20
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Atheism and morality (view source)
Revision as of 15:41, August 28, 2008
, 15:41, August 28, 2008contradiction in article
== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==
== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:
<blockquote>
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.
Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson:
“ ...He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism..."
</blockquote>
That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality. (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.) So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)