Wikipedia has continually been found to be about as accurate as any other standard encyclopedia. I can't post links yet, but if you google reliability of wikipedia you will quickly find published results.
Any given belief a theist has may not be inherently dangerous, but I never said that it was. The position that a theist takes, belief despite or in the face of evidence, is inherently dangerous. If a person takes no consideration for evidence, or the lack there of, for a belief then nothing...
What exactly does this have to do with emancipating people from theism? Or with the inherent dangers of theistic beliefs?
I am also not sure what "information" you are referring to. Would you care to clarify?
Also, is there any chance for clarification on this:
Are you really saying that believing things without evidence, and sometimes in spite of evidence, is not dangerous? What would you consider to be a convincing case for it to be true?
I am well aware of the definition of propaganda, thank you.
To any unbiased student of history. Believing things for which there is no evidence, and in the case of the Abrahamic religions evidence against, is dangerous.