I have kind of lost interest in this board

That's what I said.

What are the other examples of what you claimed?

Why not go through the entire forum & check them for yourself. I'm not about to go through every damn topic thread that has barely anything to do with religion.

   Atheism had been growing in response to the gradual realization that educational systems were at last leaning toward recognizing intelligent design.  That is something long overdue.  Atheism was trying to fight back.  In Kitzmiller v. Dover it was the school system that took the side of intelligent design, if however not correctly.  That is important to note.  It had to happen eventually.  In the past it had been the school systems that took the side of "evolution," if however not correctly either.  So in 2007 the "school system" took the side of intelligent design and lost the court case.  I put "school system" in parentheses because it was obviously not a qualified presentation of the latest arguments, rather the artificially forced repetition of mistaken "creationism" arguments used during the Scopes trial.

   Atheists had been and continued "coming out," forming "clubs," holding public meetings and rallies such as not seen in the past.  That peaked in 2012 at a March 24 rally on the National Mall in Washington D.C. with a very large crowd, a giant television screen, musical guests, and famous comedians.  Another rally was held in 2016 at the Lincoln Memorial with considerable less fanfare.

   Meanwhile the old IMDB board was jumping with atheists who of course did not have to "come out" publicly with their atheism.  This board has their dwindling remnants.

   The obvious problem with maintaining the enthusiasm of atheists after 2012 is that atheism develops away from society by people inadequately socialized, with poor reading skills, and a severely pedestrian world view.  After leaving their "mother's basement" and holding more public meetings quite many atheists probably noticed that they were not the great scholars they had imagined themselves to be.

   In 2012 I was a journalist at Examiner.com and made the two hour drive to D.C. to attend the rally and report on it.  I was rather dismissive in tone in my article.  One sentence that cut to the chase was, "The funnier question more widely asked and likely on many minds attending was about the difference between an atheist, an anarchist, a nihilist and a typical child of thirteen."  I'm sure that upset some people, but they could not bring themselves to mention it.  That might have helped some people begin thinking about things in earnest for the first time in their lives.  I did meet more intelligent atheists at the rally and I have mentioned here how they were interested in developing a set of "commandments" like the theist sets, but without the requirement of believing in a "god."  I wrote later articles with their cooperation.

   For the most part though atheism really is the product of inadequately socialized individuals with poor reading skills and a severely pedestrian world view.  That of course continued to flourish on these virtually anonymous computer discussion boards.  No, they are not good at any science.  No, they are not logical.  No, they cannot make a sensible argument.  What they cannot win by argument they take by making up silly "rules" they imagine award them anything.  They very much believe they can argue though, or at least they did.

   This board is dying because they were its main draw and they are being defeated.

  

   

  

lowtacks86 said:  [full text here]

1.    I already went over how the wording of polls can dramatically influence the result with others here and their polls.  I have no dispute with the poll you listed though.  I did not say that Kitzmiller V. Dover began the rise in atheism.  I said it peaked only five years later because people "came out" as atheists. Atheists were successful against the school system in that case because their numbers had been rising for decades before.
2.    Uh, no.
3.    Once upon a time atheists cited polling data that suggested "religious" people were less well educated and earned less income. I showed that was only true if you count "Christians" as "religious." Christians are however not at all typical of religious people and some "Christians" are more atheist than declared atheists. If you separate people by denomination Christians (most kinds) and atheists are less well educated and earn less income then Hindus, Jews, and until recently Muslims.  Because so many "newbies" are turning to Islam, that group as slipped down to tie with some Christian and atheist groups.  It was narrowly above them before.  Those private schools are turning out top scientists, deal with it.
   

"Atheism had been growing in response to the gradual realization that educational systems were at last leaning toward recognizing intelligent design."

Uh no, atheism/irreligiosity has been increasing for several decades, long before Kitzmiller v. Dover:



"Atheists had been and continued "coming out," forming "clubs," holding public meetings and rallies such as not seen in the past. That peaked in 2012 at a March 24 rally on the National Mall in Washington D.C. with a very large crowd, a giant television screen, musical guests, and famous comedians. Another rally was held in 2016 at the Lincoln Memorial with considerable less fanfare."

So you're standards for engaging for how "atheistic" society is comparing a couple of rallies rather than polling data and statistics? 

"The obvious problem with maintaining the enthusiasm of atheists after 2012 is that atheism develops away from society by people inadequately socialized, with poor reading skills, and a severely pedestrian world view"

What data do you actually have for this? 

"No, they are not good at any science. No, they are not logical. No, they cannot make a sensible argument."

Then why are so many scientists, professors, and academics atheist/nonreligious?


"This board is dying because they were its main draw and they are being defeated."

Uh no, this board is dying because it has no where near the same traffic as IMDB did, so it's much more difficult to get new members.

   1.  Your chart only goes to 2010 

   2.  Uh, no. 

   3.  That would be so much more meaningful if atheists made much money.  Also where is your data that immigrants are wealthy?  Why would people established in their own country want to uproot?