A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
A Worldwide Decrease in Atheism, (revisited)
This is a study, found here, which I referenced before back in '08, and which will be added to the "Atheism Studies" category for easier access.
eternal, I do believe you exist in an alternate universe (proving they don't exist)...
Atheists in the actual Atheist groups claim (loudly) that Atheism is increasing perdentage-wise, and that religion will therefore be dead due to a linear extrapolation to some not distant date.
This data goes counter to the Atheist claims.
It is just another study that counters claims made by Atheists.
I do thank robot for pointing to this supposed refutation. It is in reference to the book, not a specific study:
"Some of the 2008 results have been posted at the Baylor website; the bulk of the research and analysis is presented in a book titled What America Really Believes. Published this year by the university’s press, What America Really Believes was largely authored by the well-known and controversial sociologist of religion, Rodney Stark."
Of course there is little which is more controversial than Secular Humanism, unless it is the analysis and conclusions drawn by this particular individual.
I guess that this is interesting enough that I will post an initial look at Paul's paper, and later if/when I get the book, take a look at what was actually said, implied and claimed there.
That was thorough. It didn't leave anyone the avenue of saying the entire book wasn't addressed. Of course, Stan can't do anything but rant about Secular Humanism now.
Regarding the Secular Humanist article by Gregory S. Paul, I went through the article point by point, and commented on his issues in a yet unpublished and lengthy paper.
Then I realized that Paul really had only a few main points to make. Here they are:
Discrediting the Survey.
1. Paul redefines Atheism to include all categories of non-affiliation. He argues that the “none” inclusion refutes the proposition that Atheism is not increasing. But the "none" category includes unaffilliated believers and otherwise non-atheists as 2/3 of its population.
2. Paul accepts only surveys which are congenial to the Atheist position. He derides the non-congenial surveys as being Christian.
3. Paul attacks the author(s): Stark: Too Christian, too controversial, Atheist PhDs discount him (huge surprise), etc. Other authors are ignored and tarred by association.
4. Paul attacks “bias” in the work. (a) Survey doesn’t include “nones” (actually 2/3 of the nones are not non-believers). (b) Baylor ignores the data in more favorable surveys. (It is doing its own survey) (c) It’s done by Christians.
So who is this Gregory S. Paul? Since his approach is credentialist, attacking not the methodology, but the credentials, what are Paul's credentials?
So Paul is using fraudulent data and eschewing statistical and sociological standards for his evangelizing of Atheism. This is attested to by actual statisticians and sociologists. I found that his main efforts are directed at inserting bias where ever he thinks he can.
After I went to the trouble of debunking Paul myself, I find that I could have saved a lot of time and effort if I'd just googled him up first.
I should have mentioned that Atheism, as a category, remains essentially constant, varying in a noise level fashion and mostly going up and down in the 4 to 6% range.
Nowhere does Paul admit to this; his entire thrust is to insert bias in order to defeat that fact.
9 comments:
- IF 'number of Atheists has not raised' THEN 'Atheists are wrong'.
- IT is the case that 'number of Atheists has not raised'
- THEN 'Atheists are wrong'
Clearly, that argument is wrong; premise 1 is false.
So why bother posting these numbers?
Anything else it could be used for?
Any logical point you want to make?
eternal,
I do believe you exist in an alternate universe (proving they don't exist)...
Atheists in the actual Atheist groups claim (loudly) that Atheism is increasing perdentage-wise, and that religion will therefore be dead due to a linear extrapolation to some not distant date.
This data goes counter to the Atheist claims.
It is just another study that counters claims made by Atheists.
26 page PDF completely debunking this "study" by conservative Christian group Baylor.
I expect Stan will thank me for setting him straight.
Before I even go to the PDF, the use of "conservative Christian" as a pejorative attempt to discredit a priori is noted.
OK, too funny. The PDF is to a Secular Humanism site.
I do thank robot for pointing to this supposed refutation. It is in reference to the book, not a specific study:
"Some of the
2008 results have been posted at the Baylor website; the bulk of the research and analysis is
presented in a book titled What America Really Believes. Published this year by the university’s
press, What America Really Believes was largely authored by the well-known and controversial
sociologist of religion, Rodney Stark."
Of course there is little which is more controversial than Secular Humanism, unless it is the analysis and conclusions drawn by this particular individual.
I guess that this is interesting enough that I will post an initial look at Paul's paper, and later if/when I get the book, take a look at what was actually said, implied and claimed there.
That was thorough. It didn't leave anyone the avenue of saying the entire book wasn't addressed.
Of course, Stan can't do anything but rant about Secular Humanism now.
Regarding the Secular Humanist article by Gregory S. Paul, I went through the article point by point, and commented on his issues in a yet unpublished and lengthy paper.
Then I realized that Paul really had only a few main points to make. Here they are:
Discrediting the Survey.
1. Paul redefines Atheism to include all categories of non-affiliation. He argues that the “none” inclusion refutes the proposition that Atheism is not increasing. But the "none" category includes unaffilliated believers and otherwise non-atheists as 2/3 of its population.
2. Paul accepts only surveys which are congenial to the Atheist position. He derides the non-congenial surveys as being Christian.
3. Paul attacks the author(s): Stark: Too Christian, too controversial, Atheist PhDs discount him (huge surprise), etc. Other authors are ignored and tarred by association.
4. Paul attacks “bias” in the work.
(a) Survey doesn’t include “nones” (actually 2/3 of the nones are not non-believers).
(b) Baylor ignores the data in more favorable surveys. (It is doing its own survey)
(c) It’s done by Christians.
So who is this Gregory S. Paul? Since his approach is credentialist, attacking not the methodology, but the credentials, what are Paul's credentials?
The answer is here. And here. And Here. And here.
So Paul is using fraudulent data and eschewing statistical and sociological standards for his evangelizing of Atheism. This is attested to by actual statisticians and sociologists. I found that his main efforts are directed at inserting bias where ever he thinks he can.
After I went to the trouble of debunking Paul myself, I find that I could have saved a lot of time and effort if I'd just googled him up first.
Yeah, robot: good job. This guy is a hoot.
I should have mentioned that Atheism, as a category, remains essentially constant, varying in a noise level fashion and mostly going up and down in the 4 to 6% range.
Nowhere does Paul admit to this; his entire thrust is to insert bias in order to defeat that fact.
Post a Comment