Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

Well, not sure. But I do know that the neighbor that came over and mowed my yard, and brought me food when I was ill was an athiest.

Meanwhile, the two Christians that live beside me didn't do anything. One was too busy sneaking around and cheating on his wife, and the other is gone to the boats gambling all the time.

Thank goodness for the atheist!
 
Last edited:
It has been atheists who were there first and foremost in my life too when I was going through rough times. But the theists let me know they were "praying" for me. I suspect it did much more for them, then me.
 
joobz said:
I was talking about X not [X]:o
Click to expand...


I am X!
The "[" and the "]" are only there because the forum demanded a minimum of three letters.


:p


That out of the way, you very nicely summarized this thread. Maybe now Stone Island will realize why we are asking him/her his/her view.

After all, what's the point of contunally posting and defending articles such as the one in the OP if you have no opinion on the matter?
 
nightwind said:
Well, not sure. But I do know that the neighbor that came over and mowed my yard, and brought me food when I was ill was an athiest.

Meanwhile, the two Christians that live beside me didn't do anything. One was too busy sneaking around and cheating on his wife, and the other is gone to the boats gambling all the time.

Thank goodness for the atheist!
Click to expand...
Right. Like it was me and the other atheist at my last job who donated Thanksgiving dinners to shut-ins every year. The Christians were too busy hoping we would get a free turkey from work... while me and the other guy were counting that as two more turkeys to donate.
 
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...

It's not just your personal position. We have attempted to engage you in discussions regarding some of the errors in your logic and you have refused to address these issues.
 
joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's the argument from silence fallacy.
 
Your failure to answer your own question has nothing to do with poor logic.

It is simply rude to expect more from others than you offer in return. Also, it allows you to "win" the debate by never stating any solid position for us to rebut.
 
Stone Island said:
No, you didn't.

I've tried to be as helpful as possible.
Click to expand...

Actually we did. If you read back over the thread you will find numerous examples of people attempting to engage you in discussions of your personal opinions, as well as pointing out the obvious logical errors in the original paper that you linked to.

Your consistent refusal to engage in debate completely belies your statement that you've tried to be helpful.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Your failure to answer your own question has nothing to do with poor logic.

It is simply rude to expect more from others than you offer in return. Also, it allows you to "win" the debate by never stating any solid position for us to rebut.
Click to expand...

Ah, now I see where you've gone wrong. You think this is a debate, when, in fact, it is (at least on my part) an attempt at a friendly and lively discussion.

Where do you get the impression that I'm trying to win anything? Or, to put it another way, getting you to face your prejudices, whether or not I cause you to change your mind, is win enough for me. Is a a good citizen someone who stands up for his country through action motivated by pure political prejudice (Clemenceau, who was the toughest, the hardest and perhaps the most cruel man I have ever met, who had but one love, France...) or someone who can offer a compelling moral account that speaks to something true and eternal (as the authors of the DOI and Constitution thought they were doing)?

See, by not stating my own opinion, and only "boxing the corner" of the OP's author, I may, in fact, be attempting to refine my own thinking by putting it to the test. Of course whether I agree or not is really beside the point.
 
Stone Island said:
No, it's the argument from silence fallacy.
Click to expand...

No. That would be something like this:

1. Stone Island presented (without explicitly endorsing) an argument that atheists cannot be good citizens.
2. If Stone Island endorsed the argument, he would say so.
3. Stone Island will not say whether he endorses the argument.
4. Therefore he must not endorse the argument.
5. Therefore the argument must be invalid.

That would be a fallacy, if anyone were doing that, but nobody is. Similarly, namecalling is not the same as ad hominem fallacy. A fallacy is bad logic, not just something you don't like. If I say you are wrong because you're a coward, that's an ad hominem fallacy. If I simply say you are a coward, that is not an ad hominem fallacy.
 
Stone Island said:
Ah, now I see where you've gone wrong. You think this is a debate, when, in fact, it is (at least on my part) an attempt at a friendly and lively discussion.

Where do you get the impression that I'm trying to win anything? Or, to put it another way, getting you to face your prejudices, whether or not I cause you to change your mind, is win enough for me. Is a a good citizen someone who stands up for his country through action motivated by pure political prejudice (Clemenceau, who was the toughest, the hardest and perhaps the most cruel man I have ever met, who had but one love, France...) or someone who can offer a compelling moral account that speaks to something true and eternal (as the authors of the DOI and Constitution thought they were doing)?

See, by not stating my own opinion, and only "boxing the corner" of the OP's author, I may, in fact, be attempting to refine my own thinking by putting it to the test. Of course whether I agree or not is really beside the point.
Click to expand...

That's one of the longest dodges I've seen, yet.
 
Stone Island said:
No, it's the argument from silence fallacy.
Click to expand...
I respect your attempt at humor, but your posts would have been better served to actually engage in the discussion. Neuhaus' argument was found to be in error, and we have concluded that "Atheists can be good citizens."

It has been asked of you, Do you agree with the analysis or do you still believe Neuhaus correct. If you believe Neuhaus correct, why is our (or in particular, my) argument against him wrong?

This analysis would require an opinion and original thought from you. People have simply been demanding that. It may seem rude to demand such a thing as an original opinion, but it really is for your benefit as well. Afterall, how else are you going to grow and learn if you don't bother to put your ideas at risk.

We don't learn to ski by only watching skiers. We actually have to ski and fall to learn. Only then do we gain something from watching others. Learning is the same way. With out the risk of error, you will never learn.
 
joobz said:
I respect your attempt at humor, but your posts would have been better served to actually engage in the discussion. Neuhaus' argument was found to be in error, and we have concluded that "Atheists can be good citizens."
Click to expand...

But, you haven't. You've said you have, you rather boringly insist upon it, but nobody has even begun to grapple with the idea of what good citizenship means. As far as I can tell, nobody has even seen the point, yet.

I've seen plenty of ad hominem and plenty of name calling, but no real argumentation.

Start again: an atheist can act in any way she pleases, why is it anything more than arbitrary political prejudice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom