Essay:Ken Wars: A New Hope

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by Oxyaena.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

Ken, you resorted to the tactic of the Gish gallop in your response to me, citing a bunch of irrelevant bullshit about foreign countries and so-called "atheist birth rates," as if somehow there's a genetic factor related to being atheist. You also cited a poll claiming atheists to only make up 4.1% of the United States population, but as usual you are cherry picking the data, leaving out most relevant context that inconveniences your agenda. While atheists and agnostics make up only 2-4% of America's population, the portion of religiously unaffiliated people here in the States is higher, much higher, at a whopping 23% of the population (when rounded up, the actual percentage is 22.3% of the US population).[1] By your definition of "atheist", a fifth of America's population is atheist. How do you plead?

Covering your non sequitur about China, why is it that a vast majority of China's population still identifies as atheist?[2] See, here's the thing, people in East Asia often don't believe in deities or the like but still practice their local religions, it is possible to be a religious atheist, hence why someone can still be a Buddhist and still be an atheist. Interesting how fascinating the world really is when you just open your eyes and ears to reason for once, Ken? I know, truly breath-taking.

Furthermore, Ken, I should let you know that up to 80% of the US population acknowledges evolution as the sole valid explanation for biodiversity, a vast majority of them believers in theistic evolution, something you dogmatically, and blindly, insist does not truly exist.[3] If what you wrote was true, this would not be happening, and yet once again we see the reality of the matter differs entirely from the asinine bullshit you spew out on a daily basis. Make sure to address this in your follow up essay, Ken, I doubt you'll come up with anything truly earthshaking in response.

Ken's central "question", and how it falls flat on its face[edit]

I am going to repeat my original challenge with some bolding for emphasis "I am assuming you believe this could happen: Given the much higher birth rates of Christian fundamentalists and the adherents of other fundamentalist Abrahamic religions, the sub-replacement level of fertility of atheists and the fact the secularization rates of France and Protestant Europe are now zero, that given enough time, atheists could be a very much smaller portion of the global population and the religious could inherit the earth. In addition, could feminist atheism, which your wiki promotes, help cause this to happen?"

So could this happen given enough time? Is is possible? If not, why not? At least in my estimation, you dodged this central question.[4]

Well, Ken, if I were to stick to the exact wording it is possible your pipe-dream scenario could happen, but unlikely. I think it's easy to see that the last question in your original "challenge" is a loaded question, and I see no valid reason to rebut this other than to ask what you mean by "feminist atheism?" Feminism and atheism are two completely different schools of thought.[notes 1] Do you mean progressive secular humanism? Then yes, this wiki does promote that, but secular humanism has hardly anything to do with an increase in the numbers of religious people in the world. As you yourself noted, that primarily lies with rising birth rates of religious people, mostly Muslims[5], not Christians, once again your God abandons you in your time of need, why is that?

It's worth pointing out that you're committing the logical fallacies of the confusion of the inverse and the escape to the future varieties, try not to be as sloppy in formulating your arguments next time, Ken, you're only making yourself look like an even bigger fool than you already are. Also, Ken, as for your "point" about secularization and fundamentalism being a reaction to it, so what? Those "nones" aren't going away now anytime soon now, are they? In fact it should tell you something about fundamentalism that people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with it. Will you open your eyes and uncover your ears to the light of reason, or would you rather us move back to the Dark Ages of old? Whichever answer you choose would speak loads about you, Ken, choose wisely.

Notes[edit]

  1. Atheism is hardly a school of thought, it's as much of a school of thought as non-stamp collecting is a hobby, since all atheism requires is a lack of belief in a god

References[edit]