Wikipedia is pro-atheist, anti-Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RomanCrusader said:
Thanks:D

I’d be very honored and proud if I had crusader ancestors. The crusaders were true heros.

I’m half Irish, half Italian. Quite a few Italians went on crusades, so its certainly possible.
Click to expand...
And this is why I’m happy the christianity of today has all offensive power of a wet sock 😛

As for Wiki, yaa its terrible as a primary resource. It is basically fact with a democratic interpretation. I personally like wiki when I know so little about a subject where I dont even know what to look for. Usually cited links are a good way to progress after wiki.

As for being anti-christian…well christianity has been around 2000 yrs and has been the main religion of oppressive gov’ts of the past. Gotta expect a little antimosity;)
 
RomanCrusader said:
Thanks:D

I’d be very honored and proud if I had crusader ancestors. The crusaders were true heros. I’m half Irish, half Italian. Quite a few Italians went on crusades, so its certainly possible.
Click to expand...
I did some rather extensive reading about the “successful” crusades some years ago. (Omitting such disasters as the “Children’s Crusade”) While some of the Crusaders may have been true heroes, many were just out to grab whatever land or property came their way. The arrogance and total lack of compassion of many Crusaders for their own troops outraged even some of the Muslims they were fighting! Many who joined and went to the Holy Land ended up spending the remainder of their lives as slaves. All in all it is not a pretty story overall.
 
Pagliacci said:
As for being anti-christian…well christianity has been around 2000 yrs and has been the main religion of oppressive gov’ts of the past. Gotta expect a little antimosity;)
Click to expand...
Groan…

Here we go again…:rolleyes:
 
I have often read Wicki and think it is actually pretty good. I certainly do not consider it biased or aethiest. For a non-Christian account, it appears pretty accurate.

Any good explanation should give [or be willing to consider] alternative explanations. This meets this criteria.

It is not ‘wrong’ to be critical. It is the very essence of academic research. All post graduate study and research is borne on a healthy skepticism. That is not wrong. In fact I would argue the opposite IS. Blind faith is ok up to a point but if what we believe is the truth then you can test it, bend and twist it, take it apart and burn it and at the end of the day, the truth is STILL the truth. The truth will ALWAYS prevail. Never be afraid of testing it. It WILL SURVIVE if it is the truth.

Wicki explains against aethist theory that Christ was not really crucified by pointing out that any roman soldier who concured in the survival of a crucified man, was himself put to death. They also allude to the gospel of Barnabas as a pious fraud. This is also the ‘gospel of Islam’ which coincidentally supports Islamic view.

This gospel is thought to be a fourth century pious fraud.

I am afraid I cannot agree about Wicki. I will continue to use it

DO NOT BE AFRAID OF ANYONE HURTING THE TRUTH. IT CANNOT BE HURT OR DESTROYED 👍
 
Sixtus said:
I have often read Wicki and think it is actually pretty good. I certainly do not consider it biased or aethiest. For a non-Christian account, it appears pretty accurate.

Any good explanation should give [or be willing to consider] alternative explanations. This meets this criteria.

It is not ‘wrong’ to be critical. It is the very essence of academic research. All post graduate study and research is borne on a healthy skepticism. That is not wrong. In fact I would argue the opposite IS. Blind faith is ok up to a point but if what we believe is the truth then you can test it, bend and twist it, take it apart and burn it and at the end of the day, the truth is STILL the truth. The truth will ALWAYS prevail. Never be afraid of testing it. It WILL SURVIVE if it is the truth.

Wicki explains against aethist theory that Christ was not really crucified by pointing out that any roman soldier who concured in the survival of a crucified man, was himself put to death. They also allude to the gospel of Barnabas as a pious fraud. This is also the ‘gospel of Islam’ which coincidentally supports Islamic view.

This gospel is thought to be a fourth century pious fraud.

I am afraid I cannot agree about Wicki. I will continue to use it

DO NOT BE AFRAID OF ANYONE HURTING THE TRUTH. IT CANNOT BE HURT OR DESTROYED 👍
Click to expand...
AMEN. 🙂
 
I use Wikipedia as a starting point most times for my research.

I know it is inaccurate, but most often it gives me phrases or words or external links that I can use to google, and get proper sites.

I wish it was accurate 100% and not open to anyone to edit, as I like it’s layout, it’s easy to read and navigate.
 
puzzleannie said:
wiki is not pro or anti anything. anyone in the world with access to a computer is allowed to post anything they like. which makes it completely worthless as a source for anyone doing serious research.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that’s why people shouldn’t say they are pro or against this or that. Without knowing the facts no one should assume.
 
patrick457 said:
Isn’ that one of Wikipedia’s subtitles? ‘The Free Encyclopedia anyone can edit’?
You need to register first to edit an article, though.

I usually only trust Wikipedia for other things besides Religion. Even some of those articles need to be taken with a grain of salt though.
Click to expand...
Be careful. If you can’t trust what they say about the Church, how can you be sure any of their articles are reliable. It is just like the DaVinci Code. There were errors throughout the book with regard to both the Church and art history. Some Catholics said they knew what Dan Brown said about the Church was erroneous, but they were interested in art history details. On the other hand, art historians knew what he wrote about art history was erroneous, but they were interested in Church details. It turns out he was wrong about both art history and the Church. It is likely to be the same with Wikipedia.
 
RomanCrusader said:
Wikipedia is clearly run by atheist swine.

Look at their “Ressurection of Jesus” article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

Its basically a giant attack on the Ressurection.

Same with the “Virgin Birth” article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth#Paul_of_Tarsus

Again, its a giant attack on the Virign Birth basically.

I could post numerous articles that are similar. Wikipedia will trash every Catholic-Christian subject.

And yet in their articles about Judaism, Mohamedanism, atheism, paganism, .
Click to expand...
Absolutely, anything but Christian/Catholic. They are of and extreme anti-catholic bent.
 
RomanCrusader said:
Wikipedia is clearly run by atheist swine.
Click to expand...

That’ll certainly convert them 😦​

Look at their “Ressurection of Jesus” article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

Its basically a giant attack on the Ressurection.

Same with the “Virgin Birth” article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth#Paul_of_Tarsus

Again, its a giant attack on the Virign Birth basically.

I could post numerous articles that are similar. Wikipedia will trash every Catholic-Christian subject.
Click to expand...

This is not the case - their coverage of various topics in systematic theology seems to be OK; have a look at:​

And yet in their articles about Judaism, Mohamedanism, atheism, paganism, ect. Wikipedia does not list a single criticism. For example look at their atheism article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Footnotes_and_citations)). In the tiny criticism section, the wikipedia article actually defends the atheists.
Click to expand...

**Is there a reason it shouldn’t ? Having read all the notes, I don’t see what the problem is - most of them are explanations of what atheism is or is not. Are atheists not to be allowed to say what they believe & do not believe ? If you want to live in the 16th century - be my guest: I’d rather live in a society where my atheist neighbour enjoys the same liberties as I do - the liberty to speak his mind, **even if nobody is convinced by what he says. A society which allows only one POV isn’t worth living **in. **​

**The criticism section has a link to an entire article of criticisms: **[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Atheism)
The vile atheists
Click to expand...

**Such as some people on this board - including some converts. Maybe they should go to a Church where they will not be accused of wanting to commit genocide. **##​

are ruining our society and I’m sure they would love to bring about the extermination of all Christians if they could.
Click to expand...

**A little bit of evidence for those assertions please ? **##​

Fortunately they don’t have the power to do that, so it looks like they’ll settle on controlling wikipedia.
Click to expand...

**If you object that strongly - join Wikipedia, & revise the articles so that they are more accurate (if they are mistaken). Any one can join. FWIW, nothing of what has been said adds up to any evidence they are not in fact perfectly accurate - are you saying the assertions made are mistaken, or is it the interpretations you object to ? Or both ? In a free society, people have different POVs, & different opinions - that’s life. And thank goodness it is so; it’s a great deal better than being a Stepford Robot saying nothing but what people want to hear. **##​

 
Durendin said:
I found much inspiration on the “Historical Jesus” page and that wasn’t written from an atheist position, but a neutral one. It explored the man, and left the divinity up to you.
Click to expand...
If you want an accurate appraisal of “the Historical Jesus” read the book “On the way to Jesus Christ” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
 
St_John said:
Anyone can edit Wikepedia? How does that work? :confused: How do they make sure it’s accurate?
Click to expand...
NO ONE makes sure it’s accurate. I remember last spring there was a bit of a scandal because some people were deliberatly posting false information on the website. But there is no official reviewer who is overviewing articles and checking them for accuracy.
In short, Wikipedia should NEVER be used for ANY scholarly endeavor. The only thing wikipedia is good for is finding out who won American Idol last year.
 
Solution: register on Wikipedia, edit these biased articles, post accurate links and citations. Keep checking up on these articles, repeat as necessary–outlast the trolls.

I remember in a Yahoo religion chatroom discussing (debating) the Spanish Inquisition with someone who cited a Wikipedia article that not only was biased and inaccute (NO mention of Henry Kamen let alone other more recent & accurate scholars) but the article itself was clearly labeled “neutrality disputed”. When I pointed this out to the chatter, and the fact the JEWISH scholar Kamen had been left out, the chatter promptly ignored me. Typical.
 
Wikipedia Irony: Jimmy Wales Edits His Own Entry
Public edit logs reveal that Wales has changed his own Wikipedia bio 18 times, deleting phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of the site.

The changes were reported Monday (Dec. 2005) by technology writer Rogers Cadenhead on his blog, Workbench, spurring Sanger to launch a dialogue on Wikipedia about revisionist history.

In an interview with Wired News, Wales acknowledged he’s made changes to his bio, but said the edits were made to correct factual errors and provide a more rounded version of events.

While he said that Wikipedia generally frowns on people editing entries about themselves, there is no hard and fast rule against it.

“People shouldn’t do it, including me,” he said. "I wish I hadn’t done it. It’s in poor taste … "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top