Atheists believe Wikipedia, but not God.?

Question

Maybe they should rethink their logic of not believing in something they can't see.

Saying that Wikipedia articles are heavily researched doesn't mean anything.

It still brings in the FACT that you are believing something that someone wrote whom you can't see.

Kinda like the Bible, Quran, Torah, but you decline any truth being in those.

More evidence in wikipedia then there is of god? My advice would be to go pick up a Quran, and start reading :).

Answer 1

I don't know any atheists who blindly believe Wikipedia without independently verifying the information it contains.

If I ever give a wiki link, I have first read the article and deemed it to be factual.

Answer 2

Lol.

There is more evidence to support Wikipedia than God.

Nonetheless, Wikipedia is usually not a wholly accurate source of information and any rational person knows this. How did you come up with the idea that atheists believe unflinchingly in Wikipedia's mighty truth? That's a new one on me. Usually it's "atheists believe in macroevolution but not God! Oh, the ignorance!"

Lolz.

Answer 3

Yep relying on Wikipedia as the final word is not good, but relying on one of the thousands of emotional impressions of God is much worse.

When was the last time you heard about someone drinking arsenic laced cool aid because of Wikipedia.

Answer 4

UR RIGHT!!

Dr. Siegfried Raumann stated, in 2001, that:

" Athiest are hating God but loving Wikipedia. One Athiest in a blog said that 'Evolution IS True', and his article gave a link to Wikepedia about so-called evolution. When a commenter asked 'if God was true?', he responded "There is no evidence for God in Wikipedia".

I rest my case.

Athiest will do anything to hate God, OMG!!! 1!

Q: Y don't they use Conservapedia like gud ppl do?

ANSWER IS BCUZ THEY HATE TRUTH!!!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Does_the_Theory_of_Evolution_promote_atheism%3F

ther u go lame athiest I'll giv U dat 4 homework U need edecating.

LOL!!11

(sarcasm)

Answer 5

Of course....
Wikipedia is a researched and peer group verified document.
God is a myth and the bible is a collection of myths which has been modified to suit which ever power that be.

Answer 6

atheists are lame people, thats for starters. YOU DONT HAVE TO SEE IN ORDER 2 BELIEVE! can you see the core of the earth? how do you know its there? there are only assumptional pictures of it, no one has taken a REAL life pic of it now have they?
i cant see you right now, how do i know that you exist? how do i know that i may be dreaming?

God does exist just the way we do, but he is beyond all living things thats why we cant see him. just like food, we have expiry dates...why is it that we live only to die? theres more than meets the eye....ill giv u dat 4 homework!

Answer 7

So very true on this forum.

Their source/s is of mankind in many forms.

All are spirit with a soul intellect living in a flesh body.

Yet most people rely on man's wisdom rather the spiritual wisdom of God's Word.

This total reliance on man is obviously the broad path to destruction, that is spiritual death.

Answer 8

What does wikipedia have to do with not believing in non existent things?

Answer 9

Of course they do. There's more proof that Wikipedia is real than "god".

Answer 10

So I should use the Bible for my homework?

Gonna be hard to write a report on evolution that way...