Why Wikipedia is Better Than God
October 30, 2010 at 2:45 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm by Jonah.)
While this may be applicable to gods of other religions, I’m referencing to the Christian God in this post. This came to me while I was looking up a band on Wikipedia earlier today, and I thought I’d share it with you all. 
1. Wikipedia is free. God isn’t.
I love how Wikipedia provides easy access to free articles on just about any subject I could possibly imagine. I realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch; however, I especially love the fact Wikipedia doesn’t force its users to donate. It simply encourages donations. There is no social stigma involved in donating (or not donating) to Wikipedia. I have the option to donate as much or as little as I like.
With the Christian god, this isn’t the case. Before I can even begin on a spiritual quest in church that may end in futility, I’m pressured to give 10% of my hard earned money to some dude dressed in an over-glorified bathrobe. 10% may not sound like a lot, but for a lot of families struggling through the recession, this sum is outrageous. On top of the mandatory expense, I also have to deal with some of the more unpleasant social aspects of church. I’m forced to live in such a way that, should I make a mistake or turn out to be different from “the flock,” I’m automatically labeled as a vile sinner who must reconcile himself before God. That doesn’t sound exactly pleasant to me.
Wikipedia:1 God:0
2. Wikipedia is (more or less) reliable. God isn’t.
While I realize that there are some dubious articles, Wikipedia is generally reliable. The community does a pretty good job at filtering out outdated/unreliable sources from its articles. If I notice something is wrong with a particular piece of information in a Wikipedia article, and I have the correct information, I can edit the article and provide accurate information to anyone reading the article. If I can’t find an article about a particular subject on Wikipedia, I can start my own article and invite others to contribute information. I can also use my language skills to help translate articles into other languages
God isn’t convenient. With God, I only have access to only one source of information (the Bible) and only one line of communication (prayer). Should I mess up in any one of these areas, it may take years before my original query (my prayer) finally gets an answer. To make things more confusing, this result might not satisfy the needs of my original request! And, should I try to ask for help from tech support (the church), they feed me some obscure platitude about how “God works in mysterious ways, and we must not question His wisdom.
God is starting to sound a lot like iTunes, doesn’t he?
Wikipedia:2 God:0
3. Wikipedia keeps things simple. God doesn’t.
Lets say that I’m trying to find information about a unusual subject (I’ll use “Synesthesia”* for this example). I find the article about Synesthesia on Wikipedia after doing a Google search. Let’s say that, after reading the article, I still can’t understand what it’s saying. I can easily switch the article into Simple English, and the article now uses words that I can understand. It’s just that simple.
God isn’t simple or user-friendly. Let’s go back to the prayer conundrum I mentioned earlier. Let’s say that, after an unholy amount of time, I finally get an answer to my original prayer request that is somewhat relevant to my situation. However, this answer is very obscure, and I’m forced to re-interpret it’s meaning for myself. More likely than not, I’m going to misinterpret what little information God gave me, and I’m going to act out on faulty information. When I call tech support (the church) to help me do damage control after my actions prove to be wrong, I’m once again told, “God works in mysterious ways. We must not question his wisdom.”
Wikipedia:3 God:0
God, I should have used Wikipedia!
*Here's the Wikipedia article I used for Synthesthesia--->http://goo.gl/4HTl
1. Wikipedia is free. God isn’t.
I love how Wikipedia provides easy access to free articles on just about any subject I could possibly imagine. I realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch; however, I especially love the fact Wikipedia doesn’t force its users to donate. It simply encourages donations. There is no social stigma involved in donating (or not donating) to Wikipedia. I have the option to donate as much or as little as I like.
With the Christian god, this isn’t the case. Before I can even begin on a spiritual quest in church that may end in futility, I’m pressured to give 10% of my hard earned money to some dude dressed in an over-glorified bathrobe. 10% may not sound like a lot, but for a lot of families struggling through the recession, this sum is outrageous. On top of the mandatory expense, I also have to deal with some of the more unpleasant social aspects of church. I’m forced to live in such a way that, should I make a mistake or turn out to be different from “the flock,” I’m automatically labeled as a vile sinner who must reconcile himself before God. That doesn’t sound exactly pleasant to me.
Wikipedia:1 God:0
2. Wikipedia is (more or less) reliable. God isn’t.
While I realize that there are some dubious articles, Wikipedia is generally reliable. The community does a pretty good job at filtering out outdated/unreliable sources from its articles. If I notice something is wrong with a particular piece of information in a Wikipedia article, and I have the correct information, I can edit the article and provide accurate information to anyone reading the article. If I can’t find an article about a particular subject on Wikipedia, I can start my own article and invite others to contribute information. I can also use my language skills to help translate articles into other languages
God isn’t convenient. With God, I only have access to only one source of information (the Bible) and only one line of communication (prayer). Should I mess up in any one of these areas, it may take years before my original query (my prayer) finally gets an answer. To make things more confusing, this result might not satisfy the needs of my original request! And, should I try to ask for help from tech support (the church), they feed me some obscure platitude about how “God works in mysterious ways, and we must not question His wisdom.
God is starting to sound a lot like iTunes, doesn’t he?
Wikipedia:2 God:0
3. Wikipedia keeps things simple. God doesn’t.
Lets say that I’m trying to find information about a unusual subject (I’ll use “Synesthesia”* for this example). I find the article about Synesthesia on Wikipedia after doing a Google search. Let’s say that, after reading the article, I still can’t understand what it’s saying. I can easily switch the article into Simple English, and the article now uses words that I can understand. It’s just that simple.
God isn’t simple or user-friendly. Let’s go back to the prayer conundrum I mentioned earlier. Let’s say that, after an unholy amount of time, I finally get an answer to my original prayer request that is somewhat relevant to my situation. However, this answer is very obscure, and I’m forced to re-interpret it’s meaning for myself. More likely than not, I’m going to misinterpret what little information God gave me, and I’m going to act out on faulty information. When I call tech support (the church) to help me do damage control after my actions prove to be wrong, I’m once again told, “God works in mysterious ways. We must not question his wisdom.”
Wikipedia:3 God:0
God, I should have used Wikipedia!
*Here's the Wikipedia article I used for Synthesthesia--->http://goo.gl/4HTl
"If your god has to make peace with me in my final hour when he has my whole lifetime to prove his existence to me...do you think I should bother?"
"But the happiness of an atheist is neither the vacuous enjoyment of a fool, nor the short-lived pleasure of a rogue. It is rather the expression of a disposition that has ceased to torture itself with foolish fancies, or perplex itself with useless beliefs." - Chapman Cohen
"But the happiness of an atheist is neither the vacuous enjoyment of a fool, nor the short-lived pleasure of a rogue. It is rather the expression of a disposition that has ceased to torture itself with foolish fancies, or perplex itself with useless beliefs." - Chapman Cohen
