Will The Internet Kill Religion?

[Chas]

If an atheist site has even a smidgen of credibility, it is way ahead of any fundie site - they have none whatsoever, they are simply laughable.

That smidgen of credibility might be a curse...if a website 10% right, it could be worse than being 100% wrong in terms of what is posted online.

You don't seem to understand rhetorical devices. That was a bit of hyperbolic irony.

The scientific knowledge, honesty, and adherence to rationality present on atheist forums is quite remarkable.

There is very little, if any, on fundie sites. They are truly risible.

[Polaris]

That smidgen of credibility might be a curse...if a website 10% right, it could be worse than being 100% wrong in terms of what is posted online.

You don't seem to understand rhetorical devices. That was a bit of hyperbolic irony.

The scientific knowledge, honesty, and adherence to rationality present on atheist forums is quite remarkable.

There is very little, if any, on fundie sites. They are truly risible.

You and I must have a much different definition of "quite remarkable."

The purpose of a rhetorical device is to persuade or impress. Your statement did not accomplish either.

[Senshi]

You don't seem to understand rhetorical devices. That was a bit of hyperbolic irony.

The scientific knowledge, honesty, and adherence to rationality present on atheist forums is quite remarkable.

There is very little, if any, on fundie sites. They are truly risible.

You and I must have a much different definition of "quite remarkable."

The purpose of a rhetorical device is to persuade or impress. Your statement did not accomplish either.

You and I must have a much different definition of "quite remarkable."

Just because it doesn't suit your beliefs that doesn't mean it's not remarkable.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You don't seem to understand rhetorical devices. That was a bit of hyperbolic irony.

The scientific knowledge, honesty, and adherence to rationality present on atheist forums is quite remarkable.

There is very little, if any, on fundie sites. They are truly risible.

You and I must have a much different definition of "quite remarkable."

The purpose of a rhetorical device is to persuade or impress. Your statement did not accomplish either.

Probably because you don't like anything that doesn't reinforce your biases.

[Polaris]

My beliefs and biases (if you could call a bias towards facts as a bias) in such regards are those that have academic merit. If you find value in that which does not meet academic criteria, you might as well be watching Ancient Aliens, because that's pretty much the level of credibility of their claims.

[KichigaiNeko]

"Will the internet kill religion?"

I think it already has. We are just quibbling on where to bury the bodies.

[Coffee Jesus]

It could be something very subtle.

Do you all know the experiment in which "analytical" ability (measured by the Cognitive Reflection Task, CRT) was linked to religious disbelief?
First, CRT scores were correlated with disblief. In the experiment, the experimental groups that had increased CRT scores also had increased disbelief. One experimental group was given the CRT questions in hard-to-read font. They got the idea from previous research that connected hard-to-read font with improved analytical abilities.

That study looked at hard vs easy font, but I wonder about reading vs talking.

[psychoslice]

I don't think the net will kill religion, but I do feel it will enlightened it, that is if they are brave enough to search the knowledge that goes against their treasured beliefs.

[Tonus]

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.

[RobbyPants]

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.

Agreed. If several atheist sites came off as too abrasive (or whatever), then the future atheists might just call themselves "agnostics" to distance themselves from the term. Either way, they're still not believing in God.