Bias Homepage

Reliable bias information

Just because we may all have (had) some biases, that doesn't excuse ANY bigoting when you become aware. T/F?
How about One Million Mom's? That's the dumbest thing I've seen this month google.com url?sa t& rct j& q & esrc s& source web& cd 1& ved 0CCoQFjAA& url http %3A %2F %2Fonemillionmoms.com %2F& ei Jik5T5ruMs 9sQL1gvCbAg& usg AFQjCNEY05U17Y0KDPLc0v1q4GDb7BUtjwgoogle.com url?sa t& rct j& q & esrc s& source web& cd 1& ved 0CCoQFjAA& url http %3A %2F %2Fonemillionmoms.com %2F& ei Jik5T5ruMs 9sQL1gvCbAg& usg AFQjCNEY05U17Y0KDPLc0v1q4GDb7BUtjw

Do you think anti-theists/ anti-religionists are often victims of confirmation bias!?
...whereby any situation which involves a drop of religion becomes proof that " religion is wrong" ?

Do religious people believe in cognitive biases?

How do people who believe in "signs" rule out biased sampling?
How do you know what you call a " sign" isn't simply your tendency to notice only what will confirm what you want?

Muslims are invasting money in to school to biased towards islam?

Jehovah's Witnesses: With all theological biases aside, should με ("Me") be included in John 14.14?
Jehovah's Witnesses,As a part of your theology, you insist that Christ is in no way or fashion including prayer is to be worshiped. With all theological biases aside, should " Me" be included in John 14.14, or should it be omitted? If you wish to send an answer through e mail instead of disclosing your identity, please do.In your response, please consider the following 1. Manuscript support in favor of its inclusion P66 P75 B W 060 f13 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1342 Byz pt E H l184 1 2 l514 l547 l672 l673 1 2 l813 l890 1 2 it c, f vg syr p, h 2. The inclusion has the strongest transmission throughout time and throughout various geographical locales, rather than its omission, which is predominantly much later than most witnesses, and least wide spread throughout geographical locales.3. The inclusion best explains the origin of both variant types, that is, the omission of " Me" , and its substitution " the Father" .4. Author's symmetrical style v.14, " If you ask Me..." vs. v.15, " If you love Me..." .5. The correlation with I later in the verse.6. 1 Chron. 16 8, " call on Him in His name" Ps. 54 1, " save me in Your name." 7. Prayer is addressed to Christ elsewhere throughout the NT Acts 1.20 25, 7.59 60, 9.12 14 1 Cor. 16.22, 2 Cor. 12.8 9 1 John 5.13 15 Rev. 22.20BAR ANERGES, Thanks for the response, but these passages seem to be pretty straightforward. In 16 26 27 we have Jesus telling the disciples that they have direct access to the Father and that they may now petition Him in Jesus name. In 14 13 14 we have Jesus telling the disciples that whatever they ask Him in His name He will do so that the Father may be glorified. How this amounts to a contradiction I m not sure. On the one hand Jesus says that requests made to the Father through the Son will be responded to by the Father. On the other hand Jesus says that requests made directly to Him will be responded to directly by Him.This is no more a contradiction than Jesus saying that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in Jesus name cf. 14 16, 26 with Jesus also saying that He will send the Holy Spirit from the Father cf. 15 26 16 7 . So who exactly sends the Holy Spirit, the Father in Jesus name? Or Jesus from the Father?New Kid,You said that Trinitarianism is God dishonoring what a lowly view of Christ you have. The extremely high Christology that I have is anything but God dishonoring, but one that pleases the Father, and seats Christ where He rightly belongs." Nowhere in the Bible does it state or even suggest that Almighty God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are coequal." Now that would certainly be a subject of much debate, the equality between the Persons of the Trinity or as the Athanasian Creed puts it, Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead , that is. And one that would center around a rendition of a text which you already to deny, a text which ascribes equality between God the Father, and the pre existent Christ with regards to their nature John 1 1.

Is your skepticism biased?
Skeptical in what you want to be skeptical of, but convinced of what you want to be convinced of? I haven t been to church sincerely, since the 80 s. Because I m skeptical of what they tell me I ought to believe. On my own, with my own deduction and reasoning, I have concluded that Jesus was not God. He was something, but he can t have been God. A prophet, a sorcerer, a demigod, a combination of those things, maybe. The son of God? Not the real God. Gabriel s visit to Mary seemed a bit suspicious to me. The son of an angel would be a demigod, and part of that might include the magic skills. Also, that thing in the OT that mentioned an old law where unwed mothers get stoned. If Joseph and Mary got in trouble foolin around, tying it into the old prophesies would be their only way of surviving the law. If that is the case, then the magic was made up. Full humans can master a tiny bit of the universe power, but not that much.Jesus can t be the son of the real God, because the real God is the Allbeing, the essence of existence. That creature shot its load one time and begat the universe, or multiverse, if there is such a thing. I ve come to the conclusion, quite on my own, through logic and reason, that the being impersonating God through 98 % of the OT was the chief Titan, Saturn. If my theory is correct, it was he, not the Allbeing, who tormented Job and flooded the Earth, etc. It is written that Saturn was deposed by his son Jupiter and sent to hell. Could be the real God, the Allbeing, decreed that fate upon Saturn as punishment for impersonating God. If that is true, Saturn, the OT God, might be Satan. The Satanists claim that Satan was the Creator God. In a way, Saturn was the Creator God. The real God, the Allbeing, initiated first cause, but was not the physical labor. The Titans designed and constructed this magnificent mechanism we call the universe. Saturn didn t get his own hands dirty in that process, but he was the king and overseer. When great cities are built, the king and overseer gets the credit. So it is with the universe.So, if I have dismissed dogma as the explanation for creation, why should I believe evolution, just because it s the opposing option offered? If I dismiss religious dogma, the opposite of what I dismiss doesn t become true by default. Evolution is proven false by the lack of evidence. And the fabrication of fake evidence is evidence that there s something suspicious going on about it. How can you claim to be skeptical and blindly believe what you are told to believe, just because it s the standard opposite position on the table?Those who say evolution is proven, prove it. Where s the proof, apart from somebody told you it s proven and somebody told them it s proven? Show me an indisputable apeman. Show me any transitional creature, and I will reverse my position on this. I am not standing for dogma, or indoctrination as you call it. I m standing for truth. From my POV, you ve got indoctrinated written all over you. I m not against evolution because I NEED it to not be so, I m against evolution because it s APPARENTLY not so. There s nothing to it but speculations piled on top of someone else s speculations piled on someone else s speculations. Hypotheses don t validate Hypotheses any more than the Bible proves the Bible. Look up the information for yourself. Learn what the schools don t want you to know. I only stand for truth, and evolution just ain t it, no matter how bad they or you want it to be.DeistSupestar, Justin Read on.John All my speculations have the words " maybe" and " possibly" thrown in. Unlike evolutionists, I don't present my theories as facts, only theories. But the best ones I can come up with, with the info available.Supastar I'll look at yours if you'll look at mine evolutionisimaginary.com Old Timer You bait and switch mothucker. Your first upthumb was from me, then you put that other bullshit in later. Suckacok, asshole.Supastar If you're talking about that home page video post, I didn't like the religious stuff at the end. But where would I find a video of someone saying what I'm trying to say 100 % my way? I may make my own video on the subject at some point, but for now, that guy is the closest to making to the point I was trying to make. He made it with religious connotations, I wouldn't have. But I don't hate religion so much that I can't look past it to see the true point he was making. I know some religious people are into evolution. They won't convince me either. I need proof. I haven't seen it yet. I clicked your link. Nice artwork.Old Timer I retract. I shouldn't have been pissed at you, but myself. I should've waited to use up my thumb. Your first two paragraphs looked like you got what I was saying. I shouldn't have cussed at you, but you shouldn't have insulted me. In doing so, however, you only showed that you didn't get what I said. I will remember that you called me stupid. When I see you around, I will have already thought of many ways to make a fool out of you. No sympathy for your oldness. I've been around the block a time or two myself.Supastar I've seen all that stuff before. Moreover, I've investigated each one individually, and dismissed it as bullshit. Not because I wanted it to be, but because it revealed itself as such to me. But don't just take my word for it. look into each one of them. Track it to its source. Always at the source, first discovery or whatever, there's always somebody faking it or speculating it.

A question for None White People - Do you ever feel that you receive biased?
This is to Black, Indian, Arab, Chinese or any other 'Ethnic' Race Do you or have you ever felt like you receive biased from some White People at times? For example I went to a passport office today & the woman was being very cold and unfriendly with me but when I sat down & I saw others coming up to the ticket speculation White People she was being much more friendly chatty and talkative with them than she was with me. I am not paranoid per se but it's just something I have noticed which happens at times. Have you ever experienced some type of Biased like this in the past? How did you feel? Let me know & tell me your race. Thanks Lisa. You are right that Aboriginals are Pretty Much Ugly, Useless, & Nothing really good about any of them. But I just don't like it when someone is racist or hurtful to a group of people like that. There will of course be many Nice & Friendly down to earth Aboriginals out there. How will they feel if they discovered that someone is slandering them so much? Just don't be racist As simple as that. It aint nice. BTW what your saying is totally irrelevant to my question.

How do you examine the subject without some of your own bias creeping in?
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to be completly objective about religion because we have all been raised to believe in one religion or another. How do you examine the subject without some of your own bias creeping in? I, for instance, was raised to believe in the muslim faith, simply because that happens to be the majority religion in the country, that by pure chance, I was born in. I didn't choose islam, I was less than a year old at the time I became a signed up member of the school. I certainly do not believe in it now. I do not believe that God is a kindly looking, bearded, white gentleman sitting on his throne in heaven surrounded by angels, and yes, that is the picture we were taught to believe as young, impressionable children at school, along with a whole load of other stuff just as daft. As an adult, all this was revised and we were told it was just symbolic, but as an adult I was also told that only true muslim will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So to all you believers of other religions, sorry, you won't be going to heaven, our local vicar told me. Clearly,islam is just as ridiculous as Mormonism.I saw a typical poster outside a mosque recently depicting an idyllic country scene, complete with pretty waterfall, a little mist, pretty flowers, lambs and song birds, bearing the slogan " God is love" . Why is it that those who believe that God is responsible for the way the world is, only show the good things. Would it not be just as correct to show say a picture of thousands of corpses as a result of a severe drought and include the slogan 'God is love'? The church only promotes the one good side of God's supposed work. It is therefore, nothing more than a brainwashing propaganda exercise. The mosque must think us daft, and in order to believe their cozy, rosy picture of the world with good old father God taking care of things, we would have to be.If 'God' can be praised for any good event that happens in the world, then this is claiming that God is responsible for the way the world is. That being the case God must also be responsible for the bad things as well, so why not attribute them to Him her? If the bad things are not due to God, who says so? God? To blame mankind for these 'bad' events can not be right. Is it our fault that we have droughts, storms, floods, volcanic eruptions, heat waves, ice ages, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, disease, etc.etc.? I find the way that the church " cherry pick" 'God's work ' to be extremely annoying. If its good, its the work of God, if its bad its just one of those things. Why not just accept the fact that events are the result of chance, cause and effect, and random factors? If you do believe God is responsible for the way the world is then as well as praising Him for the good things you would also have to blame Him for the headline events listed on the following poster.All religion is nothing more than an attempt to control a population by enforcing 'laws' that come from a higher authority that is beyond challenge, It is used as an extremely powerful tool to keep people 'in line'. It is particularly useful in circumstances where the population are under duress, be it poverty, starvation, tyranny. whatever, because then the powers that rule will assure you that you must accept your lot, lead a good life, don't rock the boat and cause any trouble, and you will be rewarded in the next life..

What do you think of this Wikipedia-like site that is a counter to the "liberal bias on Conservapedia"?
It's called conservapedia.referata.com and has some hilarious articles. I'll post the one on evolution titled " Evilution" , and the one on atheism. It's a good thing they're so obviously satirical, otherwise it'd be hard to tell the difference between the real Conservapedia and this one.Atheism conservapedia.referata.com wiki AtheistsEvolution conservapedia.referata.com wiki EvilutionEducation conservapedia.referata.com wiki Education Splash Frog This isn't Conservapedia, though it's a parody of Conservapedia.

Was your monotheistic god anything short of a monster? Why not? There's certainly ample evidence of his biases?
Which theists in turn tend to honor today Bring on those silly bible verses, but try not to sound even sillier when doing so it's for your own good .Thanks I don't know if you know the irony which you may in your statement answerer 1... but you are right WOW You guys are SO brainwashed, you can't even see it

Do you feel the UK media is biased towards Muslims?
Latest case involving alleged pederasts should the media stop calling them Pakistani Muslims ?Very true it seems the media will only mention race if it is against white skin

What do you think an individual can do to help reduce bias and stereotyping?

Atheists: when you read any religious book do read it without any bias?
Do you read it to see who funny it sounds or with the idea that it's false or read it just find errors in it. Please be honest. If you lie then you will be lying to yourself and that makes you ignorant.