Great Excuses Hit Parade

 


 Last time On AW  I talked about propaganda merchants and showed that an atheist who sited an article that said there had been a huge increase in atheism in America was wrong because neither the author nor the atheist bothered to research the source of the data.

Now let's look at the excuses used by atheists to dismiss this observation. See what outrageous things they say to keep from admitting they were wrong about something.

Sylor: post 3

It looks like we've found yet another thing Meta doesn't understand-research. Here's a study from this year (check out page 8 for a chart showing how ridiculously huge the gap in growth is), although more recent numbers show that this is already outdated and nonreligious is growing even faster. Page 46 shows the religion questions and answer breakdowns. It turns out that From 14 to 24% of millennial are atheists and agnostics.

So, are you dishonest, or do you just fail at even the most basic of research methods?

So because I dug to the bottom of the citation circle and found it's origin in an article the author the article sited didn't understand, and it contradicts his point, I don't know about research? Interesting. The chart he links to is the one used as a graphic in my own article form last time on Atheist watch. Apparently if I'm no good at research I'm better at reading pie charts than old Sylor becuase the chart shows the original assertion of atheism risign is wrong.

Sylor again

Oh, and by the way, since Meta found the 2007 pew study, he should have definitely found the ones they've done every single year since then which consistently show atheism is on the rise.

 Meta:
I did show that the 2009 survey is using the 2007 data, and there are not others that update the 2007 on the same scale. Pew does things all the time but they have no done any major landmark religious topography studies like the one in 2007 since that time. The studies that speak of the level of atheism in America go by the same 2007 data. Notice he links to something; that is a Pew study that says "none category is rising." The problem there is he's confusing "none" with atheist. the atheists are only 1.6% of American that's 19% of the 5% in the none category. People in that category believe in God.

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).³

Meta:
That is the 15% if he had looked at the page he linked us to he would see the whole page is designed like a chart with "15% marked off by the level of gray background demarcating the line. the chart shows none is up 50 20% but what he totally misses is the dark space at the bottom demarcating the line showing the level of atheism they are still back at about 2%.

i know so little about research at least I can read a flipping graph.


MikeWC

I thought this thread was going to be a discussion of the nature of propaganda. Instead, it turned out to be one of Meta's "Someone is wrong on the Internet!" screeds.

Sad face.

Meta:
something is wrong on the net is about propaganda. He dismisses the falsehood and the propaganda as just internet hi jinx.

Originally Posted by Deist

In other threads, Meta insists popularity of a belief doesn't make those beliefs true. Now, he contends that atheism is a small percentage of the population, and therefore must not be true, since the god believing group is larger.

CHRISTIANITY is what is receding. A belief in insane things like the OT God is no longer being adopted by the younger, more intelligent humans.

Meta:
trying to turn around the argument by making it an attack on my views as appeal to popularity. It's strait  refutation of their assertion and an insight into the mistaken in their facts. I said noting about popularity or that being popular makes anything right. I didn't say atheism is wrong becuase tehy are a pathetically small group of losers, I mean because they are not popular '-)

Sylar adds one work post: *educated*

I'm so stupid and evacuate to believe in God. how could anything person bleieve in God tha'ts proved because the can lie about statistics. I see how it works now, if you lie about statics and use the wrong fact you all all about research that makes makes you educated. Or is it that being an atheist is so smart it makes everything you say right even when it's a lie? I guess I'm too stupid to figure that one out.


Originally Posted by maybrick

You seem to be saying that the stats that you like are correct and the stats that you dislike are wrong.

It would seem to me that Pew represents a trustworthy source or an untrustworthy source. Either way picking and choosing the data you like is not really going to convince anybody, except perhaps yourself.

Meta:
this guy can't seem to get it through his head they are same stats.

Originally Posted by MFFJM2 Even more interesting is that the PEW research of church attnedance has it much higher than pastors and ministers admit in their congregations, suggesting that religious types lie about how often they attend church, perhaps out of guilt. According to PEW 37% of American adults state they attend church weekly, but...

Meta:

This is "muffins" as I call him, a veteran of the hate meta club and one of the major members of the "God haters" club. That's just what I call them, those aren't real groups. He has the champion comment because this s the real honest to goodness tactic of the "read herring." Like the practice of dragging a fish over the track of escaping people to cover the smell so the dogs can't track them. He's trying to divert the reader form the fact that they lied, or at least quoted inadequate statistics in an article that was not well researched.

This is the champion comment because its so classically fallacious. It goes back to the garden. Adam says "O you know the woman, the one YOU GAVE ME" it's really your fault God. I screwed up becuase you gave me the woman. So they are saying hey it's really the fault of Christians that we quote this badly researched Clarice because they lie all the time.

I point out hte diversionary nature of the comment then Whatshisface says

Originally Posted by Whatsisface

So your not interested in figures all of a sudden?

He's trying to reinforce the diversionary tactic.

their atheist guru weighs in

Originally Posted by HRG

"Truth" is not a synonym for "those propositions that Metacrock wants to be true". Atheists on this board do care about truth; they differ from you about what is true.

Meta:

 they care so much that when you point out their bad research arhter than owning up to it they make every classic excuse in the book form "you are one too," to "you just don't know how to reserach" but not one of them said "Ok we made a mistake it's not that big a deal." had they said that I would have to agree.

I kept classifying it all "propaganda" which it clearly is, they are trying manipulate info to persuade. A person whose positon I am sure of weahter atheis or something else or Christian i do not know, said this:

Originally Posted by EnochP

"Propaganda" originally meant propagation of an idea, ideology, thought or meme. It did not carry the modern sense of necessarily having the intent to mislead or deceive. However, an evolutionary perspective on communication does carry the sense of intent to influence or control. One of the most ignorant utterances I have ever seen on the subject came from Diane in that rabid, insane CARM SEP forum, to the effect that there is no such thing as right-wing (misleading) propaganda. Martin Bormann is the patron saint of it.

 Meta

Interesting. 

I think a lot of atheists are good people who have good beliefs, such as Hans. I agree with Han's politics. But they don't realize the are feeding into a totalitarianism. they are. modern "new" atheism is one of the chilling totalitarian moments I've ever researched.


As I pointed out already, had they just said "Ok this was a mistake, I took the article at face value when I should have researched it more" I would have said "Ok no big deal and left it in the other thread. They just can't admit they are wrong about anything. Look at the idiotic lengths to which they go just avlid saying "I was wrong" one single time.