User:Former editor/Stop lying, Ken

Actual red telephone
Since Ken's on the line, hi Ken: stop lying. You continue claiming 2013 is the WORST year for "Darwinism," but honestly, do you even think about the kind of evidence you're relying on? Let's look at your "5 reasons why. ..." As a caveat, when people read more than a few of your posts, they realize these numbers you're coming up with are completely arbitrary and they become totally ineffective. I'd be turned off if I was the least bit sympathetic to your insane message. So nothing you've said means what you say it does, to the extent you're even telling the truth. Ta ta, 19:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Atheism lost global market share in 2013.See: Global Study: Atheists in Decline, Only 1.8% of World Population by 2020 The Gordon Cronwell study is flawed, but putting that aside, this doesn't mean what you say it does. The vast majority of Western countries are experiencing explosive growth in non-religion and open atheism. Same for G7. These countries vastly outpace developing countries, which you claim are experiencing growth in christianity and decline in atheism, in education. India's decline in atheism doesn't look statistically significant by the measures I'm looking at, but in any event it's rapidly joining the West in improving its infrastructure and educational system. Who really knows how things will shake out in the next few years. It's probably true that China has declining atheism, but open atheism and non-religion outrank christianity by more than 5 times and any projections are going to be based on assumptions that may not bear out. I don't know about these projections. But even so, developing countries have poor education systems, so the question put to you is plain as day: how does the rise of religion among people who aren't educated in science and likely don't even know what the theory of evolution is affect "Darwinism," which is not synonymous with atheism; and what does it say about the truth value of a single one of your religion claims? Answer: it doesn't, and nothing.
 * People did a declining number of Google searches for theism in 2013. See: Google searches go down for atheism in 2013 No, they didn't. Numbers are relatively stable over the years. Learn to read a graph.
 * The prominent atheist PZ Myers declared in 2013 that he quit the skeptical movement. So what? I doubt he's so prominent away from a minority of atheists who follow him on the Internet. Others may disagree. I'm willing to be my left nut that only a minuscule percentage of American's who identify as "nones" or atheists" know this about PZ Myers or care what his opinion is. You've got no basis in fact for claiming a professor at a second rate state school in a town of 5500 people in rural Minnesota will have the least effect on this "history of Darwinism and atheism." I question whether most "nones" and atheists even know who he is since his only published book came out in August of this year.
 * Creation Ministries International saw its highest web traffic in 2013. Assuming it's even true, so what? This doesn't say anything about the truth value of any religious claims you or they make. In any event, CMI's traffic may be increasing, however it reaches only the Western (and at best G7) world, where its efforts are in vain. All their deceitful spin misrepresenting science does nothing but turn off good faith christians who are genuinely struggling with having been raised in a fantasy world whose god advocates hatred, self-serving and capricious "morality," rape, sex slavery, murder, child abuse, and genocide. He would be a war criminal if he existed.
 * Richard Dawkins who flip-flops between being an atheist and agnostic in his public statements, is now hated by many in the atheist/agnostic community and his website traffic further plunged in 2013 after taking a steep dive in 2012 as can be seen below. ... "Many" is your own good idea, as is how you define the "atheist/agnostic community." What you call flip flopping is him variously describing himself according to strict definitions as an agnostic because he cannot disprove the existence of a god, though inductively he hasn't seen any evidence there are any and so is not only prepared to say that he has no belief in any gods, but that he's fairly sure there are none (I think he said 7 out of a scale of 8). You can rely on the Stanford definition of atheism to continue misrepresenting good faith uses of the word atheism, but you're being as dishonest as the day is long by ignoring what the man says about himself, which is in line with Bertrand Russell's approach. In any event, as with Myers, Dawkins doesn't reach the developing world to any great degree, so his influence is actually on the rise as his book sales increase. Additionally, this has nothing to do with the truth value of any religious claims, and doesn't reflect the reality that the Four Horseman are actually credited with increasing people's confidence in calling themselves atheists and agnostics.