User talk:Chrisrivers

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave messages.

Secular Ethics

Heya, it's too bad you didn't get a notice from the welcome team, so I will have to welcome you myself! I appreciate your interest in the Secular Ethics article, and I accept any suggestions for additions you might have. I found the article pretty empty and just followed a few clues from the little paragraph they had there and expanded them from looking at other wiki articles. The next step would be to read Nietzsche's work, but I am afraid I am kind of buried in college work right now. I strongly encourage you to add whatever you see fit, or just add whatever to give volume, so, as every great sculpture was once just a big block of stone, at this point I think we should gather the stone, so we can later sculpt it into something beautiful . Feel free to keep using our talk pages for discussion, I share every inch of your interest in this area and am just as eager to cooperate. Star Ghost 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point on Deists and I think it should be noted that Secular ethics are not at all incompatible with many religious beliefs, I sort of stated that in my nomination comment but it didn't occur to me to put it in the article. I also thought about mentioning law's take on it and maybe something on the state. Good to see we're already making progress! I don't know if we will get it to FA, but I am sure to enjoy seeing it nearing GA status. Star Ghost 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I took the liberty of making a few changes in the article borrowing from a few of your suggestions, hope you don't mind. Star Ghost 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit man. About the utilitarianism example thing, I think referencing to the ethics section in the main utilitarianism article is the best choice, since I'm not a big fan of being redundant between articles. We might just want to pick the most important parts that relate to secular ethics and leave the rest for the other article. Same with the rest of them. Star Ghost 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, on the tenets section, Im not sure I agree with this phrase: and in fact that some ethical behaviour condoned by religious texts is morally inferior to the secular ethics they uphold. What with religious people being able to adhere to these particular systems of morals, doesn't mean they think of religion as inferior. Some secular ethicist most certainly do, but I wouldnt call it a core tenet. I think we could do with this article not threading on such thin ice. Star Ghost 18:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot to say I agree with the placeholder structure you laid out. I'm glad you seem to have a good plan, because I am in fact learning a lot as we write this. Star Ghost 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. Now, about the criticism section, I do see how SomeHuman might have a point, but I think a good compromise would be to link to some article like Critique of atheism or anything else, so we would have a specific separate section to deal with the criticism. Its just an idea, we have plenty of time to discuss this. Star Ghost 23:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you indicated on Star Ghost's talk page that you intend to find more for the 'Criticism' section. Nope. The section must not even exist, unless you also put a section 'Criticism' on each article on one or another religion with Nietzsche's viewpoints. The article is about secular ethics and should not be biased by criticism from religious viewpoints; you may assume readers to be aware of religions to exist. On the other hand, in case a brief description linking to a full-blown article on a specific philosophy is not an option (no article), that particular section might need to show criticism by other secular ethicists. Tip: try too put as little emphasis as possible on 'secular' versus 'religuous'. The core of secular ethics is that ethicism is intrinsically human. (Thus of course no supernatural entity or religion is needed to obtain a sense of ethics). That means also one does not need to compare. Setting secular ethics off against religious ethics, suggests that secular ethicists are just people who lost their faith and are looking for excuses. SomeHuman 2006-07-30 20:32 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrivers, I took the liberty to copy Starghost's and my entries on your talk page, your entries on his talk page, and the entries by both of you on my talk page, all to the talk page on 'Secular ethics' in the section "Preliminary discussions amongst users Starghost, Chrisrivers, SomeHuman". You may wish to check whether I got the proper order and all is to your liking or not. I continued the discussion there and invite you and Starghost to do the same: it's easier to follow. SomeHuman 2006-07-31 03:36 (UTC)

You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner

Draicone ^(talk) 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Deborah Tucker (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 29 May 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF) as this week's WP:AID winner

Davodd 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kilner jar

The article Kilner jar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Vestigially-sourced article on a topic whose sole claim to notability appears to be a tenuous WP:INHERITED connection to Jeremy Clarkson.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)