nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 94:
Line 94: + + +
→The effects of Atheism: Section should stay.
This section doesn't make any arguments based in fact and I propose it be removed. In none of the examples cited (Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao) were people killed because of religious reasons. In all three cases the justification was political.
This section doesn't make any arguments based in fact and I propose it be removed. In none of the examples cited (Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao) were people killed because of religious reasons. In all three cases the justification was political.
--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:38, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:38, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
: Not based on facts? Aren't the deaths from those despots facts?
: I think the problem is that perhaps the article didn't make the connection very well, having divided atheism from evolution. The part that you removed from the evolution section points out that evolution provides no basis for morals, which supports (and perhaps this wasn't clear) that atheism has no basis for morals. And what the atheism section (still) says is that "atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people". So atheism may not have ''caused'' those despots to murder millions, but atheism ''allows'' that (if there is, for example, political "justification"), whereas Christianity does not. That, in a sense, is the ''theory'', and the "effects" section shows that theory working out in practice. It is therefore appropriate to have it, and I will also be reinstating the text you removed from the evolution section.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)