Ugh, you're so close-minded

[Believer1997]

Your detractors? Not really detracting at all - just simply stating broadly that your stance with Wiki being the ultimate in a research site is not true. No one said you were a 'terrible fool' either - and most of us on this site do not mind "doggedly hunting for absolute 100% completely reliable sources in order to learn" ... that really is the way to learn - the truth. Blessings!!!

I wish I could use ASCII to illustrate how the point went over your head. I'll just say that I never called wiki anything other than a useful tool. I made it repeatedly clear that wiki, while imperfect, is not as useless as it was being made out to be.

Please, in the future, address the words in the posts, not the words you wish were in the posts.

BTW.... I was writing code and using ASCII back before anyone ever heard of Wikipedia.... You really need to lighten up.... you may enjoy life a little more if you do....

[Guest shiloh357]

Okay, fine, yeah? I concede the point. Wiki is worthless unreliable garbage and I was a terrible fool for suggesting that people use a quick and easy source of information instead of doggedly hunting for absolute, 100%, completely reliable sources in order to learn.

You act like having reliabe sources that are consistently accurate and factual is bad thing.

Furthermore, you were NOT suggesting it was simply a "quick and easy source of information." You were trying to argue that it was reliable despite being subject to change at the whim of any reader at any time.

Please, in the future, address the words in the posts, not the words you wish were in the posts.

My the hyporcisy is thick in here isn't it. You accuse us of calling you a fool when no one did. You demand a courtesy you refuse to give us.

You need to lose the attitude and just realize that your initial point was wrong.

[Believer1997]

Well said, Shiloh, well said!!!

[MorningGlory]

You know, Chieokure, being a reactionary seldom realizes anything except heartburn. You've been given sound reasons for various opinions and no one even intimated that you are a 'terrible fool'. Lighten up a little and you may actually learn something here. I know I have.

Again, point is soaring above heads. It's shocking and saddening. Did I slip into a world without sarcastic hyperbole without realizing it?

What sarcastic hyperbole? I was giving you sound advice on how to act in public. That 'point' you're talking about has escaped; you'd better go find it. (Now THAT was sarcasm.)

[MorningGlory]

Okay, fine, yeah? I concede the point. Wiki is worthless unreliable garbage and I was a terrible fool for suggesting that people use a quick and easy source of information instead of doggedly hunting for absolute, 100%, completely reliable sources in order to learn.

You act like having reliabe sources that are consistently accurate and factual is bad thing.

Furthermore, you were NOT suggesting it was simply a "quick and easy source of information." You were trying to argue that it was reliable despite being subject to change at the whim of any reader at any time.

Please, in the future, address the words in the posts, not the words you wish were in the posts.

My the hyporcisy is thick in here isn't it. You accuse us of calling you a fool when no one did. You demand a courtesy you refuse to give us.

You need to lose the attitude and just realize that your initial point was wrong.

Yes; maturity comes with the grace and humility to admit when you're wrong.

[Murse32]

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-05-08/

Funny, this just happened to be in May 8th, 2009 Newspaper.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Murse32

[Murse32]

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-05-08/

Funny, this just happened to be in May 8th, 2009 Newspaper.

I heard an interview on CBC radio given by a professor who specialises in Eastern religion. He apparently had gone on Wikipedia and found the Eastern Religion articles quite wanting. He resolved to change that and set up a project where by his students were each assigned one article from Wikipedia. They were to research and rewrite the articles appearing on-line. At the time of the interview he said that section of Wikipedia was now well researched and accurate.

That's great, but you pretty muched proved everyone's point. See how they just went on to wikipedia and REWROTE what they wanted to? At the time of the interview, he may have been correct, the information his students typed in was probably well researched and accurate...but what happens fifteen minutes later when a 14 year old reading comic books decides that what is written doesn't match up with what's in his books and decides to rewrite? See, the problem lies in the fact that you NEVER know who wrote what you are reading...could be someone well researched, could be someone with a warped opinion. It's basically gambling with your knowledge. All I have to say, is it doesn't say much for people who defend this site. Show's they aren't truly interested in knowing the truth. They just go with what is read, no mater where it comes from. And if being a non-believer you come to this site to defend your stand-point and break ours down using wikipedia, whether you know it or not...you're just helping us defend our position. Thanks.

[BethanyLove]

Ever used that, atheists? I've heard it here and there. When a believer rejects your views or doesn't explore them, he is 'close-minded'.

Let me tell you why we're close-minded.

Imagine you have a friend, George. You've known this George guy for a good deal of time- you've talked with him, asked him for advice, and you talk to him everyday via phone; but you don't see him because he lives in a far-off country. You've been there for eachother in the good and the bad.

Now imagine a man approaches you saying, "Friend, I believe you're out of your mind! There is no 'George'. I have some evidence I Googled to prove it."

You say, "No, he's quite real. Would like to meet him?"

To which the ageorgist replies, "Preposterous! It's clear from my infallible evidence that this man is a myth. Why don't you just try and see it my way? Look at the evidence. You'll clearly see he doesn't exist."

And you reply, "No thanks, I know he's real. I've known him personally for a good deal of time, I talk to him everyday- I don't care what evidence you have. It's very clear to me he's real."

The ageorgist- "Pah! Well now I see that you're quite looney. You won't consider cold hard facts that are 100% true! Anyone who believes George exists is dumb!"

And that, in a nutshell, is why we won't look at it your way or reconsider. It isn't just a book and some history, it's a relationship.

I have a very analytical personality and I need at least some evidence to believe certain things. I love to explore different religions, I actually just found a Bible in my aunt's bookshelf and she's letting me borrow it. I like to base my own opinions on what information I can get.

I signed up on these forums a few days ago, I think maybe a week ago actually, being a newly saved Christian. But now, I guess you could call me a confused Christian. If you can call me that. I have too many questions, and usually whenever I ask other Christians, they're all like OHHH JUST HAVE FAITH IN GOD. I want answers. But, at the same time, I'm always up for a good debate.

It's important to keep in mind that the odds of changing the other person's opinion is as likely as for them to change your opinion.

I kind of got off track, here...

But no matter how much I learn, I think I'm always going to have a belief in some sort of God. I don't think I'd be where I am today without Him, and the belief is already in me.

[Rhonda Lou]

I have a very analytical personality and I need at least some evidence to believe certain things. I love to explore different religions, I actually just found a Bible in my aunt's bookshelf and she's letting me borrow it. I like to base my own opinions on what information I can get.

I signed up on these forums a few days ago, I think maybe a week ago actually, being a newly saved Christian. But now, I guess you could call me a confused Christian. If you can call me that. I have too many questions, and usually whenever I ask other Christians, they're all like OHHH JUST HAVE FAITH IN GOD. I want answers. But, at the same time, I'm always up for a good debate.

It's important to keep in mind that the odds of changing the other person's opinion is as likely as for them to change your opinion.

I kind of got off track, here...

But no matter how much I learn, I think I'm always going to have a belief in some sort of God. I don't think I'd be where I am today without Him, and the belief is already in me.

What did you like in your aunt's Bible? What confused you?

Rhonda

[BethanyLove]

I have a very analytical personality and I need at least some evidence to believe certain things. I love to explore different religions, I actually just found a Bible in my aunt's bookshelf and she's letting me borrow it. I like to base my own opinions on what information I can get.

I signed up on these forums a few days ago, I think maybe a week ago actually, being a newly saved Christian. But now, I guess you could call me a confused Christian. If you can call me that. I have too many questions, and usually whenever I ask other Christians, they're all like OHHH JUST HAVE FAITH IN GOD. I want answers. But, at the same time, I'm always up for a good debate.

It's important to keep in mind that the odds of changing the other person's opinion is as likely as for them to change your opinion.

I kind of got off track, here...

But no matter how much I learn, I think I'm always going to have a belief in some sort of God. I don't think I'd be where I am today without Him, and the belief is already in me.

What did you like in your aunt's Bible? What confused you?

Rhonda

I only read the beginning, but I skipped around a lot.

It just seems like God is more punishing than loving, so far.