The Experiment on 100 Professed Atheists

[CFLarsen]

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?

Not good, I'm afraid.

There is a difference between unverified and not real.

Mayday's story was unverified, but that doesn't mean it can't be real. If she provides references, then we can verify it.

 

[Kochanski]

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.

And yet you come here posting a story that has all the hallmarks of an Urban Legend. You did not even do a search to see if there is anything to verify the story, you just posted it as something your friend said. Then you seem to get great glee out of the responses that people post and seem to take great joy in getting them. That does not sound very kind. That sounds like the actions of someone who has not grown up at all. That sounds like the actions of an obvious troll.

What Mayday needs is a little sunlight for a bit so we won't have to take time away from serious notions as she gets a little troll time out

 

[The Atheist]

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?

About 100% spot on. Obvious.

Had there even been a whiff of something like this ever happening, it would be #1 in Google.

Clearly rubbish, give yourself a tick for not wasting time on it.

And welcome along - you'll be right at home here.

 

[The Atheist]

There is a difference between unverified and not real.

Classic!

As I was making breakfast and copying your pages, that post 2 back took me about an hour between starting and posting, so you made this comment while I was actually writing my previous one.

Are you sure you're not psychic?

 

[Damien Evans]

They only work on people with a conscience.

 

[pipelineaudio]

crazy, Im gonna have to take clause off of ignore

There's been a real anti-educational and anti-skeptical shift among so many of the graduate posters lately, and instead of it being confined to the political forum where it sort of makes sense its infecting the whole board

sad

I know nothing lasts forever, but I'll be sorry for the integrity of this particular board, a REAL light in the darkness, to go out.

 

[fuelair]

What does Mother Theresa have to do with Peter Ripoff???

After her death, it was found (in her writings IIRC)that she had long questioned the existence of Dog - making her somewhat hypocritical. Peter Poptart is, of course, pegging the meter on that one but there is a relationship.

 

[juniper_ann]

I don't know where she heard this, but I would guess some cheesy sermon from some dorky pastor who made it up to awe people.

I think it's so humorous to watch people get their undies in a wad, though. You all start rolling around like the snake I pepper sprayed that got in my laundry room.

I would support you killing a snake that was in your territory, but torturing it and laughing at its agony is disgusting.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I would support you killing a snake that was in your territory,

Why?

Just as righteous to kill the person in the snake's territory. Its not the snake's fault that stupid people have more kids than the environment can support

 

[Damien Evans]

Classic!

As I was making breakfast and copying your pages, that post 2 back took me about an hour between starting and posting, so you made this comment while I was actually writing my previous one.

Are you sure you're not psychic?

oh I certainly hope not...

 

[fuelair]

I would support you killing a snake that was in your territory, but torturing it and laughing at its agony is disgusting.

Actually, she did not kill it - she said it got away.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nonsense. She brought up polygraphs, so the question is relevant.

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

Claus, that would be like saying a discussion about Hilary Clinton can drift into a discussion about make up because she wears make up.

The discussion is about a woo claim, a snopes level urban myth, it isn't about the reliability of polygraphs.

As Cardelitre says, the relevance of the polygraphs wouldn't come into the discussion unless myth were real. If the discussion turned to the event actually occurring, then you could discuss the fact that the reason for the polygraph answers wasn't the ignorant conclusion theists were drawing from it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, that would be like saying a discussion about Hilary Clinton can drift into a discussion about make up because she wears make up.

The discussion is about a woo claim, a snopes level urban myth, it isn't about the reliability of polygraphs.

How can you address the woo claim, unless you accept the validity of polygraphs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.



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?

See my last post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do you say the story is obviously not real?

Because it has all the hallmarks of an urban myth.

There is no source of the story.
The story draws a false conclusion - even if true, the answers given and the polygraph results could have multiple reasons.

But the biggest one of all is the "no atheists in a fox hole" BS. What would you say if I reversed your story and said the 100 theists failed the polyg. when they answered yes to the question, "do you believe in god?" So they must not really believe in god.

Is that not obviously bull?

It is absurd to think professed atheists really believe in gods. Get over yourself.

 

[Tumblehome]

Get a load of this: I'M AN ATHEIST.

I claim to be an atheist but I would be lying if I said I feel strongly there is no god.

LOL. Then you aren't an atheist. Your deceptions are catching up to you.

And I repeat: you feigned surprise at a reaction you sought to elicit. Just like grade school children who never grow up.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because it has all the hallmarks of an urban myth.

There is no source of the story.
The story draws a false conclusion - even if true, the answers given and the polygraph results could have multiple reasons.

Urban myths are not necessarily not real.

Rocks falling from the sky was once an urban myth. Today, we call it meteorites.

But the biggest one of all is the "no atheists in a fox hole" BS. What would you say if I reversed your story and said the 100 theists failed the polyg. when they answered yes to the question, "do you believe in god?" So they must not really believe in god.

Is that not obviously bull?

It is absurd to think professed atheists really believe in gods. Get over yourself.

Why? Because polygraphs don't work?

 

[Tumblehome]

Is it? Can you please tell me what it makes you suspect of me? In specific?

Oops, I was talking to mayday. I should have quoted her post. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

That link was so like the OP and it seems to have been lost in the polygraph and relevancy discussions.

Just to get back to it for those interested, from Fuelair's post #46

God and the lie detector test? atheists and theists alike welcome to answer?

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”.

I tried to find it on Snopes but there was no entry so I submitted it to them. I don't want to register to comment on the AskYahoo page but the answers that are there are typical 'believe in the lies for Jesus' comments.

Anyone know how long it takes Snopes to investigate these claims?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to dispense with the polygraph discussion, (though I doubt it will, perhaps if not the mods will see fit to split the thread), it doesn't matter if the polygraph is not good enough for court, because the majority of the answers would be correctly determined. Therefore the claim ALL 100 atheists were lying or all the atheists in the above story were lying and really believe in gods would not be entirely discredited on the basis of the polygraph reliability alone.


Here's a very thorough evaluation of polygraph testing. THE POLYGRAPH AND LIE DETECTION; Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph; Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; and Committee on National Statistics; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES and on this page is a graph of results showing

FIGURE 5-1 Sensitivity and false positive rates in 52 laboratory datasets on polygraph validity.

NOTES: Points connected by lines come from the same dataset. The two curves are symmetrical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with accuracy index (A) values of 0.81 and 0.91.

involving naïve examinees untrained in countermeasures: for such examinees and test contexts, the polygraph has an accuracy greater than chance. Random variation and biases in study design are highly implausible explanations for these results, and no formal integrative hypothesis test seems necessary to demonstrate this point.

Second, with few exceptions, the points fall well below the upper left-hand corner of the figure indicative of perfect accuracy. No formal hypothesis test is needed or appropriate to demonstrate that errors are not infrequent in polygraph testing.

The entire report is available at the link.