2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 379:
Line 379: − + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 04:20, January 21, 2008
, 04:20, January 21, 2008→Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about what their deity how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)