14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + +
Talk:Evangelical atheist (view source)
Revision as of 00:38, January 1, 2008
, 00:38, January 1, 2008→Evangelical atheist
: No, I don't think it should be deleted. The point is not whether it is theoretically possible for someone to be good in such a manner, but that [[evangelical atheists]] exaggerate the opportunity by insisting on it. In other words, the point is about the style and arguments of an [[evangelical atheist]], not where there is a shred of validity to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: No, I don't think it should be deleted. The point is not whether it is theoretically possible for someone to be good in such a manner, but that [[evangelical atheists]] exaggerate the opportunity by insisting on it. In other words, the point is about the style and arguments of an [[evangelical atheist]], not where there is a shred of validity to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 31 December 2007 (EST)
If someone can be good without attending services or reading the Bible, then why is this a "technique" of evangelical atheists? It seems that them pointing this out doesn't force their beliefs on anyone else, but simply states that religion isn't required to be a good person; this is in line with atheistic beliefs, and to me it doesn't seem to infringe on religious beliefs at all. Would it not help the article to make a better case by removing such an assertion, which seems to merely restate atheists' belief system? The only problem I see in this article is that it seems to deny that there is any validity to their arguments, which you yourself said exists. -Otru