that's where the slippery slope of Stone Island's statement leads.

Why would someone feel the need to assert such a one dimensional straw man to argue his case? Why would someone try so stubbornly to dehumanize a group of people to such an extent? Is it simple bigotry? Or has he trapped himself into defending poor arguments because of an obdurate refusal to acknowledge errors, even to himself?
 
Stone Island said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing for nihilism, now ?

Necessary is not equal to sufficient.
Click to expand...

You have not demonstrated that it is necessary, let alone sufficient.

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...

And he would be wrong. What's the "right" reason ? God and his hell-threats ?
 
Stone Island said:
**plonk**



**plonk**
Click to expand...

How intellectually mature you've become.

Six7s said:
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...
Click to expand...

Indeed.

A person who does the right thing for the wrong reason is indistinguishable from someone who does the right thing for the right reason, from an external point of view. So who cares what they believe so long as they do the right thing ? What is it with theists and forcing others to have the same reason as they ?
 
Foster Zygote said:
I'm finished with asking Stone Island if he thinks atheists cannot hold anything as more important than their individual selves. From his refusal to give a direct answer and his other statements in general I conclude provisionally, pending any denial from him, that he does believe that atheists are all sociopaths who can never make sacrifices for the good of others. This is obviously a ridiculous assertion that is counter-indicated by demonstrable facts. I am insulted by the insinuation that I would rather remain safely outside and preserve my own life than run into a burning building to save my wife and son. And let's face it, that's where the slippery slope of Stone Island's statement leads.
Click to expand...

Case in point. In another thread, I mentioned a charity event I was participating in. Next thing I know, a dozen or so forumites donate to the cause, another advertises it on her blog, and I get offers of hospitality. Now, knowing the demographics of this forum, it is quite likely that one or more of those people are atheists. So Stone Island, there is your evidence. Atheists performing acts of kindness that in no way benefit themselves.

Belz... said:
A person who does the right thing for the wrong reason is indistinguishable from someone who does the right thing for the right reason, from an external point of view. So who cares what they believe so long as they do the right thing ? What is it with theists and forcing others to have the same reason as they ?
Click to expand...


To continue the point....although it would be nice to think that the aforementioned people gave because they honestly care about finding a cure, in the long run, as long as a cure is found, it doesn't matter what they were really thinking at the moment they gave. They could have said, "This makes me feel important" or "What a great tax write-off" or whatever. If the result is a cure, then they could have done it for any reason whatsoever, I wouldn't know and I wouldn't care and it wouldn't really matter to anyone at all.

And while we're on the subject, as far as doing the right thing for the wrong reason, I find it more likely that a semi-religious person would fall into that category. How many people tithe simply because a book says to? How many put money in the plate so they don't look like cheapskates in public? More religious people than atheists, I can tell you that.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
I'm finished with asking Stone Island if he thinks atheists cannot hold anything as more important than their individual selves. From his refusal to give a direct answer and his other statements in general I conclude provisionally, pending any denial from him, that he does believe that atheists are all sociopaths who can never make sacrifices for the good of others. This is obviously a ridiculous assertion that is counter-indicated by demonstrable facts. I am insulted by the insinuation that I would rather remain safely outside and preserve my own life than run into a burning building to save my wife and son. And let's face it, that's where the slippery slope of Stone Island's statement leads.
Click to expand...

My feeling is more that S.I. considers that, because atheists cannot give a (according to his and Neuhaus arbitrary definition) good reason to perform good actions, such actions by atheists, and by extention atheists, are worthless. This is a perfect illustration of a French saying "quand on veut tuer son chien, on dit qu'il a la rage" (if you want to kill your dog, pretend it has rabies).


Why would someone feel the need to assert such a one dimensional straw man to argue his case? Why would someone try so stubbornly to dehumanize a group of people to such an extent? Is it simple bigotry? Or has he trapped himself into defending poor arguments because of an obdurate refusal to acknowledge errors, even to himself?
Click to expand...

Who knows ?
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
...snip...

Why would someone feel the need to assert such a one dimensional straw man to argue his case? Why would someone try so stubbornly to dehumanize a group of people to such an extent? Is it simple bigotry? Or has he trapped himself into defending poor arguments because of an obdurate refusal to acknowledge errors, even to himself?
Click to expand...

In Neuhaus's case I think it is quite easy to understand - Neuhaus believes he has a revealed knowledge that is the Truth™ and therefore anyone who does not agree with him is wrong.

When you consider his incoherent, illogical and unsupported claims and bigoted opinions in that light you can understand how he is not actually interested in addressing any valid criticism or evidence because facts and rationality are irrelevant to the reason why he holds his bigoted views.

Just keep in mind that he did not arrive at his opinions by using evidence or reason.
 
Stone Island said:
Of course, personal attacks are not the only reasons to *plonk* someone. Blanket statements like this, which make it clear that you aren't willing to engage in anything like a friendly or lively discussion, is a good reason as well.
Click to expand...

In that case everybody should *plonk* you as well.

To be a good citizen it's necessary (though not sufficient) that you be able to give a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of the society that you live in.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that but I see no reason to believe it.

It's my contention that a morally compelling, non-arbitrary account and justification of one's country is impossible for an atheist not because they don't believe in the particular God or gods of one's country
Click to expand...

But the United States is a secular country, Stone. What, then ? And even if it wasn't, how does belief in god imply morality and not the reverse ? Are you still repeating that old canard that morality cannot come without religion ? That has been proven wrong ages ago.
 
Flo said:
My feeling is more that S.I. considers that, because atheists cannot give a (according to his and Neuhaus arbitrary definition) good reason to perform good actions, such actions by atheists, and by extention atheists, are worthless.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. If I understand Neuhaus correctly, the issue is, how would atheists convince others to perform good actions? In your example, how would they impart to others the importance of giving to charity? In the citizenship example, how would they teach their children the importance of a government that respects individual rights and freedoms?

To do so, atheists would need concepts of morality and justice that they could explain to other people. Which we do.
 
Flo said:
My feeling is more that S.I. considers that, because atheists cannot give a (according to his and Neuhaus arbitrary definition) good reason to perform good actions, such actions by atheists, and by extention atheists, are worthless. This is a perfect illustration of a French saying "quand on veut tuer son chien, on dit qu'il a la rage" (if you want to kill your dog, pretend it has rabies).
Click to expand...

If you can't give a non-arbitrary reason for doing something vs. nothing, how is your evaluation of something vs. nothing any less arbitrary?
 
Darat said:
In Neuhaus's case I think it is quite easy to understand - Neuhaus believes he has a revealed knowledge that is the Truth™ and therefore anyone who does not agree with him is wrong.

When you consider his incoherent, illogical and unsupported claims and bigoted opinions in that light you can understand how he is not actually interested in addressing any valid criticism or evidence because facts and rationality are irrelevant to the reason why he holds his bigoted views.

Just keep in mind that he did not arrive at his opinions by using evidence or reason.
Click to expand...

Is this civil and polite, an argument against the argument and not the arguer, or just an attempt to vent some spleen and poison the well? Maybe if you say bigoted, illogical, and unsupported enough times without ever actually making a counterargument that evidences any attempt to actually understand the argument you'll convince someone. Of course, that would be rhetoric, not philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom