The Experiment on 100 Professed Atheists

[CFLarsen]

If you want to discuss this further, I will be more than happy to, in another thread.

No. You have already discussed the validity of polygraphs in this thread. The validity of polygraphs is pertinent to the OP.

When you say:

But if you asked 100 atheists if they believed in god and you got 100 results indicating they were lying, then most of them would be lying. Only a few wouldn't be.

"Indicating" means "based on the results of the polygraph"?

You complain often enough that I misunderstand your posts. Here is a golden opportunity to prevent such a situation from happening.

I did post my nursing license and pictures and contact information back in the day...but knowing what I know now I realize that was not a wise thing to do. I used to be a babe in the woods, incredibly naieve, and living with my husband and with the added stress of being expected to take care of his father and deal with my own children and work and be everything to everyone I had a couple of mental breakdowns. This forum was one place where I guess I blogged before blogging was popular. Like I said, I know Claus has his perception of the way things are but I don't think it is necessarily an accurate one.

You may disagree with my perception, but is there anything in the article that you didn't say, or didn't claim to be true?

Remember my penchant for keeping old threads.

 

[danielk]

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

No, I don't.

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.

Me too.

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.

Ack. And personally, I have never met a self-professed atheist who actually believed in god. Maybe it's a rebel teen thing in the US because of the highly religious environment, but even with that possibility taken into account, 80% sounds bogus to me.

 

[Lonewulf]

No. You have already discussed the validity of polygraphs in this thread. The validity of polygraphs is pertinent to the OP.

I love that. Claim that it's "off topic" to shut people up, and then simultaneously defend the validity of polygraphs in the same thread.

Hilarity personified.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

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.

Sorry, no, I didn't. The claim in the OP is akin to saying:

"A very wise Hindu monk looked a hundred self-described atheists deeply in the eyes, and saw into their soul. In four out of five, he saw that they really believed in god but just claimed otherwise."

Given that polygraphs report exactly what the operators want them to, the above story is exactly parallel. It is entirely appropriate to reply to both the monk and the polygraph stories with a "so what?". You don't need to establish if there ever was a monk or a polygraph, or the number of atheists, when the reported findings are nonsensical.

 

[Furi]

I was wondering how you'd get 100 atheists in one spot.....

A buddhist temple could be an easy starting place.

or a meeting of ex-Choiristers that have been touched in a special way by his noodly appendage

 

[Lonewulf]

or a meeting of ex-Choiristers that have been touched in a special way by his noodly appendage

Well, crap. I liked FSM because he WASN'T Catholic, and now you've ruined it for me.

 

[Dan O.]

Attempting to track this story down leads only to dead ends. It's probably a rewrite in modern language of the historical church methods. The original text was probably more along the lines of: "The inquisition of 25000 professed atheists found in the end that they all believed in god."

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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

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.

Ummm. No. I am an atheist and I do not "feel strongly" that there isn't any sort of deity. I just don't believe there is one, and if there is it's one who isn't particularly interested in humans.

Do you question my atheist credentials now too?

 

[tsig]

Well, you could always contribute to the overpopulation problem by taking a long walk of a short pier.

John Denver sang about people making scars on the land in Colorado, I guess the criticism just didn't apply to him.

The average person thinks they are better than the average person. The average person puts everyone else on a tight moral budget but they always leave plenty of allowance for themselves.

There is so much hostility and projection on this forum it's palpable. It doesn't seem like anything can be presented here in good faith, it's always torn apart with ridicule and pointed sarcastic questions. I can't imagine living in the rotten miserable world many people here live in. Kind of reminds me of my father-in-law. He was so arrogant and proud and nasty his whole life...until he started getting to the point he would have episodes where he would have to depend on others. Then, he was eating up the humble pie, thanking us profusely for helping him, he would get a little better and as soon as his confidence was built up he would turn back into the nasty bastard we always knew. Now, he is a pathetic invalid and won't be getting better. He is sitting alone at the nursing home drooling all over himself, staring into space with his mouth wide open, wearing a diaper, urinating on himself...as far as I'm concerned if I never see him again it will be too soon. Nasty people eventually reap what they sow.

BTW, I never took pleasure in hurting anything. I didn't want to hurt that snake but I was scared. I wish some people would work on reading comprehension, it wasn't the snake I said I was laughing at.

You better hope for crop failure.

 

[The Atheist]

You better hope for crop failure.

Glad you posted that, because I'd been ignoring the troll and hadn't noticed its first sentence. Given that old hammy got suspended for "go play in traffic", I'm trusting the report button that that goes the same way.

 

[mayday]

I strongly suspect that literally no-one knows anything about it, because there never was such an experiment. I'm just guessing though.

My friend I heard this from will be coming to relieve me of my night shift duty in the morning. I'll ask her where she heard it.


My pendulum tells me it will be church.

 

[articulett]

Attempting to track this story down leads only to dead ends. It's probably a rewrite in modern language of the historical church methods. The original text was probably more along the lines of: "The inquisition of 25000 professed atheists found in the end that they all believed in god."

If the inquisitors were questioning me, I bet they'd find I believe in god too.
I suspect the ratio would be 100%-- not 80%.

The whole scenario is kind of funny. What would a person do if they thought they believed in god, but the lie detector said they didn't-- would they try and make themselves believe more? Would they be afraid god would find out and punish them...

It will be a better world when what people believe matters a lot less than what they do or the evidence they provide. Religion makes "belief" highly over rated.

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

My friend I heard this from will be coming to relieve me of my night shift duty in the morning. I'll ask her where she heard it.


My pendulum tells me it will be church.

Now you're the one being witty.

 

[JoeEllison]

If the inquisitors were questioning me, I bet they'd find I believe in god too.

Not me. I've decided to start with Smurfs, then tick off the names of X-Men, Avengers, New Mutants... by the time I hit the list of West Coast Avengers, the torturers might turn on each other!

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Well instead of kvetching, I'll try to get back on track.

Under what circumstances is there some sort of benefit to pretending to be an atheist?

Under what circumstances is there some sort of benefit to pretending to be a believer?


The claim in the OP would not only make atheists out to be liars, but pure disinterested liars who expect no benefit at all to themselves or others.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My friend I heard this from will be coming to relieve me of my night shift duty in the morning. I'll ask her where she heard it.


My pendulum tells me it will be church.

Ask her why she thinks atheists aren't sincere? Wouldn't that be silly? If you really believed in God, why set yourself up to go to hell?

 

[Tumblehome]

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.

But that's what I said: "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 don't equate "feel strongly" with "knowing" or "100 percent". If you do, then it's a semantic issue that we disagree on.

Coincidentally (or not!!!), I started reading The God Delusion a few days ago. Here are numbers five to seven on Dawkins' scale:

5. Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.

Here, I'd equate "feel strongly" with "very improbable" in number six. That's short of "knowing", which of course no one can with certainty. The only other option, number five, isn't really true atheism, according to Dawkins: "Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism."


Using Dawkins' scale, if you don't "feel strongly" that there's no God, then you're not an atheist. That's my interpretation, anyway. It isn't totally black or white, but it's not a continuous gray scale from 0 to 100, either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I say for certain there are no gods. Prove me wrong.

 

[Tumblehome]

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

If you are an atheist, I'd say you're a weak one, closer to agnostic. Like I said to Lonewulf, it's not a totally black-or-white issue for me, but it's not a continuous gray scale, either.

 

[Dan O.]

I say for certain there are no gods. Prove me wrong.

As long as you don't start adding attributes on what is or is not god I say god exists by default.