I just did a quick search of Q's and A's and found that on average, Christians are quite quick to criticize Wikipedia and give thumbs down to those who show it support. Could this be proof that collective knowledge is to Christianity what kryptonite is to Superman?
2007-03-11 14:47:04 · 33 answers · asked by Desiree J 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It has been my experience that the more devout a religious person the more fearful of knowledge of any kind except their cult dogma. They are fearful for good reason, if the religious person believes that it is an essential truth that god made man out of Silly Putty with a wooden spatula and only by believing this one can ward off the terrible boogie man, then anything evidence to the contrary is attributed to the evil boogie man. It is a tidy package: keep the faithful dumb and blame knowledge on the devil.
Be careful, because the devoutly religious have a tradition of torture and killing those that b
This has been the tradition of religious fanatics for all of recorded history. Cruel, stupid, barbaric.
The cure for religious fanaticism is knowledge, scientific, empirical, overwhelming, measurable, replicable, data.
2007-03-11 14:56:37 · answer #1 · answered by valcus43 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Wikipedia is just a source of information. Information isn't something to be afraid of.
By the way, what makes you think it's Christians are the ones giving the thumbs down? There are many people here. Not everyone gives a thumbs down because the answer doesn't agree with thier beliefs. Some answers, although I don't agree with them, are well thought out and respectful.
2007-03-11 15:00:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i am a christian and was not even aware that we are quick to criticize wikipedia and gave a thumbs down to those who show it support. We, Christians, have all the knowledge and proof we need and its called the Bible. Many will criticize that as well, but it does not change the truth.
2007-03-11 14:54:56 · answer #3 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a Jesus Freak,but was not aware of the evident distain for Wikipedia. I have personally found it to be a help at times.
Like any other knowledge base: eat the fish....discard the bones. Actually, I do not care for fish...although salmon and tuna are rich sources of Omega 3 fatty acids.
Why do I always get off the subject?...why?
2007-03-11 14:59:02 · answer #4 · answered by bonsai bobby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personally don't use it as a source very often. It isn't a terribly good one. Christians don't like any source except the Bible in general. I had one over email who actually criticized the journal Nature as a source. The journal that everyone in any Biological science wants to be in the most, and they didn't think that it was appropriate.
2007-03-11 14:52:15 · answer #5 · answered by Alex 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we could show some acceptance of wiki , would you show some acceptance for the Bible?
Wiki like all references was written by someone(s) with an opinion. In science journals as well as theological journals we have to always look out for conclusions drawn from opinions rather than the data. Unfortunately, all interpretations are guided by what the researcher believes rather that what they may see. This is almost always true- everywhere.
2007-03-11 14:57:38 · answer #6 · answered by Desperado 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Followers of any religion are quick to criticize Wikipedia, because it's blatantly wrong on most matters of religion. Especially Wicca, but any religion is misrepresented on Wikipedia.
2007-03-11 14:52:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm an atheist and I can tell you that Wikipedia is not always a reliable source of information. There are plenty of reliabile scientific websites out there that give a wealth of information. But christians won't go to those either......
2007-03-11 14:56:48 · answer #8 · answered by Stormilutionist Chasealogist 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you could be stereotyping a bit. No doubt you can find examples of people who feel that way but that hardly means it is a majority view. I sent somebody a Wikipedia link just yesterday.
2007-03-11 14:53:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Huh.. that's an odd correlation. Wonder what wiki did to piss them off? I'm an atheist, myself, and while I wont pretend that wikipedia is 100% accurate, I think it's a great tool for satisfying my own curiosity. Wouldn't user for a paper, though, certainly not.
2007-03-11 14:58:39 · answer #10 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋