Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

KingMerv00 said:
More likely someone else will gather it for him but he'll refuse to say whether or not it is HIS moss.
Click to expand...
:D

He feels that whether or not it is his moss is a philosophical question that each of us must ponder for ourselves.
 
Robin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do in fact admire Dr. Neumann, he being one of my better professors. I disagree with him, though what he has to say about the relationship between philosophy and politics is intriguing. It may pain you to realize this, but admiration and respect has nothing to do with agreement.

My thought is that if religious language is meaningless then natural law and "rights" language is meaningless too, probably for the same reason (assuming I understand Martin's argument).
 
I'm confused now. Do you think Neuhaus is right to say that atheists cannot be good citizens?

What exactly do you disagree about?
 
Last edited:
AmyWilson said:
Atheists are not American, nor respectable.

America is one nation under God.
Click to expand...

'Bout time somebody said so!

(In the sense that this thread could use some spice :D )

ETA: I can't wait for the day when I figure out which one of you AmyWilson is... I suspect I'm going to laugh myself sick!
 
Last edited:
AmyWilson said:
Atheists are not American, nor respectable.

America is one nation under God.
Click to expand...
Duck, drive by trolling!
*schreeeech....blatt! blatt! blatt! screeeech.....varroooooooom*
That was close, whew.
*turns radio back on*

*Radio: Relgion and Philosophy, Ya you know you in trouble, Ain't nothing but an A-thang Baby*
 
*Radio: Relgion and Philosophy, Ya you know you in trouble, Ain't nothing but an A-thang Baby*
Click to expand...


I was driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield
Listening to gospel music on the coloured radio station
And the preacher said
"You know you always have
the Lord by your side"

And I was so pleased to be informed of this that I ran
Twenty red lights in his honour
Thank you Jesus, thank you lord​
 
Atheists are not American, nor respectable.

America is one nation under God.
Click to expand...
Isn't this the second time you say so in this thread? Or was the first one Kurious Kathy?
 
Stone Island said:
I do in fact admire Dr. Neumann, he being one of my better professors. I disagree with him, though what he has to say about the relationship between philosophy and politics is intriguing. It may pain you to realize this, but admiration and respect has nothing to do with agreement.
Click to expand...
I never suggested for a moment that it did.

But it may pain you to realise that when you cite all these contradictory positions and never express your own view of them then people are entitled to think that you are unsure of your own position. Especially when you simply ignore all the requests to express your own view.
My thought is that if religious language is meaningless then natural law and "rights" language is meaningless too, probably for the same reason (assuming I understand Martin's argument).
Click to expand...
So in other words the article you cited in the OP is also meaningless for the same reason. Yes?
 
AmyWilson said:
Atheists are not American, nor respectable.

America is one nation under God.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that only religious bigotry and divisiveness are American. I think the founders would have had a little something to say about that.
 
Robin said:
But it may pain you to realise that when you cite all these contradictory positions and never express your own view of them then people are entitled to think that you are unsure of your own position. Especially when you simply ignore all the requests to express your own view.
Click to expand...

To do so, and to attempt to use it as an evaluative tool, would be a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.

That this has become an discussion of me, rather than of ideas, is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.
 
Stone Island said:
To do so, and to attempt to use it as an evaluative tool, would be a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.

That this has become an discussion of me, rather than of ideas, is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...
We repeatedly tried discussing the ideas with you. Over and over. But you refused to be drawn. Remember?

So how on earth do you expect us to discuss the idea with you when you won't even attempt to participate in the discussion?

And then when your evasions become more amusing and interesting than the tired and rather childish arguments given by Neuhaus you get mad and claim ad hom.

Ironically you still ignore the actual question posed to you by me in the last post that relates to the Neumann article.

So you are still avoiding discussion on the article you cited and the question you posed.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
To do so, and to attempt to use it as an evaluative tool, would be a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...
By the way, go and find out what ad hominem means. It is not ad-hom since we are not using your evasions to evaluate the argument under discussion.
 
Stone Island said:
To do so, and to attempt to use it as an evaluative tool, would be a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.

That this has become an discussion of me, rather than of ideas, is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...
X: Frank says Christians are idiots.
A: That's absurd because of y, What do you say.
X: Frank doesn't think so
A: Frank is wrong because of y. Why do you think Frank is right?
X: I'm discussing Frank's opinion.
A: What's your Opinion?
X: Frank says christians are idiots.
A: That's nice, but we've already shown Frank to be wrong. What's your Opinion.
X: Frank says christians are idiots.
A: WHat's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
A: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
B: WHat's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
C: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
A: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
B: WHat's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
A: It seems that X is afraid to defend his support of Frank. I wonder why he displays intellectual cowardice.
B: Maybe not, Perhaps X realizes his error and doesn't want to admit mistake?
X: This has resorted to Ad-hom.
A: Oh, welcome Back X, What's your opinion.
X: *nothing*
A: Sigh
B: Sigh
C: Sigh
 
joobz said:
X: Frank says Christians are idiots.
A: That's absurd because of y, What do you say.
X: Frank doesn't think so
A: Frank is wrong because of y. Why do you think Frank is right?
X: I'm discussing Frank's opinion.
A: What's your Opinion?
X: Frank says christians are idiots.
A: That's nice, but we've already shown Frank to be wrong. What's your Opinion.
X: Frank says christians are idiots.
A: Whats your opinion?
X:*nothing*
A: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
B: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
C: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
A: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
B: What's your opinion?
X:*nothing*
A: It seems that X is afraid to defend his support of Frank. I wonder why he displays intellectual cowardice.
B: Maybe not, Perhaps X realizes his error and doesn't want to admit mistake?
X: This has resorted to Ad-hom.
A: Oh, welcome Back X, What's your opinion.
X: *nothing*
A: Sigh
B: Sigh
C: Sigh
Click to expand...


Oi! :mad:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom