3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: + +
Talk:Atheism/archive11 (view source)
Revision as of 20:10, October 25, 2008
, 20:10, October 25, 2008→Unable to be edited: go ahead, be illogical
:::I'm also baffled as to why you think I have an "atheistic worldview" on the basis of arguments like this. Last I checked, Christians are able to seek the truth, and to at least try to avoid self-contradiction, and other muddles, to the extent that their finite and fallible natures will permit. You should ask yourself, on the other hand, what is it that is blinding you to the second, more serious (and still standing) objection which I made, which again is really just the pointing out of an objection that the article makes '''to itself''', and dodging the issue? What is causing you to avoid the point here, espeically one that could be fixed relatively easily, leaving most of the rest of the article in place? Why are you working so hard to avoid looking at the problem here and recognizing the self-contradiction in the article?--[[User:Scottifer|Scottifer]] 15:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm also baffled as to why you think I have an "atheistic worldview" on the basis of arguments like this. Last I checked, Christians are able to seek the truth, and to at least try to avoid self-contradiction, and other muddles, to the extent that their finite and fallible natures will permit. You should ask yourself, on the other hand, what is it that is blinding you to the second, more serious (and still standing) objection which I made, which again is really just the pointing out of an objection that the article makes '''to itself''', and dodging the issue? What is causing you to avoid the point here, espeically one that could be fixed relatively easily, leaving most of the rest of the article in place? Why are you working so hard to avoid looking at the problem here and recognizing the self-contradiction in the article?--[[User:Scottifer|Scottifer]] 15:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:You know, on second thought, you should just leave the contradictions in. If you want to assert that contradictions are true, and condemn your own views on your own page, that's fine by me. If you want to insist that anyone who is worried about contradictions must be an liberal atheist, that the real Christian and conservative view is to ignore logic, that logical non-contradiction is a petty and malicous concern which you have risen above--then you stand condemned by your own words and nothing that anyone might do or say could possibly make a more damning claim against you than you yourself have. It's your own petard, hoist away.--[[User:Scottifer|Scottifer]] 16:10, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
do you not trust your users? if you describe yourself as 'The Trustworthy' encyclopedia who are you denying me, an atheist the freedom to modify the page to remove errors or simply add more information? wikipedia allows me, and although that seems to be the work of the [[devil]] you are not respecting either your users or your ideas by not allowing them up to debate
do you not trust your users? if you describe yourself as 'The Trustworthy' encyclopedia who are you denying me, an atheist the freedom to modify the page to remove errors or simply add more information? wikipedia allows me, and although that seems to be the work of the [[devil]] you are not respecting either your users or your ideas by not allowing them up to debate