Flame
Beware
And Conservapedia is owned by a homophobic, misogynistic fundamentalist. Your point?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
And Conservapedia is owned by a homophobic, misogynistic fundamentalist. Your point?
james bond
Well-Known Member
And this from someone who made post #13.
In as much as Mike appears to be your go-to hero, I'll assume this is a rhetorical question.
.
#13 shows Jimmy Wales can't be trusted and that WP is heavily biased. Just read Noah's Ark and it says that it's myth.
No, I'm asking you since you brought him up. Scott Adams and I worked at the same company during the 90s, but it was a big company. We only emailed each other once. Is Mike Adams related?
james bond
Well-Known Member
I read it. Britannica is comprehensive while WP is biased. Bias is a death-knell for any factual or knowledge source except on the internet. I suppose this explains the internet atheists and their deficiencies.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Thank you. Coming from you, it's a compliment. Better than Hollywood values.
Flame
Beware
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Pot. Kettle. Irony.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I posted the facts of WP and Jimmy Wales in #1 and #13 and still you didn't read. Conservapedia tells you up front
james bond
Well-Known Member
Isn't that Conservapedia? Just sayin'.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Basically, your posts have nothing to do with the thread. smh. RationalWiki user.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It also says that the world is a sphere rather than a flat disk. Is that bias as well?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Revoltingest isn't exactly a christian fundamentalist, so his point of view wouldn't entirely be in sync with Conservapedia.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
My posting in this thread is like sprinkling bits of gold on a turd.
And this is proof you've not been in a real courtroom recently. Save for a handful of podunk backwaters, the modern oath is done without religious connotations. "Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth" so on and so forth.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Didn't bother to read your post. I only mentioned it because of its length. You don't like reading lengthy posts such as mine, but have no trouble posting them yourself.
I have absolutely no idea. I only brought up Mike Adams because you posted the following.
10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales
Which obviously impressed you (why else would you post it?), which was written by Mike Adams the creator of the web site. The point being, astute people don't usually quote others unless they know something about them. In other words, why do you trust what Adams says if you don't know anything about the guy? Unless, that is, all it takes is the fact that he agrees with you.
.
siti
Well-Known Member
If God is so smart, why do you fart?
I only ask this for two reasons:
1. Which of the 3 'pedias do you think would give the best answer?
2. Somebody mentioned Scott Adams
The answer to 1 is of course the "liberal-biased" Wikipedia which correctly found the phrase in connection with Scott Adams' novel The Religion War (worth a read but read the novella God's Debris first).
Conservapedia didn't find anything at all (and probably thinks that farting is a left-wing conspiracy to discredit God and a profoundly un-American pastime) and Britannica found over 21,000 entirely irrelevant entries.
I only ask this for two reasons:
1. Which of the 3 'pedias do you think would give the best answer?
2. Somebody mentioned Scott Adams
The answer to 1 is of course the "liberal-biased" Wikipedia which correctly found the phrase in connection with Scott Adams' novel The Religion War (worth a read but read the novella God's Debris first).
Conservapedia didn't find anything at all (and probably thinks that farting is a left-wing conspiracy to discredit God and a profoundly un-American pastime) and Britannica found over 21,000 entirely irrelevant entries.
. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo.
The reality is there is not much difference at all between wikipedia and Britannica, as cited.
I can see your nice and comfy in Plato's cave.
Altfish
Veteran Member
I take great comfort in the fact that not all people see the world through Bible tinted glasses and some people are really excited and motivated by science.
Last night in Manchester (UK) I went to see scientist Brian Cox ably assisted by Robin Ince. There were 6000 people there who had paid £30+ per head and were fascinated and wanted to learn more. This is the opposite end of the spectrum to people who think Conservapedia is the truth.
Brian Cox was not frightened of saying "I don't know" or "This is the latest idea and it may change", there was no dogma on stage.
I was proud to be a member of that audience.
Last night in Manchester (UK) I went to see scientist Brian Cox ably assisted by Robin Ince. There were 6000 people there who had paid £30+ per head and were fascinated and wanted to learn more. This is the opposite end of the spectrum to people who think Conservapedia is the truth.
Brian Cox was not frightened of saying "I don't know" or "This is the latest idea and it may change", there was no dogma on stage.
I was proud to be a member of that audience.
You mean the same Conservapedia that tried to take parts of out the Bible for having "liberal bias"? The same one that countless contributors some long-standing have talked about the draconian, totalitarian system that the administration employs?
Go ahead and look it up, they tried to make their own Bible for real. Also it's pretty easy to see that Conservapedia is basically just extreme young earth creationist, fundamentalist insanity that is poe.... practically self-parody. It's at the point that many high contributors have been trolls and doing it as parody, and blended PERFECTLY in and it's hard to know who's making fun of those extreme views and who's doing it for real.
At least wikipedia tries to be neutral and has systems in place for that. Not necessarily anyone can edit an article, if it's had issues before with vandalism ect, or lots of controversy it can be locked or semi-locked. But Conservapedia openly says it's trying to be conservative.
I think Stephen Colbert said it best... "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Not all ideas are created equally. Perhaps you see it as having bias because in remaining generally neutral, you don't agree with it considering few people's opinions are neutral, and so label it liberal? Maybe I could read the same thing and say it has a conservative bias.
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
Top 10 Wikipedia Moments - TIME
Augustus
…
Hmmm....
The same people, in the the same bands, using the same musicians, with the same producers, on the same record labels spanned ska-rocksteady-reggae.
What stopped them being gentrified white middle class geeks? Did they secretly black-up in the late-mid 60's to create reggae and erase their previous selves so they wouldn't be influenced by their earlier 'indiscretions'?
The spiritual aspects also pre-date reggae, although they are much less prominent on average. Music develops and adapts and branches out into new directions. Reggae didn't magically appear out of a vacuum.
I'd say Wikipedia is righter than you are on this issue...
No.
Revoltipedia has a more revolting bias.