The Experiment on 100 Professed Atheists

[Lonewulf]

It seems to me that I didn't say that the subject should not be discussed.

You certainly leapt to the defense of those that were. Skeptigirl wasn't leaping in with an "Off Topic" smiley because she wanted the conversation to continue. She was trying to control the conversation.

But as you point out, if you consider trying to educate people, why not start by educating them in some critical thinking?

Sure. And if the test was most likely invalid according to any scientific mindset... then does this not affect what you say here?

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.

If the results of a study would be irrelevant, therefore, by logic, it would be less likely that any serious scientist would have ever conducted one in the first place. It would also cause disinterest in any further callings for an actual experiment set up to such silly standards. So even with your preference for discussion, this point of discussion has it's place.

QED, end of argument.

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.

Actually, yes it is. The OP was brought out because, apparently, someone is putting stock in lie detectors in the first place, or else no one would find such a study very interesting, whether or not they existed.

Bringing up that such a test, even if conducted, would be entirely scientifically invalid on all levels would go a long way towards the discussion of "whether or not the study ever took place."

So no, I don't agree with you. Sorry.

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

It's what you are talking about:

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 saying that we can't think of anything without it existing. A god, merely thought of, must exist. According to you.

It follows that, whatever we think of, suddenly exists. Which is what the Law of Attraction is.

Now (you skipped this):

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

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.

Amazing.

You do claim that polygraphs are able to tell when you lie or not.

I want to see your evidence for that. In this thread, please.

 

[amb]

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.

My dictionary defines an agnostic thus; a person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists. Sounds like a fence sitter to me!
Though light years from a theist. Still hanging on by a single finger to the fence.

 

[SomeGuy]

It's what you are talking about:



You are saying that we can't think of anything without it existing. A god, merely thought of, must exist. According to you.

It follows that, whatever we think of, suddenly exists. Which is what the Law of Attraction is.

Now (you skipped this):

She didn't say that it existed, she said it has attributes. Everything that can be concepted has attributes, they may not be attributes that have any relevance on the real world, and they may only be theoretical attributes, but they have attributes.

Omnipotence is an attribute of the christian god, the fact that he has this theoretical attribute says nothing about his existence or non-existence of that entity. I for one am thoroughly convinced that he doesn't exist, but I also understand that if he does exist as they believe, he is omnipotent.

The fact that a theoretical/hypothetical construct has attribute bears no relevance on it's existance.

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

With a probability bordering on certainty: Yes.

Amazing.

Not really.

You do claim that polygraphs are able to tell when you lie or not.

I want to see your evidence for that. In this thread, please.

Here of course you are absolutely right and skeptigirl is "wrong".

Her argument here is that if a lie detector gets things right 75% of the time, that hitting 100% on the test on 100 proffessed atheists means that there's a more than 99% chance that at least 50 really believe there is a god.

However this presumes that those detectors RELIABLY get 75% right and that no part of this process is open to interpretation of the tester...

 

[CFLarsen]

She didn't say that it existed, she said it has attributes. Everything that can be concepted has attributes, they may not be attributes that have any relevance on the real world, and they may only be theoretical attributes, but they have attributes.

Emphasis mine:

What is this god you claim has no attributes and exists by default?

Omnipotence is an attribute of the christian god, the fact that he has this theoretical attribute says nothing about his existence or non-existence of that entity. I for one am thoroughly convinced that he doesn't exist, but I also understand that if he does exist as they believe, he is omnipotent.

The fact that a theoretical/hypothetical construct has attribute bears no relevance on it's existance.

It can also be argued that a god (not necessarily the Christian one) can be omniscient only: That he "knows", and "understands", but that's it.

Such a god can hardly be said to exist scientifically.

With a probability bordering on certainty: Yes.

How so?

Not really.

Really really. Skeptigirl considers herself a skeptic - which is why I find it amazing that she can argue that polygraphs work.

Here of course you are absolutely right and skeptigirl is "wrong".

Her argument here is that if a lie detector gets things right 75% of the time, that hitting 100% on the test on 100 proffessed atheists means that there's a more than 99% chance that at least 50 really believe there is a god.

However this presumes that those detectors RELIABLY get 75% right and that no part of this process is open to interpretation of the tester...

Let's see what she replies in the other thread.

 

[Cardelitre]

You certainly leapt to the defense of those that were. Skeptigirl wasn't leaping in with an "Off Topic" smiley because she wanted the conversation to continue. She was trying to control the conversation.

I didn't leap to the defense of anyone, I actually just expressed my opinion. That's also what this board is for right? I am relatively new, so I'm not aware of the animosity you hold against each other here, don't put me in the middle of this.

Sure. And if the test was most likely invalid according to any scientific mindset... then does this not affect what you say here?

Sure, it would be mostly invalid, I definitely agree on this point. But if you start by evaluating the validity of the test, you skip two fundamental steps in the reasoning. First, you assume that the test actually happened, and then you assume that the results were really those described. By jumping directly to the final step, you defend a position that is not attacked yet, thus you indirectly give it in the eye undecided reader an importance it doesn't have by implicitly assuming that the first points are accurate, which they are not.

In my opinion, if a test of this kind was done with the right control conditions, I highly doubt that it will display the type of results they claim. Even if the polygraph is globally not reliable, it is not completely wrong all of the time either, that would be very curious…

If the results of a study would be irrelevant, therefore, by logic, it would be less likely that any serious scientist would have ever conducted one in the first place. It would also cause disinterest in any further callings for an actual experiment set up to such silly standards. So even with your preference for discussion, this point of discussion has it's place.

I would certainly not have been the fact of a serious scientist, that's for sure.

Bringing up that such a test, even if conducted, would be entirely scientifically invalid on all levels would go a long way towards the discussion of "whether or not the study ever took place."

Then you assume that the results would have been those described. And what if the experiment conducted by a relatively honest tester in the adequate conditions gave the results that 95% of the subjects tell the truth? Would you still be that swift to argue that the polygraph is not reliable?

So no, I don't agree with you. Sorry.

Don't be sorry, when everybody agrees the discussion is boring...

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

If I may butt in with a few points to this:

Sure, it would be mostly invalid, I definitely agree on this point. But if you start by evaluating the validity of the test, you skip two fundamental steps in the reasoning. First, you assume that the test actually happened, and then you assume that the results were really those described. By jumping directly to the final step, you defend a position that is not attacked yet, thus you indirectly give it in the eye undecided reader an importance it doesn't have by implicitly assuming that the first points are accurate, which they are not.

This is, in my opinion, where you have to decide for yourself which tactic to use when dealing wih the claim. You can either ask for the source and refuse to take it seriously if it cannot be verified, or you can show that the claimed results are impossible / irrelevant regardless, or both.

Both tactics are valid (but I can see where it is easier asking for the source). Then it's a question of explaining either why sources, methods and raw data are important when evaluating a claim, or why polygraphs (in this case) don't work. Either way, the claimant is in for some pretty basic education, and your efforts may very likely be in vain.

In my opinion, if a test of this kind was done with the right control conditions, I highly doubt that it will display the type of results they claim. Even if the polygraph is globally not reliable, it is not completely wrong all of the time either, that would be very curious…

That's exactly the point, if they were 100% unreliable, you could just turn the meter upside down and get an accurate reading. As they are used, they are an interrogation method that sometimes produce real information in the noise. This is unsurprising, but the operator then has to decide - using his preconceived opinions and general interrogation expertise - what's noise and what's signal. That means that they're on par with, say, a tarot deck for divining objective truth.

In other words, the experiment we're discussing would mean exactly nothing, even if it did take place.

 

[Tumblehome]

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.

Do you really think we can't distinguish belief from knowledge?

It looks to me like we're using different definitions. Gnosticism might strictly mean "knowledge" of anything, not just God, but it was co-opted by Christians to apply to matters of God. Even if they were over-reaching in doing so, that's the sense in which it is commonly used today, especially in matters of religion.

By your definition, everybody on the planet, theist and atheist, is agnostic, since no one has knowledge of God. Some claim they have, of course, but...well, you know..

 

[Cardelitre]

This is, in my opinion, where you have to decide for yourself which tactic to use when dealing wih the claim. You can either ask for the source and refuse to take it seriously if it cannot be verified, or you can show that the claimed results are impossible / irrelevant regardless, or both.

Both tactics are valid (but I can see where it is easier asking for the source). Then it's a question of explaining either why sources, methods and raw data are important when evaluating a claim, or why polygraphs (in this case) don't work. Either way, the claimant is in for some pretty basic education, and your efforts may very likely be in vain.

We definitely agree on that, it's eventually only a question of tactical choices. The reason why I would favour the tactic I described is not a matter of ease. It is because in the mind of the type of people who defend this kind of UL, when you start arguing that the methodology or results of the experiment are not valid for whatever reason, you implicitly concede (in their mind) the fact that the experiment actually took place and that the results where those claimed. After that, the effort needed for them to ignore your objections is small, because in their mind you have already accepted the results….

That's exactly the point, if they were 100% unreliable, you could just turn the meter upside down and get an accurate reading. As they are used, they are an interrogation method that sometimes produce real information in the noise. This is unsurprising, but the operator then has to decide - using his preconceived opinions and general interrogation expertise - what's noise and what's signal. That means that they're on par with, say, a tarot deck for divining objective truth.

That would indeed be a biased experiment without any value. But we could think about ways to remove the subjective interpretation of the operator from the data collection, for example by defining prior to the test an "adequate" threshold where we consider that the subject is lying.

But this is not the issue here, so I won't develop.

In other words, the experiment we're discussing would mean exactly nothing, even if it did take place.

For us that's clear enough yes. For those who would defend this, it is a much more comfortable position to ignore contradicting evidences...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Do you really think we can't distinguish belief from knowledge?

Of course. One of the best examples was presented to me by a guy trying to explain the difference between strong and weak atheism and empirical agnosticism. Let's say for exmample that we're asking whether Randi is eating a PBJ sandwitch right now.

The strong atheist believes he isn't cannot be doing so.
The weak atheist believe he isn't, offers some justifications why, but cannot aver.
The empirical agnostic states that it's simply unknowable unless we are with Randi right now to know.

It's only the qualificative agnostic, who say's it's entirely possible, but doesn't wish to hazzard a guess that could be called a fence sitter.

 

[Tumblehome]

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.

Understood, but the religious debate between believers and non-believers isn't about any hypothetical power, but specifically about Yahweh/God/Allah as put forth in the religious texts, or any other formalised gods that have sprouted from our imagination. I presume you would say with confidence that they don't exist, not just that you don't believe they exist.

 

[Tumblehome]

Of course. One of the best examples was presented to me by a guy trying to explain the difference between strong and weak atheism and empirical agnosticism. Let's say for exmample that we're asking whether Randi is eating a PBJ sandwitch right now.

The strong atheist believes he isn't cannot be doing so.
The weak atheist believe he isn't, offers some justifications why, but cannot aver.
The empirical agnostic states that it's simply unknowable unless we are with Randi right now to know.

It's only the qualificative agnostic, who say's it's entirely possible, but doesn't wish to hazzard a guess that could be called a fence sitter.

Sorry, but I don't see how that shows a distinction between belief and knowledge. Without any information, no knowledge is possible. If the strong atheist says he knows, he's lying.

I think a question more appropriate to the religious debate would be: Is Randi on his knees praying to God for communism to make a comeback right now? Given what we know about Randi, we can pretty much state as fact that he isn't, even though we aren't with him.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sure, it would be mostly invalid, I definitely agree on this point. But if you start by evaluating the validity of the test, you skip two fundamental steps in the reasoning. First, you assume that the test actually happened, and then you assume that the results were really those described. By jumping directly to the final step, you defend a position that is not attacked yet, thus you indirectly give it in the eye undecided reader an importance it doesn't have by implicitly assuming that the first points are accurate, which they are not.

I don't see how you must assume that such an experiment even existed in the first place by arguing that a polygraph test isn't valid?

You seem to be throwing in assumptions where they need not exist.

 

[Cardelitre]

I don't see how you must assume that such an experiment even existed in the first place by arguing that a polygraph test isn't valid?

As far as I know, an invalid methodology doesn't necessarily prevent an experiment to be conducted. Sadly. It is just a bad experiment, but an experiment that has been done anyway.

You seem to be throwing in assumptions where they need not exist.

If the test has not been done it is not because the methodology is invalid. It is because it has been completely made up by religious agenda-driven manipulating people.

The bad methodology part is secondary in this issue...

 

[Lonewulf]

As far as I know, an invalid methodology doesn't necessarily prevent an experiment to be conducted. Sadly. It is just a bad experiment, but an experiment that has been done anyway.

It would also be a meaningless experiment, and thus not interesting even if it did exist. I still see it as part of the discussion.

If the test has not been done it is not because the methodology is invalid. It is because it has been completely made up by religious agenda-driven manipulating people.

The bad methodology part is secondary in this issue...

Secondary or not, it's still part of the issue. And thus, it's still part of the conversation.

And yeah, of course it's completely made up by religious agenda-driven manipulating people. Nothing new there. But it's similar to, say...

For instance, someone claims that they had a past life. In this past life, they were a witch that was burned at the stake in Salem, Massachusetts, while holding up the book of shadows.

You COULD say that you can't discuss any of the other factual inaccuracies before you verify whether past lives exist or not... or you could discuss past lives even though everything else about the story was inaccurate or not. All of it's part of the discussion over the issue, and I don't see anything as particularly forbidden.

If this was mentioned on an internet forum, one person could reply with saying that it would be ludicrous for someone to be given anything of power while burning them. Another could state that they were hanged, not burned. Another could state that the people killed were not killed for being witches per se, but for denying witchcraft, and in fact one recited the Lord's Prayer before being hung. Meanwhile, another person could chime in and express skepticism about past lives in the first place. Another could discuss how the person is a Wiccan, and how the Wiccan "religion" didn't really become official until the last few decades. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to chime in and say "OFF TOPIC" to any of these posts.

Now, if someone remarked that the person who was posting wears horrible make-up or needs to get better lipstick (which was Skeptigirl's "ingenious" comparison)... then yeah. That's off topic, and entirely silly.

(The example comes from a comic strip called Something Positive, I might add, where all of those inaccuracies were given a valid woo smackdown.)

 

[Cardelitre]

Secondary or not, it's still part of the issue. And thus, it's still part of the conversation.

Well yes, that's what I said: it is part of the issue, but it is secondary. If you want to keep it in the conversation, once again, please go ahead, that's not a concern to me.

For instance, someone claims that they had a past life. In this past life, they were a witch that was burned at the stake in Salem, Massachusetts, while holding up the book of shadows.

You COULD say that you can't discuss any of the other factual inaccuracies before you verify whether past lives exist or not... or you could discuss past lives even though everything else about the story was inaccurate or not. All of it's part of the discussion over the issue, and I don't see anything as particularly forbidden.

Well, of course it is not forbidden, and I don't recall having suggested the contrary anywhere. This is mostly a question of strategy, and selecting the most useful type of refutation of a silly claim. I don't mean that your approach is not accurate, it is just that it is not the most useful to convince (or at least to silence) those spreading this kind of myth, for the reasons explained above.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to chime in and say "OFF TOPIC" to any of these posts.

That's right. And actually I don't recall having said "OFF TOPIC" anywhere. Please quote it if you don't mind.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well yes, that's what I said: it is part of the issue, but it is secondary. If you want to keep it in the conversation, once again, please go ahead, that's not a concern to me.


Well, of course it is not forbidden, and I don't recall having suggested the contrary anywhere. This is mostly a question of strategy, and selecting the most useful type of refutation of a silly claim. I don't mean that your approach is not accurate, it is just that it is not the most useful to convince (or at least to silence) those spreading this kind of myth, for the reasons explained above.

Ah, well, if it's merely a question of tactics, then okay.

I'm tired right now, so I'm barely able to give much of an answer, other than yeah. Verifying if the "study" ever happened would be just fine. Though I would state that educating Christians as to why such a study wouldn't be reliable would also be useful. Just like educating atheists or anybody at all of the same would also be beneficial...

That's right. And actually I don't recall having said "OFF TOPIC" anywhere. Please quote it if you don't mind.

Sure.

OFF TOPIC! That is SO off topic! My eyes are bleeding at how off topic that was. My ears too, for some reason.

What? You never said it had to be an authentic quote.

(It's currently 2:28 AM, so I blame that if my joke bombed).

 

[verisimilidude]

You're all going to HELL!

Umm, now that I have your attention, I don't know if I buy the notion that one can accurately conclude that if 100 atheists took a polygraph and all failed (tested positive for lying), than 80 could be considered lying. I think one would need a much larger sample of atheists before one could draw that conclusion. How large, I do not know.

For example, if you had five hundred atheists, and tested only one hundred of them, all of whom tested positive, isn't it possible that those one hundred fall within the 20% rate of false positives? Therefore, they could all be telling the truth despite the results?

Just posing the question; I do not claim to be a statistician, etc.
.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're all going to HELL!

Umm, now that I have your attention, I don't know if I buy the notion that one can accurately conclude that if 100 atheists took a polygraph and all failed (tested positive for lying), than 80 could be considered lying. I think one would need a much larger sample of atheists before one could draw that conclusion. How large, I do not know.

For example, if you had five hundred atheists, and tested only one hundred of them, all of whom tested positive, isn't it possible that those one hundred fall within the 20% rate of false positives? Therefore, they could all be telling the truth despite the results?

Just posing the question; I do not claim to be a statistician, etc.
.

It would appear that those of us who think the polygraph validity argument puts the cart before the horse and suggested it be in a separate thread continue to be thwarted in trying to keep either thread on topic. You post this here and mayday posted the following in the polygraph thread.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Hypothetically, say you asked 100 theists if they really believed in god and they all answered yes and the results showed they were all lying. If the polygraph gives valid results 80% of the time (without trying to fool it the report said the results were valid close to 100% of the time but say it was only 80%), then 80 theists would be lying. You could not tell which 80 were lying and which 20 were not lying but you could conclude 80 were lying based on the average validity of the polygraph results....why the two of you don't understand the scientific concept of sensitivity and specificity.

It's an old cynic's trick called raising the bar.

No one will be able to provide a good enough explanation or amount of evidence.

And Lonewulf claimed I cast the first OT stone and seems to think I'm a witch with a b for even trying to keep the discussions separate, despite the fact, Abdul actually brought it up first.

Debunking the methodology of an "experiment" which never happened?

Here's a summary to date (anyone is free to add or subtract from my synopsis)

There are two discussions here (not counting all the OT forum member bashing going on inbetween. Yes the 2 are related, but nonetheless there are 2 discussions.

Discussion #1 is the OP in this thread: A completely unsubstantiated claim was made that is essentially a version of the "there are no atheists in foxholes" claim with a twist. In this version it was supposedly proved by a mythical polygraph of 100 atheists who, when asked if they believed God existed, couldn't answer no without the polygraph indicating the atheists were being deceptive. Besides the OP anecdote, a second source of the myth was cited. Snopes has no entry on this claim. I emailed them and asked if they wouldn't create an entry.

Mayday's post I quoted here about raising the bar and no amount of evidence would ever be enough is consistent with her lack of skepticism. This is a standard woo tactic we've all seen numerous times before. Mayday, you have put NO EVIDENCE forth. So how can you make the claim no amount of evidence would be sufficient? It's ludicrous.

However, in this case, I wish you did have evidence. Because it would be helpful in discussion #2, if there were such polygraph results out there, would the results mean anything anyway?

That topic is being discussed in the polygraph thread. I have already addressed the issues in veris' post in the poly thread. But to summarize that discussion so folks can judge if they want to join in, there are two issues under consideration. One is the reliability of any polygraph test. Claus would seem to be of the opinion not a single result in a single polygraph is meaningful, AND/OR, if you cannot determine if an individual is being deceptive, you also cannot determine anything about a group of results. I say and/or because I'm still not sure what Claus' actual position is.

On the subject of the reliability of polygraphs in general, the data shows a wide range from very accurate to very inaccurate with a number of variables which are related to the accuracy of the tests. If mayday actually had the specifics about the 100 polygraph results claimed in the OP, it could help resolve that issue.

On the subject of interpreting the results of an inaccurate test on a group of tests rather than on an individual test, I have a detailed example in the thread and drkitten as well as a couple other contributors have explained in detail the usefulness of a less than accurate test in drawing conclusions about a group of results as opposed to an individual result in this case. If 100 atheists registered on a polygraph as deceptive and the polygraph was determined to be accurate 80% of the time, then at least 80% of those atheists would likely be deceptive on the test. What you cannot say is which of the 80 were deceptive. Nor could you say how many of the remaining 20 were deceptive.

I am not saying polygraphs are 80% reliable all of the time. Again, the scientific data found a range of accuracy from very good to very poor. Unless we had the actual test conditions of the 100 atheists, we could not say if that group of tests were likely to be 50% accurate or 80% or even 90% accurate. The data did show that polygraphs were consistently better than chance in determining deception.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Understood, but the religious debate between believers and non-believers isn't about any hypothetical power, but specifically about Yahweh/God/Allah as put forth in the religious texts, or any other formalised gods that have sprouted from our imagination. I presume you would say with confidence that they don't exist, not just that you don't believe they exist.

I'm an a-theist, not a an a-deitiesist or whatever. My lack of belief extends to a deity no humans has yet conceptualized as well.