2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 327:
Line 327: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 04:49, October 2, 2007
, 04:49, October 2, 2007→Wrap up
:The "wrap up" was intended to continue the discussion at an appropriate place. Sorry, that I forgot to mention that you act under divine orders. The rest of you argument is captured by my point that you think that science has to explain everything, otherwise atheism falters. I still think that this nothing more than a strawman. The discussion with you is cumbersome, since keep arguing against positions that you think think I should take, but which I don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "wrap up" was intended to continue the discussion at an appropriate place. Sorry, that I forgot to mention that you act under divine orders. The rest of you argument is captured by my point that you think that science has to explain everything, otherwise atheism falters. I still think that this nothing more than a strawman. The discussion with you is cumbersome, since keep arguing against positions that you think think I should take, but which I don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Order, from looking at your other edits (which I admire) I think we're on the same page, and I just want to make sure that the "you" you're debating isn't me, but is in fact TerryH :-). Is that right? Also, hello!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Order, from looking at your other edits (which I admire) I think we're on the same page, and I just want to make sure that the "you" you're debating isn't me, but is in fact TerryH :-). Is that right? Also, hello!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
My last remarks was intended to be general in nature, and addressed mainly Terry. I can't see to extend a discussion in which I repeatedly hammered the point that evolution isn't random, to arrive a point where Terry says "Gotcha, you admitted that evolution isn't random". Hence, a second attempt to wrap up. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:49, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
===Second attempt to wrap up ===
My second summary of where we stand is
* You believe that science claims to explain everything, which it doesn't. I claim that science knows that that it doesn't explain everything, so i don't see the problem.
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism is about the rejection of religious beliefs, and not about some scientific argument.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". I think that "God" as an answer doesn't address any of the unsolved scientific questions.
* You believe to be are under divine order. I believe that this argument from authority doesn't make your claims any stronger.
If you want to convince me, you shouldn't point to gaps in my knowledge; they are plenty. I do not even know the complete science of driving a bicycle. Pointing out more doesn't really undermine my position.
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that you think that your alternative explains everything. Rather than pointing at my lack of knowledge, you should for a start explain why it is possible to bicycle, or to tackle another partly unsolved problem, what causes lightning. But we should do it in the articles on [[Bicycles]] and [[Lightning]]. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:49, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==