Should OnlySky Change It’s Name?

I’ve looked in on the new atheist site, “OnlySky,” several times since they launched. And maybe it’s just me, but the large, elaborate, site looks like a big snooze. For example, the front page, which highlights certain articles, changes very slowly, such that postings from 3,4, or more days ago are featured. And the combined total of comments from all articles often doesn’t exceed 100. In fact, the typical article gets about ten comments. And if you look in on ol’ Hemant, he’s no longer posting 4 or 5 entries a day and his postings no longer draw anywhere near 300 to 400 comments (like the good ol’ days). Let’s face it, that web site has the feel of an Atheist Assisted Living Community.

I would propose a name change for their web site. Here are someone possibilities:




This entry was posted in atheism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Should OnlySky Change It’s Name?

  1. Dhay says:

    > if you look in on ol’ Hemant, he’s no longer posting 4 or 5 entries a day and his postings no longer draw anywhere near 300 to 400 comments (like the good ol’ days).

    I took a look at the four weeks of February 2022: February because it’s four weeks exactly, so no distortion because of weekends; February to allow Mehta time to have settled in to a pattern and for each post’s comments to have reached a likely final total.

    In those twenty eight days Mehta made but twenty six posts:
    three posts per day x one of,
    two posts per day x six of,
    one post per day x eleven of
    zero posts per day x ten of.

    That’s an average of less than one post a day; Mehta made no posts at all on over a third (36%) of the days.

    Interest level:
    the highest number of comments was 237;
    the average number of comments was 102

    For Mehta and his blog that’s semi-retirement.

  2. Dhay says:

    I’ll put this in this OnlySky themed thread for lack of a more obvious place:–

    The UNHCR webste tells me:

    Refugees fleeing Ukraine (since 24 February 2022) JSON
    Last updated 18 Mar 2022

    In the first week, more than a million refugees from Ukraine crossed borders into neighbouring countries, and many more are on the move both inside and outside the country. They are in need of protection and support. As the situation continues to unfold, an estimated 4 million people may flee Ukraine.

    In his 18 March 2022 “The price of war: Ukrainian refugees get aid from The Satanic Temple” the The Satanic Temple satanist and OnlySky blogger Jack Matirko proudly reveals that the TST has not helped “refugees”, plural it has helped precisely one – one – Ukrainian refugee:

    Lucien Greaves @LucienGreaves
    We’re working hard to figure out how to handle this. We want to be transparent, but we only have our general donation link now to go toward offsetting the cost. We’ve only gotten one member out so far, but it certainly hasn’t been cheap, and we are still paying accommodations.
    1:42 AM · Mar 15, 2022
    [My emboldening – Dhay]

    Matirko starts by telling his readers:

    While it is taken for granted that larger religious organizations will be offering aid to members of their communities who need help, we rarely focus on the plights of members of severely marginalized religions, such as Satanism.

    Well, no, it is taken for granted that churches, Churches and denominations will offer humanitarian aid to all in need of it. That an Evangelical church, say, or Evangelical church organisation might offer aid only to Ukrainian evangelicals and refuse aid, or neglect to offer aid, to refugees (or those who cannot leave or choose not to, but are in need) who are Ukrainian Orthodox, that would be shocking indeed. It says something about Matirko and the TST that they apparently take such shocking behaviour for granted; and do it themselves.

    And it says something about Matirko and the TST that they proudly aid one fellow TST member only because she is a TST member.

  3. TFBW says:

    … the plights of members of severely marginalized religions, such as Satanism.

    Sure, join a cringe-fringe publicity-stunt pseudo-religion and then complain about how marginalised you are because nobody takes you seriously. Your wounds are self-inflicted.

  4. Dhay says:

    Perhaps it’s just me, but the font used on OnlySky in the quotes, particularly when it’s a mixture of emboldened and unemboldened, seems both unpleasant to read and dated; the body text doesn’t look wonderful, either, though it doesn’t jar quite so much; but isn’t OnlySky supposed to be a brand new up-to-date site using the latest and best styles!

    If it’s just me, that’s my problem. If it’s not just me it’s OnlySky’s problem.

  5. Dhay says:

    On Onlysky, Hemant Mehta’s 09 April 2022 “An Arkansas official bragged about injecting Christian prayers at meetings” quotes the official:

    …she also spread the lie that “the Democrat party [has] completely eliminated the word ‘God’ from their platform.” (You can read the platform here [Link]. It has the word “God.”)

    Mehta’s counter-claim is worth checking, because he is the type to complain bitterly about including “God” in a Democratic Party platform; but there’s not a peep, he’s not offended; so why is it he isn’t he offended? It’s because the word is in:

    Democrats remain committed to ending poverty and enabling all Americans to live up to their God-given potential. We recognize that the official poverty rate…

    There we have it, the one and only occurrence of the word “God” there is as part of the compound word, “God-given” in “God-given potential”; which is a throw-away nothing of a phrase, a phrase that could be changed without change of meaning to the secular “natal potential” or even — channeling Jerry Coyne — to the New Atheist “genes-and-environment-given potential.”

    That is, the Arkansas official was wrong to claim “God” isn’t in the Democrats’ platform, Mehta wrong to claim it is. (That whole section of the platform is relentlessly about poverty, poverty poverty and remedies for poverty. One could channel Shakespeare and say that in the Democrats’ platform, God is damned by faint allusion.)


    I’d say the Democrats’ PR dept. was responsible for “God-given potential”: as a reassurance to the religious, insert the word in the platform, somewhere, even if only once; as a gesture to unreligious and anti-religious, do so in a way that’s anodyne and essentially meaningless, and only once.


    I was surprised to find “God-given potential” in a Democratic Party platform at all. Those of us in countries with a long history know that the phrase and the thinking behind it can be used — and have been — to support ‘the divine right of kings’, and at lower social levels, the notion that each person was ‘born into their station in life’ by God’s will and should therefore ‘keep to their station.’ How very un-American.

  6. Dhay says:

    I was interested to find Sami Al-Asady’s 01 August 2022 “Less grey, less white: How to reach younger, more diverse seculars” OnlySky post made the claim that:

    Although 66 percent of Gen Zers are religiously unaffiliated [Link], just 9 percent identify as atheist.

    I don’t suppose that 9% figure will give much comfort to those eager for 100%, but it’s the claim that 66% are religiously unaffiliated that startled me and got my interest. 66%? Really? Well, no.

    I followed Al-Asady’s link to the information source, namely “Generation Z and the Future of Faith in America” by ‘Survey Center on American Life, a project of the American Enterprise Institute’, and found in Figure 1 there that he has the figure arse-backwards, it’s just 34% of Gen Zers who are religiously unaffiliated, the 66% figure quoted turns out to be the total of those who are religiously affiliated.

    Click to access Generation-Z-and-the-Future-of-Faith-in-America.pdf

    That Al-Asady has suffered a major failure of reading comprehension (and succumbed to Wishful Thinking bias?) is reinforced by the title: “Figure 1. More Than a Third of Gen Z Identifies as Religiously Unaffiliated”; which plainly does not say, “…nearly two-thirds…”

    The rest of his post follows the path of bewailing how atheists are not working together enough to achieve their social and political ends, and suggesting prioritising shared values over shared identity. It’s a familiar message delivered in a familiar way, and doesn’t stand out in it’s genre as especially good or bad by the genre’s standards; other than that “66%”, which is a clanger by any standards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.