Difference between revisions of "Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: This is about language and it's proper usage. I created an article about Natural Disasters saying: 'Natural disaster is an atheist term for an Act of God. The term describes Acts of God a...) |
m |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I think there is still to much of a liberal bias in here.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | I think there is still to much of a liberal bias in here.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : A bias against logical errors is not a liberal bias. It's a factual bias as you can [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Natural_disaster|see here]. | ||
Revision as of 15:58, March 21, 2007
This is about language and it's proper usage. I created an article about Natural Disasters saying:
'Natural disaster is an atheist term for an Act of God. The term describes Acts of God as something that happens 'naturally' not by the will of our creator and thereby denies the influence of our own behavior.'
It was instantly replaced by this stuff:
'A natural disaster is a disaster caused by natural forces, as in, a volcano, or a hurricane. Some simply call a "natural disaster" an Act of God [1].'
I think there is still to much of a liberal bias in here.--Sherman 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- A bias against logical errors is not a liberal bias. It's a factual bias as you can here.