There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Augustine of Hippo
We also have an article on St. Patrick. Notice the period after St. Which method should we stick with? Personally, I'd say with period. ThunderkatzHo! 10:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
- I prefer without, as you can see. I save them up, and then use them in ellipses... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:43, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Apologist[edit]
I see that the description of St Augustine as an "Christian apologist" has been changed to "Christian philosopher" with the edit comment: By the standards of his time, St. Augustine was a brilliant philosopher working with what was considered the best material available at a time. Do not retroactively tar him as an "apologist". Perhaps the author and I have differing opinions about what the phrase means, but if St Augustine was not a Christian Apologist then I think we should explain clearly why this description does not fit him.--Bobbing up 18:38, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think someone sees a pejorative in the term apologist, which in philosophy is a perfectly neutral word. Plato is also an "apologist" (for Socrates, if nothing else). Aquinas is an apologist. Nothing wrong with that. Researcher 13:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)