Why do atheists distrust the bible and yet put their faith in Wikipedia??

Question

I find a lot of people who are hostile to Christianity and Christians use Wikipedia as their proofs :-) It kind of makes me smile because they're passing themselves as rational and intellectual and yet this is the basis of the research upon which they're basing their beliefs?

Answer 1

Most of us (all R/S regulars) know the wilipedia cannot be trusted.

Answer 2

I don't put 'faith' in Wikipedia, at the most I'd use it as a starting point to cross-referencing. Maybe some people some 'faith' in Wikipedia, but how does that speak for all atheests as a group? Where is your evidence that the basis of atheistic research is Wikipedia?

As a small aside, the Bible is way more untrustworthy than Wikipedia. It is essentially Chinese whispers played by patriarchal religionists from Way Back before Even The Dark Ages.

Of course, there is always Conservapedia, which is arguably more untrustworthy than literally any information source in existence (excepting maybe North Korean newspapers)

Answer 3

Who puts faith in Wiki?

If I read that Benny Hinn could heal amputee patience in Wiki, I wouldn't believe it. But I will use it as a reference for some scientific studies and theories, because Wiki almost always has a number of links to articles that back up the assertions.

That can lead you to increase your research and learn more about the topic at hand.

For instance look up Transitional Fossils on Wikipedia. You will find many links etc that will help you understand that the Christian assertion that there is no missing link is actually false.

The bible however doesn't have a bibliography in the back, it must be believed with faith and no other sources of documentation.

Wiki is just a better source for referenced material.

Answer 4

Oh, is it a choice between the two resources? Don't you mean "some atheists" rather than "atheists"? The latter implies that ALL atheists put their faith in Wikipedia - I do not, and therefore even if I were the only one, your question would be predicated on a false premise.
I am sure that I am not the only atheist who does not base his/her conclusions on Wikipedia - the books that I have read that were written by atheists are testament to that fact. For example, "Think" by Simon Blackburn (but what does he know - he's only Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University). However, due to the fact that I am not bound in my thoughts by religion, I am free to analyse information for myself - I do not have to adhere to religious dogma or any other kind of dogma.
Indeed, my atheism is born out of my having dismantled the religious dogma that I grew up with, as I could see that it is riddled with inconsistencies, both internal and external (when compared with what is actually objectively verifiable through science).
By the way, atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief - in God (that is literally what the word means). Belief is what is required when there is insufficient evidence. Rational analysis of the facts shows that there is no basis for knowledge of the existence of God. Philosophical attempts to prove the existence of God have all been demolished due to the fact that they are circular and at some point assume exactly what they are attempting to prove, namely the existence of God.

Answer 5

Nice strawman. As if there's some kind of correlation between atheism and Wikipedia use...lol. You phail, try again.

Incidentally, Wikipedia can be a useful rough-and-ready source of information, as long as you're prepared to follow up references. (The main problem with Wikipedia is either no references or bad ones.) That goes for pretty much any research; and you always have to consider the source, especially when it comes to "religious" subjects. I would never cut-and-paste from Wikipedia or paste a link as an "answer," though, because that's just obnoxious.

Answer 6

I never use Wiki as a primary source. I really personally prefer peer reviewed articles or at least articles in reputable news sources or things like National Geographic that point to the peer reviewed papers.

The only thing that I ever post off of it are a few lists of fossils because it is formatted a little easer. But all you have to do is research the names a little to verify them. And I have, mostly in that I was curious about the subject.

Answer 7

me neither , at the very least wiki gave more links to outside resource from reliable sources.

for a source to be reliable , we must first read the contents , verify it with outside source.
for example , wiki provide sufficient details about carbon dating , so , to prove carbon dating is reliable , we can search it on outside website and so on .

bible is a book in which content hasnt been scientifically verified.
sure you guys can claim it to be perfect and all sort of stuff , but there isnt any source to back it up other than of course chrisitan websites that derive information from the bible itself.

for example , bible says the 1st human is 6000+ years ago . and thats all , theres no concrete scientific proof.

but science says first modern human dates way back , it;s backed using carbon dating . other historical items further back the facts and shows that civilasation occurs about 10 000bc in china . compressions of soil in which these artefacts are found further confirmed it . other elements type of dating also reconfirmed it. and many more way , in which you should ask an archaeologist.

Answer 8

atleast you can correct inaccuracies in wikipedia. i like wikipedia. i use it all the time. i find that it has the information i am looking for and gets right to the point. people are always bashing it saying that its inaccurate because anyone can put whatever they want on there. but anyone can correct errors too. its a new type of media. one truly belongs to the people and not a tool of the state.

Answer 9

Because Wikipedia is a fast and reliable way to get information about anything, but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Unlike the Bible with its abundance of scientifically proved evide.... oh wait I'm mistaken the Bible has nothing going for it.

Answer 10

not that I think either choice is 100% accurate, but at least wikipedia entries can be verified if you research outside of wikipedia. the bible on the other hand tends to fall apart when you look for other sources.

Answer 11

You're right, it's VERY amusing! Wikipedia is only a compliation of information by lay people who may or may not have any real knowledge of the subject which they're responding to. It isn't an official encyclopedia, by any stretch of the imagination.