(April 14, 2014 at 8:15 pm)Polaris Wrote: Many atheist websites (at least the ones in English) are just as bad as the Fundie sites regarding their academic credibility. It's become a tit for tat game between both groups on how much damage they can do to themselves.I think that where discussion groups and comment sections are concerned, that's probably true. Although the damage that a theist does it likely to harm a particular god or religion, whereas the damage that an atheist does would not necessarily lead a person towards a god or religion, as much as it would lead them to avoid that particular atheist or atheist site.
Aside from that, I guess there are opinion sites, which are a step up from discussion groups in that they are more focused and the writers have a greater stake in their reputations, which forces them to make a reasonable defense of their opinions or stand to lose readers.
I don't think there's much academic credibility in any such sites, since members are rarely required to establish their bonafides. The difference is more likely to be in which information sources they reference most often; an atheist is likely to lean towards academic research (or at least, feel more comfortable doing so) whereas we get a lot of theists who turn to religious sites for their "academic" information.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould