The Experiment on 100 Professed Atheists

[Czarcasm]

Yes! I love the way that was put. It is entirely true. I think a lot of the people responding to this just can't see the forest for the trees.

Now that you know that this story does not and cannot have any basis in fact, will you now go back and tell your friend so that she might stop spreading another nasty rumor about atheists?

 

[The Atheist]

This myth is going to continue to be passed from believer to believer and used as ammunition when confronting an atheist. Since the myth confirms what the believers already believe, they have no reason to verify the facts. However, when an atheist is hit with the myth, it will counter his beliefs and likely trigger a search for the source (as the OP and many in this thread have tried).

We can take advantage of this setup by providing a target to be found by the resulting searches.

Fortunately, that's now happened as a result of this very thread. People in future will be able to scoot in and realise that the OP is complete bunkum.

Edit: In fact, I'll even put it in in search fashion to ensure this gets hit.

100 atheists take polygraph test on their beliefs. This never happened - it is urban legend only and has no basis in fact whatsoever. (and polygraphs are, at best, unreliable)

That target should be the verifiable facts of a real study carried out as indicated in the myth but with the real results instead of something fabricated to please the believers. This will provide the atheist with a strong counterpoint to the myth and may cause the believer to at least question their own source when they get shot down so completely on something they accepted on faith.

Whereas that's just a terrible idea.

As Claus has been trying to say, inbetween Scud missiles, is that polygraphs are a joke and no self-respecting atheist would go near one for any type of survey. In this, I agree with him 100%.

What you're suggesting is that we use one form of pseudoscience to refute another. Not clever.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Even though they don't presently have an article on this claim, has anyone asked Snopes to look into this?

 

[JoeEllison]

Now that you know that this story does not and cannot have any basis in fact, will you now go back and tell your friend so that she might stop spreading another nasty rumor about atheists?

mayday doesn't have any friends. She's spreading this nonsense herself.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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.

Ah, so you are crazy, nevermind then. I'll just gloss over your future "contributions" to this forum.

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

I don't aver that there is no god. Would you say I'm not an atheist?

He often exhibits this level of hatred... I suspect he is the member most likely to be on most peoples' ignore list.

Whew, had my irony meter unplugged at home too...

Claus earned it.

Damien, I don't know the roots of your problems with Claus, but he's contributed a lot more to this forum and to organized skepticism than the people you've been rah rahing for when you've been replying to/commenting on him.

 

[The Atheist]

Even though they don't presently have an article on this claim, has anyone asked Snopes to look into this?

Yep, someone's on that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This myth is going to continue to be passed from believer to believer and used as ammunition when confronting an atheist. Since the myth confirms what the believers already believe, they have no reason to verify the facts. However, when an atheist is hit with the myth, it will counter his beliefs and likely trigger a search for the source (as the OP and many in this thread have tried).

We can take advantage of this setup by providing a target to be found by the resulting searches. That target should be the verifiable facts of a real study carried out as indicated in the myth but with the real results instead of something fabricated to please the believers. This will provide the atheist with a strong counterpoint to the myth and may cause the believer to at least question their own source when they get shot down so completely on something they accepted on faith.

I guess I don't see the need to counter a myth with a study in this case. Unless someone coughs up more evidence than I heard it from a friend who heard it from their cousin, why should anyone bother?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even though they don't presently have an article on this claim, has anyone asked Snopes to look into this?

Taken care of, but I don't know how long it takes them to make an entry of new urban myths.

 

[Lonewulf]

See my last post.

I did. I found it unconvincing.

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

I can totally see that. "Hey, did you hear about Hillary Clinton's latest speech?" 'Sure, but I hate the lipstick she wears.'

ENTIRELY COMPARABLE TO:

"Hey, did you hear that people X were interviewed with a polygraph?" 'Well, polygraphs aren't very reliable.'

Uh, yeah. Right. Pardon me if I just roll my eyes and continue on with my "OMG OFF TOPIC" discussion, m'kay?

It's certainly more on topic than all of this Clause vs. Atheist vs. UnrepentantSinner vs. Articulett BS that's floating around in the thread.

 

[Tumblehome]

I don't aver that there is no god. Would you say I'm not an atheist?

It's hard to say based on that comment alone, but that's not what mayday said...

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

Of course no one can say for certain there is no god, but surely an atheist has to at least "feel strongly" there isn't. Otherwise, he just ain't an atheist.

 

[Lonewulf]

Of course no one can say for certain there is no god, but surely an atheist has to at least "feel strongly" there isn't. Otherwise, he just ain't an atheist.

I took it as not 100% certain. If you've read Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and saw his scale of belief/disbelief, it's rather doubtful that any real atheist is at the 100% mark.

You may disbelieve enough to act like God (or gods) doesn't exist (and for all I know, Mayday does this), but that does not mean that you are saying that there is no chance that God (or gods) exists.

 

[godless dave]

It's true though, most atheists secretly believe in God. They just act like they don't, in order to rot in hell, rather than qualify for the afterlife of eternal bliss in God's infinite love which they all know actually exists.

I deny God for the premarital sex.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I took it as not 100% certain. If you've read Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and saw his scale of belief/disbelief, it's rather doubtful that any real atheist is at the 100% mark.

You may disbelieve enough to act like God (or gods) doesn't exist (and for all I know, Mayday does this), but that does not mean that you are saying that there is no chance that God (or gods) exists.

I am an atheist and I am at the 100% mark. How would you know what atheists think except for what they tell you?

I believe in following the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that god beliefs are made up by people.

The definition of a god you cannot test is a fake definition. I don't really believe there could be invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. The definition of a god you cannot test for is as likely as invisible pink unicorns. They are both simply fabricated concepts with ZERO I repeat ZERO evidence to start with other than people's imagination. I don't really believe there could be gods. It is absurd.

And I don't give a rat's arse what Dawkins does or does not believe. He speaks for himself.


Here, let me spell it out for you, there is no chance that God (or gods) exists. NONE. Zilch. It's a silly fantasy. It's as silly as thinking Zeus is up in the sky throwing lightning bolts at people.

 

[danielk]

Hm, I think we're in semantics territory now. I'd bet my ass that there's no god, but I don't claim to know there isn't one. So, while I admit I could be wrong, I'd be very much surprised if I am.

 

[Lonewulf]

I am an atheist and I am at the 100% mark. How would you know what atheists think except for what they tell you?

If I said "all atheists are...", then I retract that as I did not mean to say that in the first place. I do mean the majority.

However, the 100% mark doesn't quite seem so skeptical to me either.

By the way, how is this not off topic?

I believe in following the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that god beliefs are made up by people.

The definition of a god you cannot test is a fake definition. I don't really believe there could be invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. The definition of a god you cannot test for is as likely as invisible pink unicorns. They are both simply fabricated concepts with ZERO I repeat ZERO evidence to start with other than people's imagination. I don't really believe there could be gods. It is absurd.

And I don't give a rat's arse what Dawkins does or does not believe. He speaks for himself.


Here, let me spell it out for you, there is no chance that God (or gods) exists. NONE. Zilch. It's a silly fantasy. It's as silly as thinking Zeus is up in the sky throwing lightning bolts at people.

Dawkins was talking about he believed the majority of atheists thought. If you can provide evidence that the majority think the way you do, then you would have debunked his point.

Oh, and...

OFF TOPIC!

But it's okay if you can do it, right?

Nothing but hypocrisy and petty squabbles here. I'll give it a few more posts before I unsubscribe from this waste of bandwidth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are claiming the OP is likely true because you don't believe atheists can say no on a lie detector to the question of whether or not they know gods do not exist. That is directly related to the OP.

The validity of lie detectors only goes to the OP AFTER it is established that the claim is true. It is not the subject at hand. I can't help it if you and Claus don't get that logic. I believe other people did.

If we got into a discussion on the validity of lie detectors, would we be in a discussion about the claim no one really believes gods are myths? That is what the OP's urban myth claims. It claims everyone is really a theist underneath.

 

[megaresp]

...a study done on 100 people who claimed to be atheists. They hooked them up to a polygraph machine to see if they honestly believed there was no god and she told me over 80% failed...Does anyone know anything about this experiment?

Unfortunately, the experiment was conducted in a foxhole, thus invalidating the result.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hm, I think we're in semantics territory now. I'd bet my ass that there's no god, but I don't claim to know there isn't one. So, while I admit I could be wrong, I'd be very much surprised if I am.

Do you know there are no invisible pink unicorns in my backyard?

I understand the scientific philosophy of not proving the negative. But if I were asked on a lie detector if I believed there were no gods, I would have no problem answering, yes, I believe there are no gods. There are some scientists who might get caught in the science philosophy issue. I don't believe that is how this urban myth claim goes. These people were supposedly asked a yes or no question. They were not asked for a long, science doesn't prove the negative discussion. I can't imagine a theist who would bother testing atheists as described in the OP would even have the sophistication to know about the science doesn't prove the negative principle. Just my bias, of course.

If the question were worded, "do you know there are no gods?", then the answer wouldn't reflect the lies-for-Jesus claim here, there are no true atheists. It would merely create a lies-for-Jesus misinterpretation of the results.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unfortunately, the experiment was conducted in a foxhole, thus invalidating the result.

 

[Lonewulf]

You are claiming the OP is likely true because you don't believe atheists can say no on a lie detector to the question of whether or not they know gods do not exist. That is directly related to the OP.

Uh, pardon? I'm claiming what?

This is news to me. I thought I was just defending the whole concept that not all atheists, and in fact the majority of them (which I felt the evidence pointed to, though you can prove me wrong if you wish) are more likely to say that they do not know definitively 100%. In fact, this was made in response to someone stating that the OP was "not a real atheist" because she wasn't 100% sure that God doesn't exist.

How you extrapolate that into me "claiming the OP is likely true" or "I don't believe atheists can say no on a lie detector to the question of whether or not they know gods do not exist", I do not understand. Nor do I appreciate people telling me that I said something that I did not, nor intended to say. I politely request that you attempt to curb such statements in the future, or actually attempt to read my posts and practice elementary reading skills.

The validity of lie detectors only goes to the OP AFTER it is established that the claim is true. It is not the subject at hand. I can't help it if you and Claus don't get that logic. I believe other people did.

Well, let's see what logic you get, hm?

If we got into a discussion on the validity of lie detectors, would we be in a discussion about the claim no one really believes gods are myths? That is what the OP's urban myth claims. It claims everyone is really a theist underneath.

Your logic is thus: The claim is that everyone is really a theist underneath.

Sorry, no.

The claim is that an experiment was conducted to verify whether or not atheists were a theist underneath, and this experiment was done with lie detectors against 100 test subjects. THAT was the original claim. You are now attempting to reword it to fit in with what you want to talk about, while simultaneously stating what others should and shouldn't talk about. Nice try, though.

Lie detectors are part of that discussion. So is whether or not testing 100 people is scientific (I.E., too small a study group). So is whether a test ever existed in the first place. So is whether or not you can even extract someone's "true beliefs" from an actual lie detector test.

Looks like your logic doesn't allow for this (very logical) viewpoint. Surprise surprise. Either you failed entirely to read the OP, or... well, I just don't know. Either way, how you derive a comparison to Hillary Clinton's makeup in a serious discussion about a speech she made (or whatever your stupid example was supposed to entail), I do not comprehend. In fact, I'd say I'm outright disappointed. I expected better from someone like you.

Seriously. How is educating people about validity of scientific tests a bad thing?