Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
→‎Morality Would Be Redefined: date/time didnt show up the first time for some reason
Line 168: Line 168:  
==Morality Would Be Redefined==
 
==Morality Would Be Redefined==
   −
Under atheism, "morals" could exist, but than being defined as what is "right" or "wrong" according to a source of objective truth, "morals" under atheism would be something akin to "keeping the peace" or "a pleasant or peaceful society for all of mankind", and may or may not be moral relativism. This could include a communist government, which considers democratically-run industries an end to greed and poverty, or a libertarian government, in which you can practice your personal beliefs but not force them on others. While there is no God according to atheism, and no system of right or wrong, an atheist society can focus on what is needed to keep the peace and call it "right" and anything contrary to peace can be called "wrong". Thus atheists can believe in "morality", but the term would have to be redefined. -[[User:Danq|danq]]
+
Under atheism, "morals" could exist, but than being defined as what is "right" or "wrong" according to a source of objective truth, "morals" under atheism would be something akin to "keeping the peace" or "a pleasant or peaceful society for all of mankind", and may or may not be moral relativism. This could include a communist government, which considers democratically-run industries an end to greed and poverty, or a libertarian government, in which you can practice your personal beliefs but not force them on others. While there is no God according to atheism, and no system of right or wrong, an atheist society can focus on what is needed to keep the peace and call it "right" and anything contrary to peace can be called "wrong". Thus atheists can believe in "morality", but the term would have to be redefined. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 17:37, 10 January 2011 (EST)
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
571

edits

Navigation menu