Just from looking at the titles of the news articles I could tell that the site is biased.
And the sample size is just too ****ing damned small. 17 people for the first one? 19 for the second? That is so ridiculously small that it can't even count as research.
As for the U.S. book- I cannot tell sample sizes, but from what I read on amazon reviews, it says that his sample size was from 253 "active" atheists in San Francisco and 28 in Idaho, etc.
Again, sample size is too small. Furthermore, I have to suspect a potential bias. Most atheists I know of do not go to regular meetings comprised of atheists. The fact that they go to regular meetings suggests to me that these folks merely replaced God with something else.
Lots of issues.
People need to learn basics of checking sources and concept of basic research.
As for your question - I think they're people who replaced God with something else, and as such religion is still a very large part of their lives. They just deny it.
But, really, please, vet things better before you think it's thread worthy.
The only thing i fear about the non existent god are the actions and attitudes of it's followers. I fear god as much as i fear being impaled by unicorns.
The only thing i fear about the non existent god are the actions and attitudes of it's followers. I fear god as much as i fear being impaled by unicorns.
But there are a lot of atheists who still fear Hell or the wrath of the god they don't believe in. It's irrational, but rationality takes a back seat to early childhood indoctrination almost every time.
Arent christians afraid of god? Isnt everyone afraid of god?
That wich cant be proven but you may meet after death is terrifying. For everyone.
I'm scared of the Christian God in same way I'm scared of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with a Flying Spaghetti nuclear arsenal. It's the equivalent of being scared of the dark. No. Everyone is not scared of the dark, or the FSM, or his FS Nukes, or the Christian God. If I were actually scared of everything that can't be proven, I would simply have a heart attack and die right now.
It's pretty hard to feel fear for something when you're pretty sure it doesn't exist.
And i would not trust anything about atheism or religion from usa soil. The us has a lot of wackos with Money funding al sort of pseudo scientific nonsens about religion, non-religion.
What non-religious pseudo science do you see being endorsed by Atheist organizations in the US?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
At the OP, Most American children are force fed religion from the time they are born thill they reach adulthood. Some, take the time to delve into religion and find their own faith instead of what was force fed them. I would say, some of the people become atheists.
@ alex holland, I am not afraid of any god or any wrath. I was raised by a Catholic father and a Lutheran mother and found religion not to be my thing. I dont believe in a higher being. When you die, you are dead. No repentance, no after life, no nothing. You are dead. Its a fact of life, nothing to be feared.
Just from looking at the titles of the news articles I could tell that the site is biased.
And the sample size is just too ****ing damned small. 17 people for the first one? 19 for the second? That is so ridiculously small that it can't even count as research.
As for the U.S. book- I cannot tell sample sizes, but from what I read on amazon reviews, it says that his sample size was from 253 "active" atheists in San Francisco and 28 in Idaho, etc.
Again, sample size is too small. Furthermore, I have to suspect a potential bias. Most atheists I know of do not go to regular meetings comprised of atheists. The fact that they go to regular meetings suggests to me that these folks merely replaced God with something else.
Lots of issues.
People need to learn basics of checking sources and concept of basic research.
As for your question - I think they're people who replaced God with something else, and as such religion is still a very large part of their lives. They just deny it.
But, really, please, vet things better before you think it's thread worthy.
The sample size is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that all atheists are afraid of God. I'm asking why these atheists in the study are afraid of God.
Just from looking at the titles of the news articles I could tell that the site is biased.
And the sample size is just too ****ing damned small. 17 people for the first one? 19 for the second? That is so ridiculously small that it can't even count as research.
As for the U.S. book- I cannot tell sample sizes, but from what I read on amazon reviews, it says that his sample size was from 253 "active" atheists in San Francisco and 28 in Idaho, etc.
Again, sample size is too small. Furthermore, I have to suspect a potential bias. Most atheists I know of do not go to regular meetings comprised of atheists. The fact that they go to regular meetings suggests to me that these folks merely replaced God with something else.
Lots of issues.
People need to learn basics of checking sources and concept of basic research.
As for your question - I think they're people who replaced God with something else, and as such religion is still a very large part of their lives. They just deny it.
But, really, please, vet things better before you think it's thread worthy.
The sample size is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that all atheists are afraid of God. I'm asking why these atheists in the study are afraid of God.
I dont believe in ghosts however if you drop me into a "haunted" house in the middle of a thunder storm I would also have a highly elevated heart rate. You dont have to believe in something to be fearful of it in certain circumstances.
Especially if you look at some of the things they were asked to say. If my parents believed in God and I was asked to say "please God strike down my parents and send them to hell" it might be more meaningful in my mind than simply saying "universe make my parents be dead" even though I dont believe in God or Hell I know my parents do.
Edit: Just to expand. In general fear is not "logical". All people are afraid of heights in some way. It is scientifically proven. Now for most people if you took them up high enough even if they were strapped into a harness they would be afraid of falling. It wouldnt matter that they know that they are strapped in and that it is virtually impossible for them to fall, they would still show some signs of fear.
The sample size is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that all atheists are afraid of God. I'm asking why these atheists in the study are afraid of God.
Because the biased study selected 20-40 people who were afraid of god that they could get away with labeling atheist? Seriously, if you want to know that, you'd have to ask the individuals in the study. There's no way you can infer a larger trend on a sample size this small, and that's precisely what he was getting at.
The sample size is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that all atheists are afraid of God. I'm asking why these atheists in the study are afraid of God.
Who knows. It would be a complete guess, and there's really no point in making complete guesses on matters like this.
That was sort of my point. You have no issue to discuss here. The study is not relevant in any real sense because the sample size is too small. You cannot make any sort of extrapolation out of it. The book that it references for the U.S atheists, though admittedly I cannot make any serious judgment without actually reading it, seems to have a serious bias in its sample and also has a small sample size.
Thus, the entire article is pointless to discuss in any serious sense.
And you trying to make a discussion out of why these specific 17 or 19 atheists are scared of God is like trying to make a discussion of why some 17 or 19 people are scared of the dark. You cannot know, because everyone has different reasons for being scared of something.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
Can you prove that there isn't a giant, undetectable ball of spaghetti flying around out there? What makes your conception of God more valid than the FSM or Zeus or Toth or any other deity?
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
The Spaghetti monster parody has expanded far beyond it's original use, but your first statement is the whole reason it was created.
If you can't prove if something exists or doesn't exist, then the correct stance is to not believe that it exists. You can't disprove the spaghetti monster any more than you can disprove god.
From an epistemic standpoint, the concepts of god, unicorns, or the spaghetti monster are identical. The difference here is that children aren't taught from an early age about how unicorns will impale them, so adults don't fear that. But I'm sure that if you indoctrinated a child into fearing unicorns and had a culture that encouraged this fear, even adults who stopped believing in unicorns would fear them.
Saying god is on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
Unicorns are a product of a certain classic culture.
But all cultures have god or gods.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
How...how can you not see the very simply and very glaring problem with your statement.
- You can't prove there is a god, I don't have to prove there isn't one.
- You can't prove there are no unicorns, I don't have to prove there aren't any.
- You can't prove there the FSM doesn't exist and you can't prove the FSM doesn't have a nuclear arsenal.
MOST cultures have Gods. These gods vary about as much and the variation between unicorns and leprechans. You simply can't just dismiss ideas like the FSM because you won't want have to have the debate. It doesn't work like that.
Address the issue of why you think the FSM should be considered less real than a Christian god from the perspective of an atheist (that both the FSM and God were created within the human mind).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
The sample size is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that all atheists are afraid of God. I'm asking why these atheists in the study are afraid of God.
Who knows. It would be a complete guess, and there's really no point in making complete guesses on matters like this.
That was sort of my point. You have no issue to discuss here. The study is not relevant in any real sense because the sample size is too small. You cannot make any sort of extrapolation out of it. The book that it references for the U.S atheists, though admittedly I cannot make any serious judgment without actually reading it, seems to have a serious bias in its sample and also has a small sample size.
Thus, the entire article is pointless to discuss in any serious sense.
And you trying to make a discussion out of why these specific 17 or 19 atheists are scared of God is like trying to make a discussion of why some 17 or 19 people are scared of the dark. You cannot know, because everyone has different reasons for being scared of something.
I'm not extrapolating anything. Where did I claim that other atheists are afraid of God? I'm asking why these particular atheists are afraid of something they don't believe in.
And yes, I am trying to make a discussion of this, because I'd like to know why these atheists are afraid of something that might as well be imaginary to them. Like someone in this thread said, they are as much afraid of God as they are of being mauled by a unicorn. I want to know what the case is for these people in the study. They had the same reaction to daring God to do bad things as the theists.
And my answer to that was we have no bloody idea, and that is about as answerable as trying to make a discussion why some people are afraid of the dark.
Anything we try to determine would be guesses, because there is nothing to back it with.
And guesses are rather pointless when it comes to debates or arguments.
The sample size is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that all atheists are afraid of God. I'm asking why these atheists in the study are afraid of God.
Who knows. It would be a complete guess, and there's really no point in making complete guesses on matters like this.
That was sort of my point. You have no issue to discuss here. The study is not relevant in any real sense because the sample size is too small. You cannot make any sort of extrapolation out of it. The book that it references for the U.S atheists, though admittedly I cannot make any serious judgment without actually reading it, seems to have a serious bias in its sample and also has a small sample size.
Thus, the entire article is pointless to discuss in any serious sense.
And you trying to make a discussion out of why these specific 17 or 19 atheists are scared of God is like trying to make a discussion of why some 17 or 19 people are scared of the dark. You cannot know, because everyone has different reasons for being scared of something.
I'm not extrapolating anything. Where did I claim that other atheists are afraid of God? I'm asking why these particular atheists are afraid of something they don't believe in.
And yes, I am trying to make a discussion of this, because I'd like to know why these atheists are afraid of something that might as well be imaginary to them. Like someone in this thread said, they are as much afraid of God as they are of being mauled by a unicorn. I want to know what the case is for these people in the study. They had the same reaction to daring God to do bad things as the theists.
The problem is that there really isn't much to debate. You link to a study that shows a few people had a reaction when they where asked to dare or tempt god. Then you want to know why, but you are asking people that have no idea why these people feel that way.
So the only thing i can offer is how i feel. I know without a shadow of doubt that god does not exist. Can i prove it? No. I still know with no doubt that god does not exist.
Yet last night i read my first bible to my kid because that was the book he picked out. I read the stories of Jesus like i would the stories of Hercules. With great emotion and fanciful voices because that is what my kid likes. If you hooked my brain up i bet every time i said the word good or Jesus something registered. I know without a shadow of doubt god does not exist and i know my kid likes that book.
And yes, I am trying to make a discussion of this, because I'd like to know why these atheists are afraid of something that might as well be imaginary to them. Like someone in this thread said, they are as much afraid of God as they are of being mauled by a unicorn. I want to know what the case is for these people in the study. They had the same reaction to daring God to do bad things as the theists.
What you're asking for is speculation. A debate would require something more credible (bigger sample size, repeat testing, better methodology, etc.). By all standards, this single study is not enough to qualify as any level of evidence.
But I'm game for some speculation. If I were to participate in this test I wouldn't be surprised if something registered. I have absolutely no doubt about the non-existence of any gods. However, as an American, I have been enculturated with Christian beliefs. If anything, my subconscious would be to blame.
The only thing we could debate is whether one should be held accountable for their subconscious thoughts/feelings. I'd say no, I think most people would say no. We don't say someone is a murderer if they murder someone in a dream. In the same way, atheists aren't somehow secret theists if they have a subconscious response to a stimuli.
You are extrapolating something, that atheists are "afraid" of God. If you read the article, all it said was that the methodology dealt with emotional arousal, which doesn't equal anger. This makes sense because "skin conductance data was collected via electrodes placed on two of their fingers." To me, this raises a big a red flag. A couple electrodes on fingers could not possibly give data on such a specific emotional response, thus all the conjecture at the end of the article as to why the atheists responded in such a way. So basically, having failed to apply critical thinking when reading the article, you got caught up in the provocative title, good job.
The moral of the story: Take people's word for what they believe. To do otherwise is to show one's biases. If you're so interested in this particular study, fire off some emails to the researchers and/or the organization.
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
I wounder how many people that don't believe in aliens were frightened by the movie Alien.
We just need to round-up bunch of creationists and get them to watch a horror movie about evolution, and/or the Earth being 4.5 billion years old.
'Course if we did that the people from this study would claim that fear--as an emotional response--has little to do with rational belief; unless it's fear of God, of course.
Saying god is on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
Unicorns are a product of a certain classic culture.
But all cultures have god or gods.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer. Religious people like to say that whole "prove there is no god bit" but it's philosophically flawed.
If I told you "i can fly" you'd say "prove it!" And if I said back to you - "well, you can't prove that I can't fly so therefore it must remain a matter of debate" you probably would be pissed.
You realize that most people believed in Unicorns because they had Narwhals. The Europeans believed every land animal had an ocean animal equivalent.
And fossil remains tend to give reasoning behind other mythical beast in various cultures. (griffons come to mind as well as dragons)
So you are saying that early cultures would take a piece of evidence then extrapolate from that evidence unsupported assumptions and these early cultures erroneously believed their assumptions to be true.
This sounds exactly like religion. So my use of unicorn to describe my lack of fear of god was a good metaphor.
Setting aside the idiotic cohort of <20 people which renders the 'research' pointless...their response probably has nothing to do with fear. Irritation maybe.
If young-earth creationists were asked to say something about evolution they would probably have a similar response. It doesn't mean they believe in it.
They found that 3/4 of American atheists were once believers, but how likely is it that all of the atheists in the study were former believers?
And the sample size is just too ****ing damned small. 17 people for the first one? 19 for the second? That is so ridiculously small that it can't even count as research.
As for the U.S. book- I cannot tell sample sizes, but from what I read on amazon reviews, it says that his sample size was from 253 "active" atheists in San Francisco and 28 in Idaho, etc.
Again, sample size is too small. Furthermore, I have to suspect a potential bias. Most atheists I know of do not go to regular meetings comprised of atheists. The fact that they go to regular meetings suggests to me that these folks merely replaced God with something else.
Lots of issues.
People need to learn basics of checking sources and concept of basic research.
As for your question - I think they're people who replaced God with something else, and as such religion is still a very large part of their lives. They just deny it.
But, really, please, vet things better before you think it's thread worthy.
God doesn't have to enter the equation at all. You're just talking about fear of the unknown.
I'm scared of the Christian God in same way I'm scared of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with a Flying Spaghetti nuclear arsenal. It's the equivalent of being scared of the dark. No. Everyone is not scared of the dark, or the FSM, or his FS Nukes, or the Christian God. If I were actually scared of everything that can't be proven, I would simply have a heart attack and die right now.
It's pretty hard to feel fear for something when you're pretty sure it doesn't exist.
What non-religious pseudo science do you see being endorsed by Atheist organizations in the US?
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
@ alex holland, I am not afraid of any god or any wrath. I was raised by a Catholic father and a Lutheran mother and found religion not to be my thing. I dont believe in a higher being. When you die, you are dead. No repentance, no after life, no nothing. You are dead. Its a fact of life, nothing to be feared.
I'm not afraid of god at all. Actually, I rather like algebra's take on it:
The sample size is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that all atheists are afraid of God. I'm asking why these atheists in the study are afraid of God.
I dont believe in ghosts however if you drop me into a "haunted" house in the middle of a thunder storm I would also have a highly elevated heart rate. You dont have to believe in something to be fearful of it in certain circumstances.
Especially if you look at some of the things they were asked to say. If my parents believed in God and I was asked to say "please God strike down my parents and send them to hell" it might be more meaningful in my mind than simply saying "universe make my parents be dead" even though I dont believe in God or Hell I know my parents do.
Edit: Just to expand. In general fear is not "logical". All people are afraid of heights in some way. It is scientifically proven. Now for most people if you took them up high enough even if they were strapped into a harness they would be afraid of falling. It wouldnt matter that they know that they are strapped in and that it is virtually impossible for them to fall, they would still show some signs of fear.
Because the biased study selected 20-40 people who were afraid of god that they could get away with labeling atheist? Seriously, if you want to know that, you'd have to ask the individuals in the study. There's no way you can infer a larger trend on a sample size this small, and that's precisely what he was getting at.
Who knows. It would be a complete guess, and there's really no point in making complete guesses on matters like this.
That was sort of my point. You have no issue to discuss here. The study is not relevant in any real sense because the sample size is too small. You cannot make any sort of extrapolation out of it. The book that it references for the U.S atheists, though admittedly I cannot make any serious judgment without actually reading it, seems to have a serious bias in its sample and also has a small sample size.
Thus, the entire article is pointless to discuss in any serious sense.
And you trying to make a discussion out of why these specific 17 or 19 atheists are scared of God is like trying to make a discussion of why some 17 or 19 people are scared of the dark. You cannot know, because everyone has different reasons for being scared of something.
Can you prove that there isn't a giant, undetectable ball of spaghetti flying around out there? What makes your conception of God more valid than the FSM or Zeus or Toth or any other deity?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
If you can't prove if something exists or doesn't exist, then the correct stance is to not believe that it exists. You can't disprove the spaghetti monster any more than you can disprove god.
From an epistemic standpoint, the concepts of god, unicorns, or the spaghetti monster are identical. The difference here is that children aren't taught from an early age about how unicorns will impale them, so adults don't fear that. But I'm sure that if you indoctrinated a child into fearing unicorns and had a culture that encouraged this fear, even adults who stopped believing in unicorns would fear them.
Saying god is not on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
God the Abrahamic god is a product of a certain culture.
But all cultures have mythical beasts.
Nobody can't prove there isnt a unicorn. So anyone who says that unicorns are the same as a spaghetti monster is....
How...how can you not see the very simply and very glaring problem with your statement.
- You can't prove there is a god, I don't have to prove there isn't one.
- You can't prove there are no unicorns, I don't have to prove there aren't any.
- You can't prove there the FSM doesn't exist and you can't prove the FSM doesn't have a nuclear arsenal.
MOST cultures have Gods. These gods vary about as much and the variation between unicorns and leprechans. You simply can't just dismiss ideas like the FSM because you won't want have to have the debate. It doesn't work like that.
Address the issue of why you think the FSM should be considered less real than a Christian god from the perspective of an atheist (that both the FSM and God were created within the human mind).
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
And yes, I am trying to make a discussion of this, because I'd like to know why these atheists are afraid of something that might as well be imaginary to them. Like someone in this thread said, they are as much afraid of God as they are of being mauled by a unicorn. I want to know what the case is for these people in the study. They had the same reaction to daring God to do bad things as the theists.
Anything we try to determine would be guesses, because there is nothing to back it with.
And guesses are rather pointless when it comes to debates or arguments.
The problem is that there really isn't much to debate. You link to a study that shows a few people had a reaction when they where asked to dare or tempt god. Then you want to know why, but you are asking people that have no idea why these people feel that way.
So the only thing i can offer is how i feel. I know without a shadow of doubt that god does not exist. Can i prove it? No. I still know with no doubt that god does not exist.
Yet last night i read my first bible to my kid because that was the book he picked out. I read the stories of Jesus like i would the stories of Hercules. With great emotion and fanciful voices because that is what my kid likes. If you hooked my brain up i bet every time i said the word good or Jesus something registered. I know without a shadow of doubt god does not exist and i know my kid likes that book.
What you're asking for is speculation. A debate would require something more credible (bigger sample size, repeat testing, better methodology, etc.). By all standards, this single study is not enough to qualify as any level of evidence.
But I'm game for some speculation. If I were to participate in this test I wouldn't be surprised if something registered. I have absolutely no doubt about the non-existence of any gods. However, as an American, I have been enculturated with Christian beliefs. If anything, my subconscious would be to blame.
The only thing we could debate is whether one should be held accountable for their subconscious thoughts/feelings. I'd say no, I think most people would say no. We don't say someone is a murderer if they murder someone in a dream. In the same way, atheists aren't somehow secret theists if they have a subconscious response to a stimuli.
You are extrapolating something, that atheists are "afraid" of God. If you read the article, all it said was that the methodology dealt with emotional arousal, which doesn't equal anger. This makes sense because "skin conductance data was collected via electrodes placed on two of their fingers." To me, this raises a big a red flag. A couple electrodes on fingers could not possibly give data on such a specific emotional response, thus all the conjecture at the end of the article as to why the atheists responded in such a way. So basically, having failed to apply critical thinking when reading the article, you got caught up in the provocative title, good job.
The moral of the story: Take people's word for what they believe. To do otherwise is to show one's biases. If you're so interested in this particular study, fire off some emails to the researchers and/or the organization.
We just need to round-up bunch of creationists and get them to watch a horror movie about evolution, and/or the Earth being 4.5 billion years old.
'Course if we did that the people from this study would claim that fear--as an emotional response--has little to do with rational belief; unless it's fear of God, of course.
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer. Religious people like to say that whole "prove there is no god bit" but it's philosophically flawed.
If I told you "i can fly" you'd say "prove it!" And if I said back to you - "well, you can't prove that I can't fly so therefore it must remain a matter of debate" you probably would be pissed.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
and
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Wow I'm just full of quotes today. Must be my inner god-fearing bible-thumper trying to escape this phony atheist shell!
So you are saying that early cultures would take a piece of evidence then extrapolate from that evidence unsupported assumptions and these early cultures erroneously believed their assumptions to be true.
This sounds exactly like religion. So my use of unicorn to describe my lack of fear of god was a good metaphor.
If young-earth creationists were asked to say something about evolution they would probably have a similar response. It doesn't mean they believe in it.
So is God.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Yet, many people don't seem to understand that the inability to prove something can fly is often very different then proving it cannot fly.