james bond
Well-Known Member
In a court of law, I can say as God as my witness and be deemed credible. If I say Jimmy Wales, then I'd probably be dismissed as not credible.
-
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
In a court of law, I can say as God as my witness and be deemed credible. If I say Jimmy Wales, then I'd probably be dismissed as not credible.
You've not ever been in a court room, have you?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Since you lost the previous argument, now you're back for more beatings.
Any WP article that goes into extensive detail is to present a criticism of William Paley's work. The criticism is highlighted and while it is BS, it is intended to provide those of weak minds unproven justifications for their liberal and atheist thinking. Moreover, the related links in Britannica are superior. Well worth paying for. If I could send Wales a bitcoin equivalent to feces bits, then I'd gladly donate to his WP.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I've to a courtroom and have been instructed by my county prosecutor on how to approach a testimony. Have you?
Yeah. Three generations of law enforcement. Your use of "God as my witness" would only work if you could bring God to confirm it.
Altfish
Veteran Member
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Guys, do yourselves a favour: just ignore james bond. They are just trolling for attention and trying to irritate everyone.
Searching1981
Member
It's not just Conservatives who oppose Wikipedia, I as a Liberal amateur writer, reader and musician have opposed Wikipedia. I've found many, many, many inconsistencies on Wikipedia that somehow become accepted mainstream thought by atheist geeks. (geeks killed rock)
For example, look up Reggae and it will say it is derived from SKA! Ska is gentrified white Swing Geek music that has nothing to do with the Spirituality of Reggae. The White Middle Class geek may have been influenced by Reggae in his gentrified art but Reggae certainly has nothing to do with it. (I know plenty of old school Reggae musicians).
Another example, you can't find the real of age of Nietzsche's death which was in his forties--I took a class on him in College and we read an academic article on his death at a young age.
There is so much wrong with Wikipedia. I hope now that net neutrality was repealed Wikipedia goes down the tubes.
The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia
I second the OP title! As a student of paranormal and spiritual subjects I have to comment in this thread. I remember a few years back that articles on these subjects were neutral and presenting both sides when there was controversy. Then I noticed about two years ago (or so) the articles were all edited to be highly anti-paranormal and anti-spiritual. I was thinking that it sounds as though most articles were written by the atheist-materialist crowd and then I found out that IS exactly who did edit them. There is a very active group called Guerilla Skeptics whose function is to edit all articles on spiritual and paranormal subjects with an atheist-materialist bent.
Jimmy Wales (a hard atheist) has taken the Guerilla Skeptics side in the controversy I have heard from people that have tried to get neutrality back.
A lot of times I skip over the Wikipedia link when I google on a paranormal and spiritual subject because I know in advance what I am going to find. I would like to see more people come together and protest not just Wikipedia but search engines that favor Wikipedia.
I second the OP title! As a student of paranormal and spiritual subjects I have to comment in this thread. I remember a few years back that articles on these subjects were neutral and presenting both sides when there was controversy. Then I noticed about two years ago (or so) the articles were all edited to be highly anti-paranormal and anti-spiritual. I was thinking that it sounds as though most articles were written by the atheist-materialist crowd and then I found out that IS exactly who did edit them. There is a very active group called Guerilla Skeptics whose function is to edit all articles on spiritual and paranormal subjects with an atheist-materialist bent.
Jimmy Wales (a hard atheist) has taken the Guerilla Skeptics side in the controversy I have heard from people that have tried to get neutrality back.
A lot of times I skip over the Wikipedia link when I google on a paranormal and spiritual subject because I know in advance what I am going to find. I would like to see more people come together and protest not just Wikipedia but search engines that favor Wikipedia.
His forties? He was 55. 1844 to 1900. Unless you want to declare he "died" when he had his breakdown, which in fairness, I'd buy, though his body lingered on.
...
That's like hoping to fix the ant problem in a house by conducting a napalm strike on it.
Skwim
Veteran 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.
.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Conservapedia is far more biased than Wikipedia. What evidence do you have that wikipedia editors block valid links?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Something I feel like should be mentioned about Conservapedia;
They deny the Theory of General Relativity.
Let that sink in for a bit, and get back to me.
Heck, it makes Uncyclopedia seem fair and balanced. Or at least not on drugs.Conservapedia
It even makes Fox News look fair and balanced.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
james bond
Well-Known Member
Congrats on three generations of law enforcement. However, atheists are usually wrong. "God as my witness" means one is testifying under oath, not what you mean. What book do you solemnly swear to before taking the stand? I'm sure your error is related to trusting Wikipedia.
"I call God as my witness—and I stake my life on it—that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth. 24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm." 2 Corinthians 1:23-24
When I testify in court, God & the Bible don't come up.
I simply agree to tell the truth.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Proof of more liberal and atheist lunacy. RationalWiki is run by teenagers ha ha. Are you underage?