Is it Biased?

Riley lopez
2 min readDec 25, 2020


28 November 2028

With the amount of content in the world, it may be hard to tell which sources are valid, and countless scholarly articles and teachers have told students exactly how to tell of it is a reliable source to cite. One thing students are told to look out for is if the source itself uses many valid sources. Also, the source needs to come from a reputable place. The author also must be reputable. The source also needs to have the purpose to inform not to persuade. Most importantly the source needs to be unbiased.

The article titled “Is Christianity a Cult?” Is biased; making it a not valid or reliable source. To be a reliable source it needs to have multiple sources. The article only uses one source, a book, as evidence proving its point that christianity is not a cult. Even with one source the article only cites a small part of the book.

Upon more research, the website in which that article came from features many other religious articles, mainly focusing on christianity. One article on the site talks about how an atheist turned to christianity and another article told the story of a jewish woman who converted to christianity. This makes the website where the article came from not reliable to show different perspectives. The author Judah Kampkes also has written many christian oriented articles, making him biased. In his article “Is Christianity a Cult?”, Kampkes makes his biased clear at the end of the article when he says, “our challenge is to trust that God will do the good work”. By putting himself into the article in this way, his biased becomes clear.

The main demographic of the article appears to be christians, with the purpose to reassure and persuade them that their not in a cult. So as to be unbiased, Kampkes should have acknowledged his bias and written it using multiple sources and showing multiple perspectives. He also could have addressed certain correlations, if any, between christianity and cults. The article also contains several typos, once again proving its invalidity.