Secular Web

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Secular Web website is a website run by Internet Infidels and its stated aim is to promote Metaphysical Naturalism.[1]

Christian apologist JP Holding has written concerning the Secular Web: "The Secular Web has a few intelligent people, but overall has long been a haven for every skeptical know-it-all to pronounce judgments upon matters outside of their expertise."[2] In addition, Holding has indicated that the quality of internet content produced by the Secular Web has gone down since the 1990s.[3]

The decline in the quality of material at Internet Infidels has been concurrent with the rise of theists in academia within philosophy departments (see: Atheism and academia). In 1990, the atheist philosopher Michael Martin indicated there was a general absence of an atheistic response to contemporary work in the philosophy of religion and in jest he indicated that it was his "cross to bear" to respond to theistic arguments (see: Atheist apologetics).[4] In 1994, Michael Martin was criticized for his eleventh hour cancellation of his debate with Greg Bahnsen (see: Greg Bahnsen and debate).

On the whole, the misguided efforts to promote atheism/agnosticism not been very effective on the internet (see also: Ineffectiveness of atheist internet outreach).[5] On the other hand, Christian internet evangelism has been very effective.[6][7]

Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism/agnosticism have no proof and evidence supporting their ideologies.[8]

Secular Web's significant drop in web traffic

See also: Internet atheism and Growth of global desecularization
From January 2015 to December 2019, the Secular Web saw a steep loss of Google referral traffic according to the online visibility and marketing analytics company SEMrush (Google traffic is commonly called organic traffic by web marketing professionals).

According to Google, "To give you the most useful information, Search algorithms look at many factors, including the words of your query, relevance and usability of pages, expertise of sources... To help ensure Search algorithms meet high standards of relevance and quality, we have a rigorous process that involves both live tests and thousands of trained external Search Quality Raters from around the world."[9]

2019: Secular Web's drop in global market share

The Secular Web experienced a large drop in its global market from November 29, 2019 to December 29, 2019 according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa. Specifically, the Secular Web went from being the 315,077th most popular website in the world to being the 577,111th most popular website during this period according to Alexa.

Secular Web's previous drop in web traffic and global market share

According to the web traffic tracking company Quantcast, the Secular Web lost a significant amount of web traffic from the period of 6/2/07 to 7/30/11.[10]

According to Alexa, the Secular Web experienced a drop in online global market share in 2017 and 2018.[11][12]

On August 19, 2019, Alexa ranked the Secular Web the 285,436th most popular website in the world in web traffic and it was dropping in global market share at the time.

JP Holding's rebuttal to Secular Web contributors

The Christian apologist JP Holding has written rebuttals of lesser-known members of the secular community who publish and/or are featured on the Secular Web such as:

Dissension at Internet Infidels forum. Forum discontinued

See also: Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans and Pharyngula

In 2007, the Internet Infidels forum had a significant amount of internal dissension which caused some forum members to depart.[21] See also: Atheism and social skills and Atheist factions

The Internet Infidels Discussion Board became the Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board (FRDB), but now the discussion board is no longer on the internet.

The atheist/evolutionist PZ Myers was a moderator of its Evolution/Creation forum, but he resigned in 2004. Generally speaking, evolutionists do poorly in debates (see: Creation vs. evolution debates).

See also

External links

References