Conservapedia talk:Front Page

2007-08-25T04:09:02Z

John56: ===What an encyclopedia is====

Starting with the definition of what an encyclopedia is, Dictionary.com defines it as "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject."

We've expanded on that definition with the advent of the internet and now we have wiki's that let users create articles on virtually anything that can be imagined.
I think that wikipedia is more like the first part of the definition, covering all branches of knowledge. Now, nowhere does it say that an encyclopedia contains CORRECT information, just articles on various topics. There are many articles in wikipedia that one can agree with and many that one would disagree with and that's for the individual to decide.

Conservapedia is of a different brand. It combines the two parts of the definition because it addresses all branches of knowledge but it does so from a conservative view point which makes it similar to covering aspects of one subject "conservatism". Just like other wiki's, articles can be created, edited, altered or rewritten by either the users or the operators of the site. It's an ever-changing body of knowledge that helps us understand different topics, and Conservapedia does so from the viewpoint of conservatives instead of a generalized or liberal view. This helps conservatives, who share a common mindset to share the information they have on many different topics in ways that increase knowledge and understanding from this viewpoint.

Since no encyclopedia can claim that it has absolute athority, since it is a collection of articles written by people based on the knowledge they have, many different encyclopedias can be compared resulting in very different ideas depending on what viewpoint it is written in. It is advantageous for people of a particular mindset to utilize an encyclopedia that shares the same mindset so they may gain knowledge of topics in an easier way or a more cognitively acceptable way for them. ---John

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?

2007-08-25T03:53:26Z

John56: /* No */

{{debate}}

== No ==
'''No'''. What is [[morality]], after all, but a code of ''values''? A man without morality has no values. But surely every man values ''something.'' Even if all that a man values is himself, and what will make him happy, he still has values. With values comes morality.

Thus a man might ''claim'' to be [[Amoralism|amoral]], but in fact he does live by a code of morality that he himself has invented.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

There's a Haiku in that:
Man might claim to be
amoral, but in fact he
does live by a code.
[[User:Marym|Marym]] 18:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

My take on this is that morality has both an innate and an encultured aspect. The existence of a moral sense is "hardwired" like the ability to learn language. But although we are all born with the potential to develop as moral agents, the course that this development takes is partially determined by the experiences we have as we learn and grow. Theoretically, an individual might grow up without moral training of any kind. However, I would argue that all human societies possess a volume of more or less explicit moral teachings. Thus, even a society which habitually indulges in practises that we might find entirely immoral, does so in accordance with its own moral code. This is not to say that all moral codes are equal. The other (and more difficult) aspect of morality is the question of moral development: the morals of societies change over time, and, in particular, it is an undeniable fact that individuals and groups arise in all historical societies claiming to be in possession of a higher morality than the one that curently prevails. We thus always find ourselves in a marketplace of competing moralities, and it is not easy, as any conservative will acknowledge, to lay claim to moral infalibility: There are always alternative points of view. In Western societies, the existence of an alleged "moral vacuum" is largely the result of the absence of a centrally prescribed code of morals in certain spheres of life (above all sexuality and religion) where one did exist - at least nominally - until recently. Nonetheless, a broad consensus does continue to exist over many moral issues. [[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]] 17:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No, of course not. You don't have to be religious to be moral or have a moral code. There are people who think morally it's ok to kill certain groups of people for whatever stupid reason they have, that's their moral. Although it's in opposition to all religions and philosophies. Morals are what one makes them, no one doesn't have them, sometimes people just don't share the same morals. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

===postmodern morality===
In the Postmodern world that we live in, our morality is defined by whatever feels right and works for that individual person. There is no central absolute standard in order to judge. However, that is a defeating system, because what if my morality does not match up with someone elses? What if I decide to go rob a store, and that was genuinely what I thought was right to do. Of course that's an extreme example, because not many people in their right mind genuinely think it is the right thing to do. Even criminals know it's wrong, they just don't care. But where does this sense of morality come from? Our postmodern culture says that all viewpoints should be tolerated and no One should find dominance. However, those that hold to that position are philosophically contradicting themselves because they are enforcing postmodernism (their viewpoint) on everyone else. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

===semantic===
This debate depends on whether there is a universal 'right' way to behave in all situations, independent of any opinions on what it might be. I would argue that athiests, such as myself have ethics rather than morals, since their values of right and wrong stem from a regard for others as opposed to a rigid dogma. Consider last week in Iraq, a Kurdish girl was stoned to death by a mob, possibly including her own family, because she was judged to have broken her religions moral laws about sex. Evey member of that mob was behaving morally according to their religion and values, but few without a religion would say they behaved ethically. The Old Testament demands death by stoning for a girl in simmilar circumstances (disobeyed her parents, went with a guy of another creed against their wishes), but few modern Christians would actually advocate following the written word of the Bible, they'd make an interpretation of the dogma - the absolute moral - as they (arbitrarily) see fit. Morality is always subjective, but those without religion do not pretend to base their judgements of behavior on bronze age writings, but rather on a philosophy or social contract. [[User:Marym|Marym]] 19:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

===everybody else does it===
I agree with no. Even if the code of morality isn't religous based, there is still an idea of what is right or wrong and people conform to the idea of society as their basic moral code. Just as animals raise their young to do certain things like hide from a predator or attack their prey, society teaches people to behave in certain ways such as not killing others or not stealing or lying because there are negative results. It's the negative result that keeps a person "honest".
Regardless of whether a particular person follows the morality of a religon or not, he/she will follow the morality of the people in his/her own group. If he/she is a member of a church, then of course, the church's morality determines the persons. If the person is a member of a gang, then the morality of the gang will determine his/her morality.
It could be argued there is no universal right or wrong, only actions perceived as right or wrong and those make up the morality of the group.
Some cultures see abuse of wives to be moral, others see it as an atrocity. Some cultures see murder as acceptable if its against an opposing force, others see it as wrong no matter what. Some feel it is moral to raise animals for food, others feel animals shouldn't be used as food at all. Morality is in the 'eye of the beholder' in that way. Whatever the group of people that a person is a member of sees as moral will be the moral standards of that person. History has determined most of our morals as a society and the Bible has determined our morals as Christians. The two don't always overlap. --- John

== Yes ==
Morality is a set of laws that determines the difference between right and wrong. Morality generally comes from religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judism, etc. Morality often changes through time; what is deemed moral now may be vastly different than what is considered moral in the future. Many argue that it is indeed possible to live without morals, as morals are not usually found among other species. This, however, can easily be disputed and the idea is flawed.

Double Edge
{{Unsigned|Double Edge}}

::I have no religion. I also have a small blue card in a draw, labeled 'National Blood Service' and printed with my donor number. I am both an atheist, and a moral person, as evidenced by my willingness to walk half an hour across town and then return a little bit lighter and less fit for the benefit of others. I myself am proof that morality does not require religion. But in case one isn't enough, I am sure there will be several tens of millions of atheists who would be willing to testify to their own morality.

To save time, the standard counter for this like of argument is to substitute a narrower definition of morality, one which is sufficiently narrow and full of arbitary restrictions derived from religion that only a follower of that religion could meet it. You may, for example, argue that it doesn't matter if someone is a charitable blood-donor, campaigner for the poor, kind, loving, polite and a perfect example of all things good - if they arn't Christian, they cant be moral. Its circular, and its pathetic logic, but it works when fed through a confirmation bias. - Suricou
:::You have in fact shown that, though you believe in no [[God]], you still have values. Not everyone will accept those values as complete, but again, you have values. Your values are even more sophisticated than those of the purely self-centered man.
:::I did not ask whether man can live without [[God]]. He can, though I wouldn't advise it. Rather, I asked whether a man can live without ''values''. I maintain that ''every'' man has ''some'' standard of value, and therefore every man lives by ''some'' moral code.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Perhaps an athiest can live with values. But is it not possible for a man to do what has the highest utility for him. His values are not consistant this. His only purpose is survival of the fittest. Therefore he has no standard for morality. Therefore he lives without a code of morality.

Double Edge

:If you define morality merely as "a code of laws dictated by [[God]]," then I suppose you're right. But an [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] wouldn't agree with you. Objectivism says that a code of morality is ''any'' code of values that a man accepts ''by choice.''

:So I suppose everything depends entirely on what morality is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It reflects poorly on the editors of Conservapedia to be phrasing questions using "MAN" instead of "PERSON" considering we are in the year 2007. Women are not meekly pouring their husbands scotch while their men engage in intellectual discussions on your site. I assure you, you have many women readers whom you would be advised to address should you wish to be considered a reliable and unbiased resource. {{Unsigned|Valerie}}

:::"Man" in this context means "human", not "male". It's your duty to educate yourself, not to complain because others won't conform to your ignorant understanding of the word.

:This is a separate issue, but I use ''man'' to mean "any human being." I don't hold with surrendering the common-gender contexts of certain words, for no better reason than that they are "masculine" forms. For the record, I don't believe that a woman (that is, a female) can live without morality--that is, totally without values--any more than can a man (that is, a male).--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely, think of all the serial killers and mass murderers that go on almost forever that seem to have no morals or real code of living. As long as there is evil in the world there will be a need for morals.--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:But what if the serial killer's or the mass murderer's personal moral code includes killing dozens of people. Is there an absolute moral code that we all must follow? And, if so, who decides what goes on that code? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Who is to say what is moral and immoral? These two concepts technically do not exist. Interesting.
{{Unsigned|Gesiwuj}}

Yes. Just ask the president. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 02:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:``But what if the serial killer's or the mass murderer's personal moral code includes killing dozens of people.`` Historically, it often does, Dominican monks torturing and killing people during the Spanish Inquisition sincerely belived it was a moral *duty* of theirs, just as with Conquistadores slaughtering the peoples of South America. People seldom believe they are not (morally?) justified in their actions, no matter what those actions are. [[User:Marym|Marym]] 20:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::If your lack of understanding of this word doesn't meant that the concept doesn't exist, silly. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Double Edge, i am an atheist. I do not live in moral anarchy. I have very strong moral values. I do not kill, i think it is wrong to steal or to commit adultery and i think that tolerance is the greatest virtue. To suggest that simply because i belive that the scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a god, does not immediately mean that therefore i have no morals whatsoever, and you suggesting that it does causes me to feel slighted and misunderstood. Please think more carefully about what you are saying about another person before you say something so generalising again. Bolly Ottihw 18:16, 20 April 2007

Morlity can be seen as something like money. Money, really, does not exist. You cannot hold 'money' - you can hold an object of known value, but that is not money. You can hold currency - but what is it but paper and ink, or a piece of metal? Is money held in a bank, where it is nothing but bits in a computer? Money doesn't exist, and yet its still possible to buy things with it. Because, so long as people believe in it, it '''does''' exist - its existance comes only from that belief. Were everyone to suddenly stop accepting money tomorrow, money would simply disappear and all that currency return to being worthless paper. And morality, in the same way, does have a real existance - so long as enough people believe that it does, and are willing to act on that belief. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

I am an atheist. If there are no gods then there can be no absolute right and wrong. Without gods where could absolute values come from? If there are no absolute rights and wrongs there can be no morality because morality (in my view) cannot be a relative concept. What use is morality if mine can be fundamentally different to yours and neither is superior? That is not what I understand morality to mean. In the end, if one is an atheist, the best you can do is to put it down to a matter of taste. Isn't that all that's left? It is not to my taste to torture babies for fun (and I hope it's not to your taste either). I can think that my taste is better than yours but I can't prove it. Religious people regard that as a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs and they may be right. But that is not an argument for the existence of gods. Maybe the universe is just unsatisfactory in some ways. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Front Page

Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?