• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Experiment on 100 Professed Atheists

You come across as being cruel just for pleausure. Pity for the snake. Rolling around in your wadded up undies....pepper spray must have been a relief.

You're so witty.

I'm not a cruel person at all. I feel bad for the snake in retrospect. I'm very kind, to a fault even. I just can't tolerate nastiness in people, and there are several here. Like grade school children, they never outgrow it.
 
You're so witty.

I'm not a cruel person at all. I feel bad for the snake in retrospect. I'm very kind, to a fault even. I just can't tolerate nastiness in people, and there are several here. Like grade school children, they never outgrow it.

You're wrong about that . When I was young, I frequently nailed puppies and kittens to our coffee table in an attempt to emulate Dinsdale Piranha . But I got better.
 
I took a polygraph once and got a lie hit when I answered "yes" to "do you live in Texas."

If I took a this supposed test they'd probably conclude I thought I was God.
 
Last edited:
Oh, ha ha, you remembered! I still remember that little devil. No, the snake that got in my laundry room was much bigger, a full grown one. My little daughter was going through a period of telling big stories (you know how some little kids will do, she would say her big brother was running around the yard with no underwear because she thought the idea was funny and wanted to laugh, or she would tell us a man was walking down the road when there was no one just so she could see my paranoid husband jump up and start throwing a fit to know who it was) I was sitting at the computer when she came and said there was a snake at the door. Initially, I thought she was telling another story but something in her voice and that scared look told me I'd better get up and look. Sure enough, there was this snake about 3 ft long up near the ceiling around the doorframe.
EWWWWWW!!!
My husband (he may have left Brooklyn, NY but Brooklyn will never leave him) was freaking out and it was so big he didn't want to squish it so I got the pepper spray (same can I used on him, ha!...it's a long story) and went in there and this time the snake was on top of the metal utility cabinet. I stood back and sprayed and saw it coiling up and flopping around. I thought about shooting it but didn't want messy snake guts all over and holes in my wall. It didn't die (it was a she that apparently was in my laundry room to lay eggs because later we started finding baby snakes all around.
My husband is half blind but he actually did try to kill it with a shovel but it/she got away. I hope it won't be back. I am fairly sure it was just a chicken snake. I love nature and such but snakes need to stay away because I don't like them.

I do thank the ones who actually offered possible explanations about what my friend heard, they make a lot of sense. It is entirely possible it could be an urban legend and I can also see how a person could get an emotional response out of someone who is asked about something like that. I also wonder, if perhaps they were not just asked one question but a series of questions on the topic?

I know polygraphs are not admissible in court and are not all conclusive. But they do serve a purpose. I claim to be an atheist but I would be lying if I said I feel strongly there is no god. Truth is, I simply don't know.

I also don't think the negative connotations associated with the term atheist are fair. Atheist is not some dirty word but I have heard a lot of church people talk like it was. Even Joel Osteen welcomes atheists to his church. He kind of gets on my nerves but it is near impossible not to like him.

Still totally messed up.
 

I was talking to one of my friends, and he told me that he talked to a guy whose job it was to administer lie detector tests. The guy had to start out with some preliminary questions (What’s your name? How old are you? Etc), and because he was a Christian, thought a fun test one was “Do you believe in God.” Unbeknownst to the people being tested, the test always reacted to a “no” by saying that it was a lie, and confirmed a “yes”. My friend told me the guy put it this way: “It’s like on some level they did believe there was a God. They knew he was there but didn’t want to acknowledge it. Or they at least felt uncomfortable or unsure about that answer.”

It looks like you found the best possible answer to the OP so far.....

So its the old "friend of a friend" story written by someone on the Internet. The name Stephen Glass comes to mind (even though he actually wrote for a very well respected magazine).

One wonders if this were really true (and polygraph's really did what some people say they do), how Mother Theresa, Benny Hinn, or Peter Popoff would do.;)
 
Nonsense. She brought up polygraphs, so the question is relevant.

Why do you think we should work from the assumption that polygraphs work?

I have to agree with Clause on this one.

The "study" mentioned in the OP assumes that polygraphs can connote anything meaningful. Considering that courts don't allow them as evidence, I don't quite see if they would stand up to scientific rigorous standards in any way, shape, or form.

If anyone can demonstrate that they are valid through studies, that would go a short way towards giving any sort of credibility to their tests.

Though there's still that issue of a too-small study sample, and various other factors.

Cardelitre said:
In the first place, why should we work with the assumption that this story is real, when it is obviously not?

Excuse me, but is this not the "James Randi Educational Foundation"?

I would like to think that people would be able to learn things, such as, say, whether or not polygraphs work.

And how exactly is that off topic for a thread that states, from it's very premise, that a polygraph was used, even if the case is fictional? I don't see why explaining that polygraphs are not reliable is somehow OMG OFF TOPIC TERRITORY!

Perhaps you should explain your logic as to why the subject shouldn't even be discussed, whether or not the original story was fictional or not?
 
Last edited:
You were probably thinking "You call this living?" :D

:D What's even more interesting is the way the administrator addressed that response. Instead of asking me if I was to jittery to have a proper test, he asked if I didn't like living in Texas. I was 22 or 23 years old and had lived here for 6 or 7 years and would have done something about it at that point, but that possibility never entered his mind I suppose... after all, the machine said I was lying when I said I lived in Texas. :rolleyes:
---------

And this has been bugging me since I noticed the thread title, but what the hell is a "professing" atheist? For that matter, what the hell is an "avowed" atheist? Before any of you semantics Nazis jump me, I know what the words mean, but I'm asking why those appellations are used with such abandon by critics of atheism when atheists describe religious believers as "a Catholic" or "a Jainist" rather than add superfluous adjectives to their descriptive phrase? Of course I admit that "crazy fundy" and such are used to describe particular persons or actions, but why can't religionists just accept that some or most atheists aren't making any statements - or "professions" or "avowals" but simply are atheist?

Whatever my hypothetical God or no God polygraph results - see above about whether I live in Texas or not - I don't "profess" or "avow" atheism, I just am an atheist.
 
It looks like you found the best possible answer to the OP so far.....

So its the old "friend of a friend" story written by someone on the Internet. The name Stephen Glass comes to mind (even though he actually wrote for a very well respected magazine).

One wonders if this were really true (and polygraph's really did what some people say they do), how Mother Theresa, Benny Hinn, or Peter Popoff would do.;)



What does Mother Theresa have to do with Peter Ripoff???
 
UnrepentantSinner;3287026 And this has been bugging me since I noticed the thread title said:
Oh lard, what is the big deal? I was trying to make a point. Whatever you believe in is "professed." People are so uptight nowadays. I mentioned on another forum I felt bad for this "oriental" guy. Some ding-dong came on and accused me of using a racist tem. Thank goodness someone had the wits about them to correct this, but it just illustrates the mindset of people.
 
Oh lard, what is the big deal? I was trying to make a point. Whatever you believe in is "professed." People are so uptight nowadays. I mentioned on another forum I felt bad for this "oriental" guy. Some ding-dong came on and accused me of using a racist tem. Thank goodness someone had the wits about them to correct this, but it just illustrates the mindset of people.

You're not a racist anymore?

You are not convinced anymore that the whiter a person is, the better looking he or she is?

That, as a rule, "ethnic people" are not much to look at?

That races do not mix well?

And so on...
 
What I find interesting is that this "100 professed atheists" myth is considered somehow meaningful to those who parrot it. Even if polygraph tests were reliable, what would the results mean? That atheists are all secretly Christians but don't want to admit it? As Kiosk pointed out, that makes no sense. They'd be knowingly committing themselves to hell. That atheists don't have courage in their convictions? I'd love to know how theists would respond to the same hypothetical test, for comparison. But that obviously didn't occur to Rev Moody.
 
Why do you say the story is obviously not real?

Because it was heard third-hand, with no source, from a clearly biased individual, and it is impossible to find any trace of this study published anywhere on the web. It's obvious. It isn't certain, but it is obvious.

If you wish to refute this, please feel free to come up with some substantiation.

First post, btw. How did I do?
 

Back
Top Bottom