Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism and morality"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Inappropriate Comment)
(Inappropriate Comment)
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
:Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 
:Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
::If its verified then provide a reliable reference.  But either way the quote is out of place in an article about atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 04:47, April 10, 2009

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. WalksAmongUs 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business. canadianredtory


There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:

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..."

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.--ScottForschler 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Inappropriate Comment

The last sentence in the first paragraph:

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.

has nothing to do with Atheism. I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --PaulLaroque 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Unsigned reply: "It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists."

How? It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --PaulLaroque 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. BHarlan 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
If its verified then provide a reliable reference. But either way the quote is out of place in an article about atheism. --PaulLaroque 00:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)