Changes

Line 90: Line 90:     
I don't really see it as a tangent.  "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy.  In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical.  As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here.  --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
 
I don't really see it as a tangent.  "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy.  In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical.  As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here.  --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented.  There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid.  And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-)  Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense.  Enjoy your stay. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818

edits