Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[KingMerv00]

Merv, I believe you've just ended this thread!!

That is up to Stone, not me.

 

[Ladewig]

So yesterday, I read page one in its entirety. I then skipped to page ten and noticed that page one ends with the same question that page ten begins with. I guess its safe to assume that I'm not missing much by skipping pages 2-9.

 

[Stone Island]

Everyone,

Please don't answer any of Stone's questions until he answers his own first.

Thrasymachus:

How characteristic of Socrates! he replied, with a bitter laugh; --that's your ironical style! Did I not foresee --have I not already told you, that whatever he was asked he would refuse to answer, and try irony or any other shuffle, in order that he might avoid answering?

 

[Stone Island]

How many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves?

I don't know. It's a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy anyway.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, I respect that you have a right to discuss things with Stone and I can't force you to do otherwise but could you postpone your conversation until I get an answer?

This is not just a favor to me. Others have asked him as well.

My good and just King Merv: I was responding to Hokulele. Not Stone Island.

Originally Posted by Hokulele
My issue with this is the fact that the same, or at least very similar, guiding principles can have other sources.

I was also adding to the running balls gag with joobz. That amuses me.

I was also responding directly to Joe E. Hopefully, my response will cock block any response to that from Stone, though I ain't holding my breath.

I took care of responding to Stone on post 9, though I may have responded to him again once long before your request.

What is it, again, that you are asking me to do, or not do? The thread has been a mess for about eight pages.

DR

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't know. It's a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy anyway.

No it is not. It is entirely relevant to the claim about the Declaration of Independence. You asked:

Can an atheist, especially one who relies heavily on a verification theory of meaning, give an accounting, a justification, of the self-evident truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, as found in the Declaration of Independence?

So, how many of the signatories owned slaves?

 

[Stone Island]

This is not an emotional or personal attack.

I don't see how your attack could be any more personal.

 

[Stone Island]

No it is not. It is entirely relevant to the claim about the Declaration of Independence. You asked:


So, how many of the signatories owned slaves?

I still don't see the relevance. It's still a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. I don't know the number. Assuming that they believed in the truth of the DOI, it's quite obvious that many of the Founders were hypocrites. It's also obvious, from reading what they wrote, that they knew they were hypocrites and that they knew there would, eventually be a reckoning. Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 contains some interesting acknowledgments of this point.

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't see how your attack could be any more personal.

I can. It could be the attack you've directed at everyone who doesn't believe as you do. Your bigotry towards me is a more personal attack than anything directed towards you.

 

[KingMerv00]

Thrasymachus:

You can't even sling your retorts without a proxy now? Do you ever accept responsibility for your own points of view? Would you like to dicate your response to someone else? Shall I move your lips for you?

Socratic irony is answering a question with a question. You haven't even done that. You've simply ignored me or mooched off the work of others. But since you like quotes so much:

He wrapped himself in quotations as a begger would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors.

---Rudyard Kipling

Stone, can atheists be good citizens?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I still don't see the relevance. It's still a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. I don't know the number. Assuming that they believed in the truth of the DOI, it's quite obvious that many of the Founders were hypocrites. It's also obvious, from reading what they wrote, that they knew they were hypocrites and that they knew there would, eventually be a reckoning. Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 contains some interesting acknowledgments of this point.

More special pleading. You claim to be merely interested in a dispassionate academic discussion of Neuhaus' article. If that were the case you would be willing to acknowledge and discuss the many weaknesses in his case. You have shown your determination to ignore them. It is clear that you are acting as his apologist and using him as a proxy.

You once issued an invitation to call you a troll: You are a troll.

 

[KingMerv00]

My good and just King Merv: I was responding to Hokulele. Not Stone Island.

I was also adding to the running balls gag with joobz. That amuses me.

I was also responding directly to Joe E. Hopefully, my response will cock block any response to that from Stone, though I ain't holding my breath.

I took care of responding to Stone on post 9, though I may have responded to him again once long before your request.

What is it, again, that you are asking me to do, or not do? The thread has been a mess for about eight pages.

DR

Ah sorry, you quoted Stone so I assumed you were addressing him.

I would just like an answer from Stone. I'm asking for the help of others in this thread to achieve that goal.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ah sorry, you quoted Stone so I assumed you were addressing him.

I would just like an answer from Stone. I'm asking for the help of others in this thread to achieve that goal.

Just for the record, I've got Darth Rotor in the Iggy Box, but his post in reply to me was correct as far as it went... of course, I was posting bait, not a serious position. I was hoping to get some sort of response from SI, instead of his normal quote mining and avoidance of the weaknesses of his position.

 

[KingMerv00]

Let's just all be quiet until Stone answers.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Let's just all be quiet until Stone answers.

Shhhhh...

 

[Stone Island]

More special pleading. You claim to be merely interested in a dispassionate academic discussion of Neuhaus' article. If that were the case you would be willing to acknowledge and discuss the many weaknesses in his case. You have shown your determination to ignore them.

Pointing out your circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is not special pleading.

What's ironic is that you aren't willing to examine the argument as he meant it, you keep putting it in your bigotry mold, as if that was enough to answer the question.

What weaknesses are those?

 

[KingMerv00]

...

 

[KingMerv00]

Pointing out your circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is not special pleading.

What's ironic is that you aren't willing to examine the argument as he meant it, you keep putting it in your bigotry mold, as if that was enough to answer the question.

What weaknesses are those?

Can atheists be good citizens?

 

[Hokulele]

Let's just all be quiet until Stone answers.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but if Stone doesn't want to answer (and it appears he doesn't), he won't. By now, I think anyone reading this thread realizes that Stone has no interest in addressing this question directly, as he would much rather let others such as Neuhaus answer for him. I feel this is intellectually dishonest (as does joobz apparently), but at this point beating it into the ground isn't going to help, and some of the side conversations have become much more interesting than anything Stone has to say cite.

So please forgive me if I respond to Darth rather than feeding the troll.

So what? Within the context of my remarks, they were one of the primary sources of those principles within the Euopean cultural sub set that Jefferson was imbedded in. Jefferson had not, for example, been exposed to the Tao Te Ching.

Normally, I would agree with you here. My issue isn't so much with the historicity of the source of the principles of the Constitution, but the fact that Stone Island seems to be requiring that my principles have the same source as his in order to be considered a good citizen. This is where I disagree and hopefully it answers the "So what?" question. As long as I agree with the principles and abide by them, why should it matter how I derived them? This is one of the many questions Stone Island has been avoiding.

That similar guiding principles can be found in cultures other than EuroChristian suggests that a good idea can be around for a long time, can acquire a variety of attached ideas and symbols, and also that good ideas are not confined to one person for an origin. The same is true with jokes. I've cracked a few jokes that I came up with on my own, to find that others had come up with the same structure and punch line independently of me.

DR

I absolutely agree good ideas are good ideas regardless of the source. Neuhaus apparently doesn't think so, otherwise he would have no problem recognizing atheists as good citizens.

And good jokes are good jokes regardless of the source. Unless the source is Tricky.

 

[Stone Island]

Normally, I would agree with you here. My issue isn't so much with the historicity of the source of the principles of the Constitution, but the fact that Stone Island seems to be requiring that my principles have the same source as his in order to be considered a good citizen. This is where I disagree and hopefully it answers the "So what?" question. As long as I agree with the principles and abide by them, why should it matter how I derived them? This is one of the many questions Stone Island has been avoiding.

Is your agreement arbitrary, i.e., a matter of will, or bounded by the same assumption of self-evident truth?

Can someone who subscribes to a verificationist theory of truth argue for a natural rights republic in a morally convincing manner?