The Experiment on 100 Professed Atheists

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

What is this god you claim has no attributes and exists by default? How can you define a god with no attributes? Is god a vacuum? Wait, that has attributes. Is god a thought wave? Wait, that has attributes.

You are essentially saying as long as god is nothing, does nothing, then by default you arbitrarily claim it exists, but AFAIK, that is not the definition of any god, that is the definition of nothing.

 

[treble_head]

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.

Watch the wording. Nothing wrong with what you said, but one could easily infer that you mean that an Agnostic is a weak or indeed, less than week atheist. That's kerosene for an ever-growing fire.

At least I'm hoping that was inference and not actual implication on your part.

For myself, I'm glad to see mayday up and posting again. She has shown herself to be a savvy and clever poster the likes we'll never see out of the Amy Wilsons of the world. My favorite of all the perceived trolls. See my title for more details. During my short time on the board, she has:

Beaten a snake to death with a stick
Denied beating said snake to death
Gained great pleasure by having beaten said snake.
Belittled a 6 year old for being cute
Taken a walk through the Appalachians,
Failed to do so,
Couldn't stick to a diet plan (and then blamed the JREF forum members),
"Proved" that nurses can see ghosts,
Drew a picture of Neil Young in her sleep,
Made plans to stalk said Pseudo-folk proto punk,
Called us all "Cupcake loser Morons".

She has also, however, on a few occasions gotten us so up in arms, that we look like completely petty, disorganized little kids, and for that, I appreciate the crap out of that woman. Welcome back, MayFig, and may you never stray.

 

[Dan O.]

I used to not believe there was a god. But when the boy scouts started getting all fussy and requiring the kids to profess their belief that god exists I created a god that I could believe in. This god is not attribute free. For instance, god created the heavens and the earth and all life on earth.

With this attribute however there is a change; either this god exists or reality doesn't. I'll still bet on reality and I still believe I am an atheist.

 

[CFLarsen]

What is this god you claim has no attributes and exists by default? How can you define a god with no attributes? Is god a vacuum? Wait, that has attributes. Is god a thought wave? Wait, that has attributes.

You are essentially saying as long as god is nothing, does nothing, then by default you arbitrarily claim it exists, but AFAIK, that is not the definition of any god, that is the definition of nothing.

You are arguing that it is impossible to think of something without it popping into existence, the moment it is thought of. Effectively, you are arguing that The Law of Attraction really works.

I am thinking of something right now. Does it have attributes?

Please address post #141.

 

[SezMe]

Watch the wording. Nothing wrong with what you said, but one could easily infer that you mean that an Agnostic is a weak or indeed, less than week atheist. That's kerosene for an ever-growing fire.

Yeah, one I'm working very hard at not adding gasoline to. An agnotic is not a fence sitter on the theist <-> atheist spectrum. It's a different concept....and I'll leave it at that.

 

[megaresp]

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

Yes, I do. I know that there are no invisible pink Unicorns in your backyard.

A thing can be pink, or it can be invisible. A thing cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time.

For this reason, there are no invisible pink unicorns in your backyard.

 

[Tumblehome]

Watch the wording. Nothing wrong with what you said, but one could easily infer that you mean that an Agnostic is a weak or indeed, less than week atheist. That's kerosene for an ever-growing fire.

At least I'm hoping that was inference and not actual implication on your part.

I see what you mean. After the way this thread has degenerated, I really don't want to start any more fires. Thanks for the heads up and making me take a second look at it. I'll try again...

There are varying degrees of atheism, but it doesn't--it can't, by definition--blend smoothly into agnosticism. The border between the two isn't a thin line that can be straddled with one foot on either side. There's a wide DMZ, a no-man's land that's uninhabitable by either. You can't say, "Well, I'm sort of atheist, but..." If you can't say with some confidence there's no god, you aren't atheist.

To UnrepententSinner, that's my final position.

For myself, I'm glad to see mayday up and posting again. She has shown herself to be a savvy and clever poster the likes we'll never see out of the Amy Wilsons of the world. My favorite of all the perceived trolls. See my title for more details. During my short time on the board, she has:

Beaten a snake to death with a stick
Denied beating said snake to death
Gained great pleasure by having beaten said snake.
Belittled a 6 year old for being cute
Taken a walk through the Appalachians,
Failed to do so,
Couldn't stick to a diet plan (and then blamed the JREF forum members),
"Proved" that nurses can see ghosts,
Drew a picture of Neil Young in her sleep,
Made plans to stalk said Pseudo-folk proto punk,
Called us all "Cupcake loser Morons".

She has also, however, on a few occasions gotten us so up in arms, that we look like completely petty, disorganized little kids, and for that, I appreciate the crap out of that woman. Welcome back, MayFig, and may you never stray.

I wasn't aware of "bigwig", but I gather she was a previous incarnation of mayday. She seems to have quite a rambling imagination. I respectfully submit the following as additions to your list:

Claimed to be an atheist.
Isn't an atheist.

 

[Dunstan]

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?

Because:

(1) it's a sure-fire way to get elected to public office;
(2) chicks dig it;
(3) you get a copy of the top secret battle plans for the War On Christianity!

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

A thing can be pink, or it can be invisible. A thing cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time.

Nonsense. Intrinsic pinkness + cloak of invisibility == still pink under the cloak.

Or invisibility conferred by a potion or casting a spell. Someone wearing a ring of see-invisible or a monster with the see-invisible characteristic can confirm the pinkness.

 

[The Atheist]

What is this god you claim has no attributes and exists by default? How can you define a god with no attributes? Is god a vacuum? Wait, that has attributes. Is god a thought wave? Wait, that has attributes.

You are essentially saying as long as god is nothing, does nothing, then by default you arbitrarily claim it exists, but AFAIK, that is not the definition of any god, that is the definition of nothing.

That's exactly how it looks to me. And it works so well, a god with no attributes. Exactly how I imagine YHWH.

You are arguing that it is impossible to think of something without it popping into existence, the moment it is thought of. Effectively, you are arguing that The Law of Attraction really works.

I am thinking of something right now. Does it have attributes?

Please address post #141.

English comprehension is an ongoing problem for you, isn't it?

Try reading the question first.

Yeah, one I'm working very hard at not adding gasoline to. An agnotic is not a fence sitter on the theist <-> atheist spectrum. It's a different concept....and I'll leave it at that.

Well, I have a can of 98 octane here, because I disagree and class agnostics very much as fence sitters.

Agnosticism isn't a position, it's a cop-out. Sounds like my bloody five-year old: "I don't know."

 

[mayday]

There is nothing more pathetic and foolish than a know-it-all with a chip on his/her shoulder and an agenda. You know, the kid who was picked on in school, rejected by his peers, always felt like an outsider, probably ridiculed. There are handfuls of them everywhere. Now, grown up and every bit the misfit now as they were then, they live in a world where they feed off hate and negativity, trying to (cyber) bully their way to righteousness. These are the kinds of weenies who would cower to your face but turn into a giant behind the safety of their computer screen.

Like that song says, they're so much cooler online.

 

[buzz lightyear]

There is nothing more pathetic and foolish than a know-it-all with a chip on his/her shoulder and an agenda. You know, the kid who was picked on in school, rejected by his peers, always felt like an outsider, probably ridiculed. There are handfuls of them everywhere. Now, grown up and every bit the misfit now as they were then, they live in a world where they feed off hate and negativity, trying to (cyber) bully their way to righteousness. These are the kinds of weenies who would cower to your face but turn into a giant behind the safety of their computer screen.

Like that song says, they're so much cooler online.

Oh give the poor bugger a break, mayday!

He is just a simple redneck, living in a cold dismal suburb in a dead end job.
The missus is having it off with the local copper and the motor in his Ford escort has died.
On top of this his herpes are playing up again.

His only escape is this "hopeless little screen".

 

[articulett]

Nonsense. Intrinsic pinkness + cloak of invisibility == still pink under the cloak.

Or invisibility conferred by a potion or casting a spell. Someone wearing a ring of see-invisible or a monster with the see-invisible characteristic can confirm the pinkness.

Absolutely. It's part of the mystery. Humans are just not smart enough to understand completely. Who are we to think we can understand the mystery of invisible pinkness?

 

[prewitt81]

General warning: Please remain on-topic and refrain from taking potshots at one another.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Absolutely. It's part of the mystery. Humans are just not smart enough to understand completely. Who are we to think we can understand the mystery of invisible pinkness?

I knew there would be someone who understands.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are arguing that it is impossible to think of something without it popping into existence, the moment it is thought of. Effectively, you are arguing that The Law of Attraction really works.

What on Earth are you talking about? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I am challenging the definition of an undetectable god. What is the difference between and undetectable god and no god?

Please address post #141.
Skep: 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.

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

Claus, I'm sorry but I'm not going to play games with you over this. Here you are arguing some semantics about what the results of a polygraph mean as a back door way of getting to your original sidetrack on polygraphs.

If you want to explain how it is this thread should go off on the topic of polygraphs and keep it relevant to the OP, then do so. If you want to simply discuss polygraph machines then start a new thread.

If a polygraph is wrong 2% or 5% or 10% of the time one can conclude out of 100 answers the truthfulness of 98 or 95 or 90 respectively will be correctly determined to be truthful or not. Since the OP is talking about a polygraph determining that 80 atheists were lying, then were it true, which there is no evidence it is, then the majority of those atheists would indeed be lying.

How the question was phrased would also need to be taken into consideration before drawing the lie-for-Jesus conclusion implied in the urban myth as well.


Weird, mod warning posts abort your edit screen and direct your page to the warning. Amazing someone would program that in.

 

[Cardelitre]

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?

It seems to me that I didn't say that the subject should not be discussed. But as you point out, if you consider trying to educate people, why not start by educating them in some critical thinking? What I mean is that before discussing about the relevance of the results of a study, you should try to determine if the study actually ever existed, which is obviously not the case here.

Now if you want to discuss the possible problems related to the use of polygraphs, please, go ahead, it’s an interesting subject. But that’s not the point here.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Yes, I do. I know that there are no invisible pink Unicorns in your backyard.

A thing can be pink, or it can be invisible. A thing cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time.

For this reason, there are no invisible pink unicorns in your backyard.

That's exactly right, and one of the reasons why the IPU works so well as satire. I mean, the Christian triune god is not exactly logically consistent, either (see: Problem of evil).

That's why you sometimes hear believers get into all kinds of justifications, similar to what Abdul Alhazred and Articulett have engaged in above regarding the IPU.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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.

You can't say, "Well, I'm sort of atheist, but..." If you can't say with some confidence there's no god, you aren't atheist.

To UnrepententSinner, that's my final position.

I am a weak atheist. I do not believe in any deities and as I noted if one does exist, it's not one particularly interested in humans. I make no assertions other than my own conclusion though so I don't assert with any confidence anything other than I do not believe there is a diety. By definition that makes me an atheist.

 

[SezMe]

If you can't say with some confidence there's no god, you aren't atheist.

Agnosticism isn't a position, it's a cop-out. Sounds like my bloody five-year old: "I don't know."

I just don't get the inability to distinguish between belief and knowledge.

A theist by definition has a belief in a god. An a-theist then ("a" denoting "not") does not have a god belief.

A gnostic (gnosticism=knowledge) has knowledge (NOT belief) of something. An agnostic (a-gnostic) has no such knowledge.

Here's an example. I have a belief that string theory will provide some very useful insights into basic theoretical physics in the years to come. It is a belief (a theism), not a matter of knowledge (a gnosticism). I may well be wrong in my belief.

In parallel, I have no "belief" in a god so I am an atheist. My beliefs may well be wrong but I surely do not have any "knowledge" of a god so I am certainly an agnostic.

In short, I am an agnostic atheist.