Sunday, September 30, 2012

John Loftus's blog is losing its global market share according to Alexa. Is he another atheist destined for total obscurity?

Is John Loftus another atheist failure destined to leave no legacy like the atheists Paul Kurtz, Farrell Till  and other atheists? Recently, we demonstrated that global atheism is shrinking and that leading atheist websites were losing their global market share and/or web traffic in recent years. See: Decline of global atheism

Let's see what the web traffic tracking company Alexa has to say about John Loftus's influence on the world.

John Loftus's blog is losing global market share according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa:


Important questions

1. Is internet atheism shrinking in influence? See: Decline of internet atheism

2. Is global atheism shrinking and is it expected to shrink at an accelerated rate? See: Resources on the rise of global Christianity and creationism and the decline of global atheism and agnosticism 

3. Is the global shrinking of atheism expected to affect Western atheism in a significant manner in terms of adherents? See: Atheism will shrink at an accelerated rate

4. Will the shrinking of atheism make the obscure atheist John Lotus and other obscure even more obscure?

5. Does John Lotus have a master plan to stop the rapid expansion of global Christianity and creationism and the global shrinking of atheism and agnosticism? See: Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: What is your master plan to reverse your decline?

6. Can John Loftus satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists?

7. What proof and evidence does John Loftus have that atheism is true? The reason I ask is that biblical Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence: Evidence for Christianity: websites, articles and videos

For more information, please see:

Global decline of atheism and the rise of global creationism. Information on the Question Evolution! Campaign!

Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: Godless religions

Refuting evolution

Question Evolution! Campaign resources and other resources:

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15


Global decline of atheism videos


Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? from Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Australian Broadcasting Corporation on FORA.tv



15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!

6 comments:

  1. There's more churchgoers than highly educated scientists around the world, therefore creationism wins, or it's truer? That's as bad an argument as can be made for creationism. And none of the others fare any better.

    Concerning questioning, creationists don't question. That would be to deny "inerrant" authority to ancient Hebrew and Christian writings -- it would be to deny that adding together the ages of patriarchs can determine how old the cosmos must be.

    But once you even begin to question that adding up the ages of patriarchs determines the age of the cosmos then questions begin popping up and never stop, and it is quickly seen that young-earth creationism has no answers. In fact it's desperately trying to find some kind of age determination in nature other than the ages of the patriarchs and can't find any that are as solid as the ones science as discovered (the Paluxy tracks died, as did the human skull found in coal, and the Carboniferous human prints, along with the Lewis Mountain overthurst denial, all such grand demonstrates of a young-earth dying again and again), so YEC's try to accommodate the evidence and come up with reasons to doubt evolution rather than prove creationism.

    But CMI's list of YEC arguments are decimated here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

    And the problems for YECism are even greater than the above Rationalwiki response suggests. For example, the reponse explains why the YEC argument concerning meteorite bombardment does not support a young earth, but Rationalwiki could have added that the evidence demolishes YECism and demands an old solar system, since there is no way to squeeze the number of known impacts (millions leaving craters on the moon, mars, etc) into 6,000 years without killing every vertebrate on earth many times over--see Glen Kuban's essay (he'a a former creationist, and it was Glen's analysis of the alleged Paluxy "man" prints that convinced both ICE and AIG that it was no longer wise for YECs to employ such "evidence"), Glen adds that his discussion of meteorite bombardment has not received a coherent response from a YEC: http://paleo.cc/ce/craters.htm

    My blog features a dedicated search engine at the top for those who wish to seek out replies scientists have made to YEC arguments and ID arguments: http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com

    And here's two blog entries on "living fossils" http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2012/01/creationists-love-to-talk-about-living.html
    http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-living-fossil-platypus-gods.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. CONTINUED

    The whopper told by YECs concerning "polystrate trees" has been debunked by a Christian who is also a geologist and who used to be a YEC himself: http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Pilgrimage-Creationism-Paleontology-Interpretation/dp/1894667328/ref=la_B001JOYBHE_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348885533&sr=1-1 He was looking for that shred of evidence for Flood Geology, but describes his disappointment: "Some young-earth creationists ... were claiming that places like Joggins, where fossilized trees were seen to pass upright though the surrounding sedimentary rocks, provided powerful evidence that the world had been overtaken suddenly by a global flood. I had once believed this to be true. However, after visiting Joggins, I knew first hand that this could not be. The tree stumps lined up along clearly visible, once horizontal, beds" (page 49).

    There's also dinosaur footprints found deep in the earth in coal mines with plenty of sediment beneath them, and above them. Sometimes you find a fossilized tree with its roots in situ in such mines as well as fossilized dinosaur prints at the base of the fossilized tree, meaning the tree had grown in place with the dinosaur walking around its base. And it takes a tree a long time to grow, and the dinosaur walking around its base also demonstrates, along with the tree and its roots, that that is where the level of the land used to be. So all the sediments below and above were not formed in a year by one long flood. And such evidence cannot be compared to the tree trunks uprooted by Mt. St. Helens that sunk to the bottom of Spirit lake, since they have no roots nor animals tracks around their base. "Flood geologists" also have to face multiple layers in which fossilized dinosaur nests are found, since it takes time to find a mate and build a nest, and lay the eggs on dry ground and the eggs to hatch (some of them are hatched already, meaning you have to count in gestation time as well, and multiple times at which this occurred since such formations are not all found at the same level), so that's the level at which dry ground existed, where the dinosaurs were breeding and nesting. This is not evidence of a huge year long Flood. References: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html http://www.allanmccollum.net/allanmcnyc/reprints/Pdfs/peterson.pdf http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

    AND. . . There's Christians who are scientists and who are pro-evolution: http://biologos.org/ Even before BIOLOGOS had its website I wrote about such Christians and their publicatinos: http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com/2012/03/christian-evolutionist-resources.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed Babinki,

      A few points:

      1. Are you disputing that John Loftus's blog has lost global market share since 2011 according to Alexa?

      2. What do polystrate trees have to do with this blog post? Also, see: http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth

      3. Are you an agnostic? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that agnosticism is a valid worldview?

      Norman Geisler wrote:

      Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to falsify itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20)

      4. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the
      15 questions for evolutionists via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

      If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

      If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

      5. Just because there are people claiming to be Christians that doesn't make the Bible compatible with evolution. Also, Francis Collins of Biologos views on abortion aren't in accordance with Christianity: http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/07/francis-collins-on-abortion.html

      King David wrote: "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb".

      Delete
    2. Ed Babinski,

      Addendum, additional few points:

      1. You wrote:

      "There's more churchgoers than highly educated scientists around the world, therefore creationism wins, or it's truer? That's as bad an argument as can be made for creationism."

      Please show me in this blog post where I made this argument. I did not commit the ad populum logical fallacy so you are being disingenuous.

      In addition, you neglected to mention that I offered to readers the book Refuting evolution
      plus the resources Evidence for Christianity and Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: Godless religions so you are committing the fallacy of exclusion in your complaint which is a logical fallacy.

      2. You wrote:

      "Concerning questioning, creationists don't question. That would be to deny "inerrant" authority to ancient Hebrew and Christian writings -- it would be to deny that adding together the ages of patriarchs can determine how old the cosmos must be."

      I don't think you made a good case here for this position. Please provide proof and evidence show that all believers in Bible inerrancy never question or have doubts. You should be more careful in your claims.

      I recall the Christian Gary Habermas holding to biblical inerrancy and here is an essay of his saying the Bible is inspired: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/areopagus_jesusinspirationscripture/areopagus_jesusinspirationscripture.htm

      Here is Gary Habermas saying his co-author of a book holds to inerrancy: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36522

      Also, the Bible skeptic Robert Price wrote: "As a member of the Liberty University faculty, Dr. Habermas is honor-bound to believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, the dogma that the Bible is free from all historical errors, and even that its authors never expressed differences of opinion on religious matters. " see: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_habermas.htm

      Also, we know that Dr. Habermas struggled with doubt for ten years therefore he must have questioned. See: http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/thomas_factor/thomas_factor.htm

      In 1999, Habermas wrote the book: The Thomas Factor: Using Your Doubts to Draw Closer to God (Broadman & Holman, 1999).

      In addition, two essays by Habermas on doubt: http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/thomas_factor/thomas_factor.htm and http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/dealing_with_doubt/dealing_with_doubt.htm

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.