Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
12:59 PM on 07/19/2013
Although Luther did not invent anti-Jewishness, he promoted it to a level never before seen in Europe. Luther bore the influence of his upbringing and from anti-Jewish theologians such as Lyra, Burgensis, (and John Chrysostom, before them). But Luther's 1543 book, "On the Jews and their lies" took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbade them to pray or teach, or even to utter God's name. Luther wanted to "be rid of them" and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that "We are at fault in not slaying them" for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. Hitler's Nazi government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther's desires to a tee.
Seriously, it's time.
01:06 PM on 07/19/2013
Upholding a long tradition of anti-semitism, and realizing that bilking fools is easier when there's an "other" to vilify. No wonder he's still remembered in the annals of superstition.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:30 PM on 07/20/2013
IS this related to the Wikipedia discussion..?
12:59 PM on 07/19/2013
Hitler and other christians including the church commited the hlocaust
12:58 PM on 07/19/2013
12:57 PM on 07/19/2013
Christians are Iiars...they have taken over the "History channe/;, the National geo" etc etc and have been lying that Bible is hisotry and true.

The baible is as fictitious as the voodoo bible.
Seriously, it's time.
01:07 PM on 07/19/2013
They are, but even more remarkable is that they seen to be able to convince themselves that they're not.

BSing about the buybull is a great way to make $$$$$.
Retired teacher, honors program director, author.
12:55 PM on 07/19/2013
I gave up trying to post controversial matter on sites about religion. Solution? Post controversial remarks on the Talk page of the article, where interested researchers will find it.
12:31 PM on 07/19/2013
I wonder how much of the religious sites are altered by anti-theists who want to trash the religion, members of that religion who want to support it, and others who are more interested in the facts of the situation.
David Weidner
Ask me about my narcissism!
04:46 PM on 07/19/2013
None. Religious sites are not open to ANY deviation. Their religious, remember?
12:41 PM on 07/22/2013
I'm not sure that comment is in any way relevant to what I said.  Perhaps if I rephrase though, the pages pertaining to religion.  I wonder how often those are altered by people wanting to trash religion and then altered back by others that support it. 
Emergency Cancellation Archimedes
12:45 PM on 07/20/2013
One of the best reasons for being an anti-theist is an interest in the facts.
12:44 PM on 07/22/2013
There is a difference between an anti-theist and an atheist.  An atheist simply does not believe in God, that's fine.  An anti-theist wants to destroy God, in a way.  They are more angry and dogmatic (I can cite a study on this if you want).  An atheist cares about science.  An anti-theist only cares about what science supports them and can and will disregard anything they disagree with. 

In essence an atheist stays out and simply doesn't believe.

An anti-theist claims there is no God as fact, cannot prove it, and will hate on any religion including to the point of wanting to destroy or forcibly convert anyone that does believe. 

And religious people can also be interested in science and facts.  Wanting to know the truth of the universe and believing in a religion are not mutually exclusive. 
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:13 PM on 07/24/2013
"One of the best reasons for being an anti-theist is an interest in (DENYING) the facts"... :)
10:35 AM on 07/19/2013
A glaring error concerning religion in Wikipedia is “Violation of the second law of thermodynamics” under The article refutes the creationist error that evolution violates the so-called law that nature prefers “disorder” to “order” and “probable” to “improbable.” Wikipedia refutes this argument by citing a paper published by the American Journal of Physics that proves with a bogus calculation that biological evolution does not violate the second law. The truth is that the laws of thermodynamics to not apply to the evolution of stars or to living organisms.

Creationists are confusing the three-dimensional order and disorder in thermodynamics with the informational order of biology. A protein consists of hundreds of amino acids and we know which amino acid is next to which. We don’t know the location of the amino acids in a Cartesian frame of reference.

Creationists are also confusing probability calculations with improbable events. Biologists calculate the probability that the primary structure of a protein will arise from the random selection of amino acids. Physicists calculate the probability that the oxygen molecules in a room will drift out the doors and windows leaving the room oxygen deprived. An oxygen-deprived room is a possible event. There is nothing improbable about the existence of proteins.
aka The Wrong Monkey
10:57 AM on 07/19/2013
"A glaring error concerning religion in Wikipedia[...]"

Oh, don't worry about it too much: any error in Wiki could vanish at any time... and then re-appear 2 minutes later... and vanish again 5 minutes after that... and re-appear 3 minutes after that...
10:10 AM on 07/19/2013
Yes, this was my experience attempting to contribute information on a new religious movement referred to at the New Message from God, which is a worldwide phenomenon but apparently not notable enough for other editors to tolerate its addition, though the originator's page is there:
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:59 AM on 07/19/2013
were looking for progress... you seek the opposite
A Dub
Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy
12:43 PM on 07/19/2013
The New Message from God, a UFO religion from the United States.

Patrick Lewis
09:45 AM on 07/19/2013
The objective of a traditional encyclopaedia compilers/editor is to give a concise overview of the entry. The size of the entry would depend on the complexity or importance of the subject. The goal, of couse, is neutrality. Facism is a political philosophy; George W. Bush was a president of the United States; God is the name/concept of a diety, etc. The problem with Wikipedia is that the editors are pushing their point of view. . .and the ones who claim to be editing to eliminate the blantant POV stuff are often simply pushing some alternate POV. I don't suppose there is much that can be done about it and I find the debates on the talk page very fun reading. But as a result, everything that you read on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt! It's a great source of quick, first impression info but don't ever rely on Wikipedia information as the correct/true description. It can be. . .but not always. . .especially on controversial topics.
aka The Wrong Monkey
10:16 AM on 07/19/2013
Perhaps you're one of those people who believe in objectivity. I don't. Anytime anyone writes about anything -- "With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations," as Hunter S Thompson put it. Google hunter s thompson objective journalism for the full quote -- they are advancing a point of view. I consider the Encyclopaedia Britannica to be more reliable than Wikipedia, but that's because there are specific people responsible for the content of the entire thing, who have to answer for mistakes or extreme positions in their encyclopedia. With Wikipedia, basically, nobody's in charge. For one subject it might actually be experts, for another it might well just be whoever has the most free time and is the most obsessed about it, which of course could be a very bad thing.

"everything that you read on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt"

Yes. Sometimes a grain, sometimes an entire pillar of salt. Now, take that lesson you learned from Wikipedia, and apply it to absolutely everything else you read anywhere -- certainly including what I'm saying now -- and you'll be getting somewhere.
Time traveler.
09:06 AM on 07/19/2013
Wikipedia is many things to many people and a handy source of first impression information. It is not, however, academically sound or reliable and can't be because the open edit policy is part of its charm. Caveat emptor.
09:25 AM on 07/19/2013
-That all depends on how controversial the subject is at any given time.

Apart from that it is always best to go to the reference area and look up the sources for the articles.
09:41 AM on 07/19/2013
Actually a couple recent studies showed that for non-controversial topics it is more accurate than actual encyclopedias.
No wise person will claim to be wise.
08:58 AM on 07/19/2013
Some use Wikepedia as a reference, not only in matters such as religion or theory, but to collect "factual" information which is all too frequently wrong. Therefore, it is not really an encyclopedia but a collection of so-called "opininions" which are all too frequently have no actual basis in fact, only on the "feelings" of certain contributors. That makes it nothing more, and therefore of no more value than the discourse we all too frequently find in these threads. Wikepedia, some of us consider of little or no value and is the "lazy person's" method of acquiring what they believe is knowledge. All too frequently, the most vociferous "contributors" are individuals who have not studied the field(s) and therefore do not truly understand the subject matter, something which must precede any attempt to make any meaningful contribution to any subject, whether it is history, politics, philosophy, economics and/or religion. Most of what is encountered in that medium is, too all intents and purposes, worthless as most of it is totally unreliable.
09:47 AM on 07/19/2013
Wow. Well, ironically, that isn't true for the most part. People get information from many sources and wikipedia is a clearing house and an incredibly great source of information with references and links.

The site is a part of our global community and serves it well. The model of information works. As a scientist, a geneticist, I find wikipedia presents information better than most sources that are outside peer-accepted scientific publications. The errors when they happen for new information, are almost always fixed quickly. Of course, there is a motivated community of scientists that are harsh and make sure information is far more actual by fact and that the best references are used. Of course, there are many other sources to go to for information, but wikipedia is a great source and I am constantly impressed by the timeliness and depth of the information, and even the explanations of contraversy.
No wise person will claim to be wise.
10:53 AM on 07/19/2013
Wikepedia is like any tool, just like the internet as a whole. In order to use it productively, it should be used only by those who understand the subject matter and know what they are looking for, and can tell the difference between what is real and what is not. It is not for the uninitiated. A classic case of using Wikepedia by one of the latter was when the author of a history text, used Wikepedia to verify her "facts". That text was approved by a local school board and used by the teachers and students of an entire school district to teach history for at least one year. The only problem was that there were over one hundred "factual" errors in that text. So, what does this indicate to you? Well, if one can't even get one's facts straight, how can one possibly interpret things correctly? It is an impossibility.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mostly Harmless
11:57 AM on 07/19/2013
I agree Wikipedia is generally easy to read, I use it as a learning tool because I am also a biologist and like to write science articles for a free magazine. They're meant to be for people with no scientific knowledge but also interesting for people with some knowledge, I think Wikipedia does it far better than I do and I find it very useful as a learning resource for how to phrase difficult concepts simply. The science articles are always well referenced and it's great to have hyperlinks to the papers used
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Badges we don't need no stinking badges
11:47 AM on 07/19/2013
It can be a good starting point on many subjects. The factual information will often be cited so you can check where they facts came from. And the Talk pages will often detail the different opinions. That said, often the pages are badly written, of questionable relevance and distort the information.

All encyclopedias have errors and back in olden times, when I was in school, they were not acceptable reference sources.
Democrat in the South
Empathy, the most important word
08:51 AM on 07/19/2013
I just listened to a man on Morning Joe, forgot his name, talking about his new book, "Zealot" I think?

Fascinating. That man's intelligence was so far above Joe it was embarrassing to watch Joe try to "debate" him....
05:51 PM on 07/19/2013
Reza Aslan
08:18 AM on 07/19/2013
Let me put all issues relating to god, religion and spirituality to rest: It's all make-believe.

People just don't want to believe that when they and their loved ones die that it's really over. That it's stick-a-fork-in-it time. So they made up all of this childish nonsense about make-believe afterlives, make-believe-souls, make-believe heaven, make-believe gods, "she's in a better place".

Grow up. Make the most of it while you're here. That's all there is. Sorry.
yes I have a toothbrush
05:20 AM on 07/19/2013
huffpost is slow again, the wrestling is on the list because the victories are updated everyday, not cause people argue
raging leftist hippie
01:44 AM on 07/19/2013
Hey, pavlova is the greatest dessert ever and not at all a lame war!
(and it's Australian)
My microbio is apparently empty
03:39 AM on 07/19/2013
Agree completely on all counts.

But I've had many fights with Kiwis over it.
08:40 AM on 07/19/2013
Mmmm, pavlova, all that delicate meringue filled with whipped cream, topped with fruit - a delight to bite into. I think I'll go make some now.