Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[FattyCatty]

I don't mean they were actively trying to indoctrinate you. But, living in a family, it's hard not to hear conversations, discussions, comments on the newspaper, radio, and television. These things are absorbed by children and influence what they think. And if you claim these kind of things never happened in your family, from the time you were born until you were a teenager, I cry ECREE.

Oh, I see.

Well you appear to think that all families are like your own. Not all families vocalise their political affiliations and opinions. Some families don't care, for others the belief is so deeply ingrained that it goes without saying.

I don't think all families are like mine, nor am I calling you a liar. I think you are practicing selective remembering. The fact that your parents were shocked that you supported the Labour Party indicates that they held strong opposing beliefs. It is highly unlikely that, in a span of 13 years minimum, they neither expressed any opinion nor made any statement indicating these political beliefs.

And in fact you have an extraordinary claim of your own. That when you were 8 years old your father had control of which channel to watch. ECREE right back at you.

In fact he did not have control of which channel to watch. We went to a neighbor's house to watch, so they had control of which channel to watch. It wouldn't really have mattered, there were a limited number of channels, and they all carried it.

 

[fromdownunder]

Ok, if what you say is true (that most here are well versed in the said subjects), why is it that some posters here don't get that the definition that includes newborns and infants is useless for cognitive experimental design?

Did you expect any two year olds to join in the discussion, and respond to your poll?

I see this as simply a sidebar issue and totally irrelevant to any poll on what people think, and what the data is eventually likely to show. I really do not see why people are so hung up by it, and have an easy answer.

Limit your poll to people over 8 (orwhatever age you think appropriate) as a doubt that there are many 2 year olds wishing to chime in on the issue at hand. Concentrate on advaning the poll.

Norm

 

[Christian]

Did you expect any two year olds to join in the discussion, and respond to your poll?

I see this as simply a sidebar issue and totally irrelevant to any poll on what people think, and what the data is eventually likely to show. I really do not see why people are so hung up by it, and have an easy answer.

Limit your poll to people over 8 (orwhatever age you think appropriate) as a doubt that there are many 2 year olds wishing to chime in on the issue at hand. Concentrate on advaning the poll.

Norm

Yes, excellent. This is why I insisted on my definition. Why was this an issue in the first place? Why did we argue for so long about the definition if posters are well versed in cognitive experimental design?

 

[Christian]

Right, but then you want to strip out the data that you need for comparitive work, and you also want to disagree with the concept and definition of atheism. You want (somehow) to brand only those who deliberately and actively reject deities, and ignore those who passively have never chosen either way.

Please understand, once a certain point is reached, there is no such thing as "passively never choosing" not to believe deiteis are real. The brain does not work this way. All thoughts are active, anything that you think will trigger a physical process. Every time someone thinks deities, there will be an active thought process.

Those 'derailments' are important issues for you to consider, even if you don't understand them, if you are being genuine in this excercise.

They are derailments because we don't conduct cognitive surveys with newborns.

No. Most posters have repeatedly shown you that atheists are a group in that they are united by one thing only - an absence of belief in any deities. This is not a particularly meaningful group for your purposes so you are railing against it trying to insist that atheists must surely have other things in common, including a massive leap of logic you have made to the makeup of their brains. You have been almost insulting at times to suggest that some are theists who are just ignorant of that fact as yet, and have been very dismissive of some very good points put to you about the nature of culture, nature, nurture and so on.

You misunderstand. I'm forceful with my argument because of the parameters of design. It is not an argument in a vacuum. Please explain where I have been "almost insulting" (what that "almost insulting" mean?) and the very good points I have dismissed?

In order to identify whether there are further traits you need to include a full population, and tabulate all the results, then examine those in various formats to see whether peaks or troughs exist in the data for certain questions and topics, and then drill back to see if those peaks and troughs correlate to whether the surveyed people that correlate in responses are all atheist or all not.

You are wrong. I don't need to include the full population. I'm only required a valid sample. The sample must be of atheists. It must be of atheists because this is the study group. Why would I include non-diabetics in a diabetics study? (of course, unless the control is specifically designed to be non-diabetics)

You are not being clear, and that is not a good indicator for the progression of your survey idea. You need to be able to explain yourself clearly, and when it comes to laying out your plans, and identifying the survey questions, you need to be completely unambiguous as to what you are stating.

No, I'm assuming knowledge in cognitive experimental design and hypothesis testing.

You are still coming from the pre-determined position that such correlations exist. this is not an honest approach to a survey and will, thorugh various subtleties of language, etc, will skew your results.

This is what I mean about knowledge in hypothesis testing. The nature of hypothesis is to test a pre-determined position (the pre-determined position is the hypothesis). It presuposes a pre-determined position where the null hypothesis is confirmed or rejected.

 

[fromdownunder]

Yes, excellent. This is why I insisted on my definition. Why was this an issue in the first place? Why did we argue for so long about the definition if posters are well versed in cognitive experimental design?

With respect, it happened because you insisted on your definition, jumped into the discussion itself, and did not even realise that the issue was, and is irrelevant to what you now wish to achieve - a poll of thinking people, rather than two year olds who are simply trying to process as much information as they are capable of, and try and make sense of what they can.

You got hung up on a definition, and did not focus on your main purpose.

Norm

 

[FattyCatty]

So we agree that newborn babies don't believe in gods. Now what's the word for that again?

No, we don't agree. I didn't say newborn babies don't believe in gods. I said that "I don't think newborn babies work in concepts such as "believe" yet." So the word for that is non-conceptualizing.

Your assumptions don't really interest me. You goofed. Deal with it and move on.

Well, I certainly goofed about your reading and comprehending posts. And, squid.

I think you will find there are a number of people well versed in the subject of statistics and experiment design. And you will also find that there are many here who are well versed in the matter of how the brain works.

So I think you can skip the groundwork and foundations and present your experimental design straight away.

You seem not to be paying attention. It is a matter of definition. If someone defines an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in God or gods then a baby is by definition an atheist. If you define an atheist (as I do) as someone who, if they understood the question 'Do you believe in God, or in gods?' and answered it truthfully, would not answer 'yes'. Under that definition a baby is not an atheist.

By the way, an average two year old is way, way beyond object permanence. Did you mean months?

Yes, sorry 1 year old's.

Ok, if what you say is true (that most here are well versed in the said subjects), why is it that some posters here don't get that the definition that includes newborns and infants is useless for cognitive experimental design?

I'm sorry, I was merely responding to questions directed at me. I'll stop.

 

[Christian]

You are welcome, although I am frequently guilty of talking at people in this form.

Are you aware of the G.K Chesterton thesis that people who don't believe in God are more likely to jump at supernatural explanations?

No, is a link available?

 

[fromdownunder]

You are wrong. I don't need to include the full population. I'm only required a valid sample. The sample must be of atheists. It must be of atheists because this is the study group. Why would I include non-diabetics in a diabetics study? (of course, unless the control is specifically designed to be non-diabetics)

Again, you are missing the point about having a control group. Let's say you include a question about stamp collecting. (Subsitute any subject here for "stamps)

Keep it simple.

Do you collect stamps? 1% say yes (Substitue any % here for 1). your conclusion is obviously going to be "atheists do not collect/like stamps".

OK fair enough. But without a Control Group, the responses mean nothing. Because within the Control Group (theists) the answer will also be 1% collect stamps, and therefore shows that atheists are, in this particular, area, no different than the rest of the population.

Please at least understand what I am trying to say here. Without including theists, you are polling a group and having nothing to compare it with. Your results will not be invalid, they will simply not mean anything.

Norm

 

[Christian]

With respect, it happened because you insisted on your definition, jumped into the discussion itself, and did not even realise that the issue was, and is irrelevant to what you now wish to achieve - a poll of thinking people, rather than two year olds who are simply trying to process as much information as they are capable of, and try and make sense of what they can.

You got hung up on a definition, and did not focus on your main purpose.

Norm

I did? If you read the very first post, you will see that I gave the exact framework. That was not the problem, the problem was that most posters refused to accept they fitted perfectly the definition and be apt for the survey.

 

[Brainache]

...
You are wrong. I don't need to include the full population. I'm only required a valid sample. The sample must be of atheists. It must be of atheists because this is the study group. Why would I include non-diabetics in a diabetics study? (of course, unless the control is specifically designed to be non-diabetics)
...

So what will you be comparing the Atheist answers to, if not the answers of non-Atheists?

 

[Christian]

Again, you are missing the point about having a control group. Let's say you include a question about stamp collecting. (Subsitute any subject here for "stamps)

Keep it simple.

Do you collect stamps? 1% say yes (Substitue any % here for 1). your conclusion is obviously going to be "atheists do not collect/like stamps".

OK fair enough. But without a Control Group, the responses mean nothing. Because within the Control Group (theists) the answer will also be 1% collect stamps, and therefore shows that atheists are, in this particular, are no different than the rest of the population.

Please at least understand what I am trying to say here. Without including theists, you are polling a group and having nothing to compare it with. Your results will not be invalid, they will simply not mean anything.

Norm

If you read the thread you will see that I explicitly design the study with a control group. It does not require theist at all. It only requires that the group have a any common trait. And actually it would be preferable that the control group's common trait not be any religious trait.

 

[fromdownunder]

I did? If you read the very first post, you will see that I gave the exact framework. That was not the problem, the problem was that most posters refused to accept they fitted perfectly the definition and be apt for the survey.

You joined into the sidebar issue when you could have said from Day 1 that it was not important or relevant to your ultimate goal.

Norm

 

[Christian]

So what will you be comparing the Atheist answers to, if not the answers of non-Atheists?

That not what I'm trying to study. The study is not "what are the differences in traits between atheists and theists". It is what do atheist have in common.

Consider this, the the null hypothesis can be confirmed based on the results of the control group. How? If the control group's common trait is that their favorite color is red (which we know is a meaningless common trait) and the both groups show the same level of common traits, this would be evidence that being atheist in a group is as people having the favorite color red.

 

[Christian]

You joined into the sidebar issue when you could have said from Day 1 that it was not important or relevant to your ultimate goal.

Norm

I did till got blue in the face (metaphor), and because of it, posters here called me the equivalent of ignorant and lacking mental capacity.

 

[fromdownunder]

That not what I'm trying to study. The study is not "what are the differences in traits between atheists and theists". It is what do atheist have in common.

But if you only study atheists, how can you possibly establish that there are differences? How wll you establish different traits of you have not got a clue what theists think?

I'm lost as to how you are arguing that you know something about statistics, and not know how wring this is.

As I have mentioned here and elsewhere, I am an Admin on a Postage Stamp Board. Let's say I start a poll on my Board, and ask the question "Do You Collect Stamps?"

I will get a 100% "yes" response. So would it be fair to conclude on my poll that 100% of all people collect stamps?

Does this tell you where you are going wrong?

Norm

 

[Christian]

Christian, I really have difficulties understanding what you are trying to say here; difficulties that may very well be due to my shortcomings, so please bear with me if I seem dense.

No problem. I wish I could be better at communicating my ideas, it is hard. Hope to get better with practice.

You have a hypothesis that there are differences between the brains of believers and atheists. This hypothesis apparently relies on your definition of atheists as people who have rejected gods. When we object that not all ateists have rejected gods, you discard that definition as useless for your purposes. Nevertheless it is a fact that there are atheists who never rejected gods. So to me, that should either mean that you reject you hypothesis or change it to just include a particular group of atheists. You could of course also go on as you are, and just ignore the facts...

The problem is semantics here. When you say "not all atheists have rejected gods" you are thinking of a specific mental process (like an internal discussion of pros an cons and a final judgement). Not all mental processes that reject deities work this way. Whatever mental process precedes, the final mental process of putting deities in the "fiction" folder is what counts. In that instant deities have been rejected as real (they were placed in the fiction folder) This is true because these folders are mutually exclusive. Accepting one, rejects the other.

Do you have to be atheist in a thinking way? I know that I did not believe in any gods long before I could think about religion in any meaningful way. What was I then, if not an atheist? And what level of mental acuity would you say has to be present before someone is an atheist? Do we go by IQ? And does the same apply to theists? Could someone with mental diabilities be a theist or an atheist?

The mental processes needed for atheism is undertanding the difference between real and fiction and the concept of deity.

 

[Christian]

But if you only study atheists, how can you possibly establish that there are differences? How wll you establish different traits of you have not got a clue what theists think?

I'm lost as to how you are arguing that you know something about statistics, and not know how wring this is.

As I have mentioned here and elsewhere, I am an Admin on a Postage Stamp Board. Let's say I start a poll on my Board, and ask the question "Do You Collect Stamps?"

I will get a 100% "yes" response. So would it be fair to conclude on my poll that 100% of all people collect stamps?

Does this tell you where you are going wrong?

Norm

Wait norm. I think there is some confusion here. Let's see if I can fix this.

Let's start with a clean slate.

This is scenario. Suppose we want to know which two Republican will win the primary race.

I want a valid sample. I need to pick republican voters randomly. I don't need to pick democrats.

Next. No, I'm don't want differences between atheist and theists. I want to find out what atheist have in common.

I need the control group, in this case because it is a survey. This way I can be sure the survey shows relevant data. The control group only needs to have one trait in common. That is all that it requires, preferibly something meaningless in common.

 

[fromdownunder]

Wait norm. I think there is some confusion here. Let's see if I can fix this.

Let's start with a clean slate.

OK lets start from your very first post, the OP of this thread, in which you set out your premise:

For example, the findings could be:

Atheist are more likely to be more contrarian than the general population, on average.

Atheist are more likely to be more skeptical than the general population, on average.

Atheist are more likely not to be believe in spirituality than the general population, on average.

So on the basis of the OP, you have to know what the general population thinks.

But most recently you decide that the general population does not belong in your Survey? Why? Do you already know, or think you know what the "general population" so important in your OP, already thinks?

How can you exclude non-atheists, since it was you personally who wanted to compare the two populations. That's the point.

Norm

 

[Sledge]

No, we don't agree. I didn't say newborn babies don't believe in gods. I said that "I don't think newborn babies work in concepts such as "believe" yet." So the word for that is non-conceptualizing.

So newborn babies are incapable of belief. Which would mean they don't believe in anything. I'm not sure quite what you think you're accomplishing here.

 

[Robin]

Wait norm. I think there is some confusion here. Let's see if I can fix this.

Let's start with a clean slate.

This is scenario. Suppose we want to know which two Republican will win the primary race.

I want a valid sample. I need to pick republican voters randomly. I don't need to pick democrats.

Next. No, I'm don't want differences between atheist and theists. I want to find out what atheist have in common.

Not a valid analogy, because in the Republican/Democrat example you are not looking to find out what Republicans have in common.

If you wanted to find out what Republicans had in common then you would have to have non-Republicans in your sample.

It would be meaningless to say "80% of Republicans have property X" if 80% of the general population have property X.

Besides you have already stated a hypothesis about the tendency of atheists to accept supernatural beliefs, which presupposes that you are looking at differences between atheists and the general population.