Wikipedia is never my go-to source for anything that I think is (or might be) important or of great interest to me. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer books and articles in reputable journals for my information.
That said, Wikipedia or a quick search online is perfectly justifiable if the subject is relatively unimportant to me or if I want a quick refresher on, for instance, why believers' claims that multiple sources outside the Bible attest to Jesus's existence are ill-founded (after all, I don't wander around with a portable atheist's library tucked under my arm).
It's just a question of using the right tool for the job.
You seem to suggest that people here have simply adopted a team (e.g., atheists) and surf the web to cherry pick material that supports their views. That may be true of some, but I think you'll find that a majority of non-believers who take the trouble to post on forums such as this have done their homework and very often understand the relevant literature much better than their counterparts.
That said, Wikipedia or a quick search online is perfectly justifiable if the subject is relatively unimportant to me or if I want a quick refresher on, for instance, why believers' claims that multiple sources outside the Bible attest to Jesus's existence are ill-founded (after all, I don't wander around with a portable atheist's library tucked under my arm).
It's just a question of using the right tool for the job.
You seem to suggest that people here have simply adopted a team (e.g., atheists) and surf the web to cherry pick material that supports their views. That may be true of some, but I think you'll find that a majority of non-believers who take the trouble to post on forums such as this have done their homework and very often understand the relevant literature much better than their counterparts.
