Talk:Humanistic naturalism

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Philosophy: Ethics / Religion Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of religion

The third paragraph of this article, beginning with "Industry and technology are sometimes regarded as enemies to naturalism" is incorrect and misleading. Humanistic naturalism has nothing to do with Anarcho-primitivism. 70.160.30.252 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of humanistic naturalism presented here is inadequate because it is not identical or reducible to positivism or scientism. The entire article is lousy and ideologically biassed, and should hence be deleted! – Editorius (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cardsharps

Is the painting Cardsharps relevant to the subject? 72.204.15.161 (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather stumped by it's inclusion, too. I am going to delete it. --Zed Orkin (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with secular humanism

wp:weight problems would not ensue. And there are scant references here. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support merge. Joyous! | Talk 05:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge la subjects matter is too similar to warrant two separate pages Roma enjoyer (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, or even deletion of Humanistic naturalism. Of the two references, one is used to define humanism, and one is used to define naturalism. Hence, the existence of Humanistic naturalism is unreferenced, which hence suggests that this is a neologism suitable for deletion. Merging would be an acceptable, if less bold, option. Klbrain (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% NO don't merge.

Horrible idea. 2600:6C67:2C7F:8810:703A:D2D3:757A:3FFE (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If thou has an issue with la proposed merge then respond to with with a bold don't move or something of la same meaning. As weel it would be good to give thyn reasoning Roma enjoyer (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]