I have a great deal of respect for everyone here and I would really appreciate your opinions.
My family never seemed that religious. I was 'raised' Roman Catholic, and we went to church quite a bit. Not every Sunday, but more than just Christmas and Easter. I went to CCD (essentially Sunday school, but on Tuesday nights), was a member of the church children's choir, received my communion and had my confirmation at 18.
It's funny. Reading the above, it sounds like I had a very religious upbringing, but it certainly didn't feel that way.
Eighteen was also how old I was when my parents divorced, and we all stopped going to church. It wasn't so much a decision, we just seemed to lose interest. I think part of it is that my mother and father were denied communion since they divorced and didn't get an annulment.
Anyway, I moved away for college and just never got back into religion. I didn't party, or drink, or sew my wild oats either, but I did take several religion classes.
Those classes are what got me to start thinking about my beliefs. I had always taken them for granted, never having sat down and thought about them. Until rather recently, that is.
Now I'm at a crossroads. Like I said, my family really isn't all that religious. The most I get is my grandmother occasionally saying she prays for me, which I don't mind. My problem is that I have no idea how any of them would react to finding out I was an atheist. I don't want to start a fight, but I also think it would be interesting to talk about it.
So...what should I do?
(My apologies that this turned into a mini-landmark. Thanks for indulging me. )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wouldn't bother talking about it, to be honest. In my experience, most "socially Catholic" families aren't prepared to have the kind of conversation you'd want to have; IMO, it's unlikely they've ever given their religion more than a cursory thought, and so you're probably not going to get much out of that conversation.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
My parents were okay with it when I was in the same situation. My dad was upset kind of, but my mom reminded him that a lot of really smart people in history had believed as I did, and so he wasn't really in a position to contradict me.
What upset them was when I converted to LDS 20 years later. Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I didn't talk to my parents about "turning atheist" until mom asked me about it. She was questioning her faith and I told her that I'd never had any (despite 18 years of church and religion classes in college). Most people still think I'm a Christian--this one girl was shocked out of her seat last week when I told her I wasn't.
If you're feeling compelled to tell them(you're obviously thinking about it), then you probably should. I don't think it's necessary at all otherwise.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Javert, I'm in a very similar situation. I'd love to hear what others have to say as well.
My initial decision was to just not bother; it would likely cause nothing but problems, and no one needs that. But my fiancée and I (both atheists) are planning on getting married next year, and I'm fairly sure the lack of religious influence in the ceremony will raise a few eyebrows. Then again, part of me says I should do the honest thing and tell them out right. I also don't have a clue how they will react. Tom's observations are probably true of my parents, and this is another reason why I have yet to "come out" to them.
It's inevitable at this point, though. And to be honest, I’m just plain curious. I imagine that for them it will be similar to me confessing that I don’t believe in gravity.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Why bother?
I'm in a similiar situation. Social Catholic describes my family well, as does your description of your 'upbringing'.
I've been an atheist since I was ten, so that's over ten years and the issue is less exciting because it's old hat.
I agree with Tom that you aren't going to get too much out of telling your family.
I've mentioned atheism to my family (years ago, high school): here is what happened:
My mom's reaction was to assume it was the phase saying that the pope probably questions faith too. She converted to catholicism after being the one to take us to CCD and felt awkward at church.
My dad's reaction was hostile. He said I was like those people who think they are so smart for not believing in God. Except since he was alter boy for ten years and owned the 11 o'clock with his brother, that exempts him from going to church except for special occasions. Hence why my mom brought us to church. He very recently bragged about never having read the bible.
I made my confirmation when I was 16 (when our church does it). My mother blackmailed me into doing it by reminding that I would have to explain to my grandmother that I was an atheist (think cute little old (80s) widow who can't turn off her four-ways on her car). She's more relgious than us, as are my uncle and aunt.
I'm not one of those atheists who needs to tell everyone that I'm an atheist (ironic, given this post), or that their religion is "wrong". I'm also so used to going through the motions that I put up with church attendance on the holidays when I'm home.
Do we (nuclear family) read the bible? No. Have we ever prayed outside of church besides saying grace at Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter? No. Do we talk about faith? No. Did it bother my parents that I am an atheist? Yes. Do they mention it at all? No. Do they still drag me to church on special occasions? Yes.
A part of me is thinking detractors will liken this to not confessing an affair to a spouse, but church is so out of sight out of mind for Catholics when they are not in it, that saying something does nothing.
If you want discussion, talk to friends or atheists/agnostics.
rollainm- I'm not sure what I would do about a wedding. I'm working on the acquiring a boyfriend first part. My questions to you are 1. Is her family's religion the same as your family's relgion? 2. How do you feel about relgion? When I read "not bother", I think have a church ceremony and let no one question, but that doesn't seem right to you I'm sure.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Her mother actually claimed to be an atheist until just a few years ago. When she remarried, that apparently changed. I'd say her husband's family is just a hair more into going through the religious motions than my family. They both consider themselves Christians of some protestant denomination or another. She's not sure how her family will react either, but she seems less worried about it than me.
How do I feel about religion? I'm actually still trying to figure that out. However, when I said I'd rather not bother, I simply meant I didn't see the point in forcing the issue upon my family. Changing or compromising our own lives, decisions, or beliefs to keep them in the dark definitely doesn't seem right - for us or our families.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
In my experience, many people fall away from belief for a significant portion of their young-to-middle years and yet somehow find it again later.
I'm not saying that'll necessarily happen in every case, or yours, of course, but it's worth at least considering that what you believe in the future may be quite different from what you believe now -- whatever those beliefs may be.
Ultimately, unless your family puts great stock in religion or you are likely to be forced into participating in rituals you find meaningless or offensive, there's probably very little reason to have that discussion with your family. Would you be hoping that they could somehow talk you out of it? Do you feel like they need to know in order to treat you properly? I'm just trying to figure out the reason for the conversation having to take place at all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Javert: Perhaps you should first decide for what purpose you would reveal your new found outlook on the question of God to your family.
(These are just possible reasons, I am not speculating on yours) Are you trying to just be honest and up front with them? Are you trying to inform them that you have found a set of ideas that are making you happy? Are you trying to rub in that their inactivity in the church left you without a strong belief in God and that that belief is now dead? Are you perhaps hoping that you can help them see the virtues of atheism and the folly of theism?
If your motive is in the vein of, "Just FYI mom and dad, I'm an atheist." I don't know your parents, but in my totally-ignorant-of-the-specific-details opinion I would just leave the matter unspoken. Unless you honestly believe that you would feel happier if they were aware of this important issue.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You should tell them, not so much for yourself, but to make atheism more socially acceptable. Lots of Christians don't know that they know any atheists, and are scared of us. Your parents are probably not that sort, but every bit helps.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Javert, The question of telling them is certain. You should tell them as straight-forward as possible, I think that would make them respect you more.
BlackBlade said: "Are you perhaps hoping that you can help them see the virtues of atheism and the folly of theism?" First off, it's best you don't call people who believe in God fools or lacking in virtue. Some would argue the exact opposite.
I don't think counseling Javert to call his family foolish is wise either. Nor is it wise to say they are lacking in virtue.
What are trying to tell this poor man to do?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
King of Men, you're clearly a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of fellow! Heh.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh, what?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just pointing out that you do not seem to be an atheist interested in making atheism more socially acceptable.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Javert, how do you know your parent's aren't atheists as well?
I was raised in a similar situation as you, more or less forced to go to church from a young age, to commune and convert, and to generally adhere to catholic traditions. However, as I got older, my religious commitment became mostly (because I was still required to attend major holliday mass for grandma's sake) my own choice, and since I had never really bought into the whole religion thing, even from a very young age, I simply stopped participating completely. My parents don't really go to church anymore, and though my mom was raised by my uber religious grandma, I've had some really meaningful discussions with her about historical/academic christianity and dogmatic belief. When I started talking to her (casually, I never made a big deal about my atheism/agnosticism - it changes depending on my mood) I discovered that her religious beliefs were just about as nuanced as my own. She respected catholic traditions, but didn't really think that there was a big bearded guy in the sky looking over us every day. She had her own idea of what spirituality was to her, and how christianity fit into that framework.
All I'm saying is don't write your parents off. They are probably smarter than you think, and if you really want to talk to them about your beliefs, don't go in thinking that you are going to rock their naive world. Bring it up in context one day, and be open to listening to what you parents have to say.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I have friends that are atheists, I know they're atheists, and they know I'm Christian. It has never been a problem for me...
I don't have a problem with atheists, as long as they don't say "theism is folly" and "only atheism is virtuous". I respect everyone's beliefs until they give me a reason not to.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I wouldn't necessarily call your parents up and say "Hey, how are you? I'm an athiest."
But I wouldn't hide it either. If it comes up I'd address it, but I don't think I'd diliberately bring it up.
If you feel like you really want to get it off of your chest that you don't believe in a God, by all means do it.
I would warn you: If you make a big deal of telling your parents, they're likely to assume that you want to be talked out of it, or you want their permission. If this is *not* what you want, I would make it clear to them.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Nick,
A couple of months back (don't know if a thread ended up at Hatrack, couldn't find it searching for "atheist") a study was published about what outside groups people felt shared the American way of life, a yes or no thing. The list of groups included many religions, and ethic backgrounds as well as sexual orientation.
This probably explains why atheist are worried that most people don't share your attitude.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Okay, that's a stereotype if I've ever saw one. None of my Christian friends distrust atheists. I'm not as "reputable" as a study done by University of Minnesota, but my personal experiences directly contradict that study.
Were the people who conducted this study paranoid atheists?
There are some christians out there that are bible-thumpers, atheist-haters and blatantly intolerant of other views.
I am not one of them, and I am not a minority. Not all christians dislike atheists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nobody is saying all christians dislike atheists. But a substantial and vocal fraction do. And to sit about asserting "I am not a minority" is hardly very helpful.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Reporting the results of a study is perpetuating a stereotype?
Nick, I'm not trying to be offensive (as neither an active Christian nor an atheist, I don't really have a horse in this race), but I suspect your anecdotal position is the one that is more likely to be biased than a peer-reviewed article in a prominent sociology journal.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Javert, to me this is one of those situations where it's essential that you're honest, but there's no real reason to force discussion of the issue.
I think it's important that families understand each other, what makes them tick, what is in their heads and hearts. A lot of family members can't acheive any sort of understanding between them, but if it's possible then I think it's important to be open and honest.
If your family asks if you've been attending services, or what you're doing for a particular holiday that you might not actively celebrate, or directly asks you about God and your feelings, I see no problem with saying "actually, i don't attend church anymore. I've re-evaluated my beliefs, and I'm not following a religious path anymore." (or words to that effect ) And then just let the conversation proceed from there.
I don't conceal my beliefs from my parents -- neither do I shove it down their throats. My mom brings it up every now and again: "So what exactly DO you believe?" As if it's changed, or as if she's forgotten But i don't mind re-explaining myself. My dad and I rarely talk religion, but we did have a decent discussion the other day about more generic belief things, if not our specific belief systems.
I think it's just important to be honest.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You should tell them, not so much for yourself, but to make atheism more socially acceptable. Lots of Christians don't know that they know any atheists, and are scared of us. Your parents are probably not that sort, but every bit helps.
And this totally unverifiable claim IS helpful? I think Rakeesh is right.
Just for the record, I've NEVER met nor heard of anybody scared of an atheist. It almost sounds as if you're more distrusting of Christians than they are of atheists.
Many times in recent years both sides of this have tried to play the victim, and this is simply another instance. I read that link above and thought, give me a break. Besides, in this certain case, I hardly believe that Javert's parents will trust him less when they discover his true beliefs.
Tarrsk, agreed. It is more likely to be biased, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong in saying that myself and the christians I know don't distrust atheists. This is an excerpt from that study: "East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts."
I live on the West Coast, in a very diverse area, racially and socially. An area where if you're not accepting, you get branded a hate-monger or at worst, get shot.
[ May 29, 2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:An area where if you're not accepting, you get branded a hate-monger or at worst, get shot.
....
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think that if you can genuinely phrase the question as "coming out" then you might want to consider doing it. As Tom and others said, you might not "get much" out of a conversation on the topic, but there is one thing you can get that can't be underestimated and that's peace of mind.
Now, maybe I'm reading you wrong and you're fine with this never coming up at all among your family, but if I'm not let me say that not "coming out" means it's going to continue to be a question in your mind during interaction with your family. If you keep "closeted" you're going to be modifying your behavior in order to keep your "secret". This is going to prevent others from knowing the real you.
That said, "coming out" doesn't have to be a specific conversation. Just make up your mind that you will always be genuine and avoid deception. If the topic comes up, you will join in as appropriate with your true feelings. If someone asks about church, be honest. If you have opportunity to let people know how you feel, take it as appropriate. After a while, people will either get the hint, or ask you outright, in which case you can have a good conversation and maybe "get something" out of it.
Whatever you do, don't keep yourself closeted. You can't be yourself and simultaneously live a lie. Trust me, I know this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:An area where if you're not accepting, you get branded a hate-monger or at worst, get shot.
....
I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hatepeople like that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: And this totally unverifiable claim IS helpful?
Excuse me. If you would please look five or so posts up the page, you will see a very nice link to a study which does, in fact, verify precisely this claim.
quote:It almost sounds as if you're more distrusting of Christians than they are of atheists.
Well, yes. When was the last time an atheist burned anyone at the stake? People who become emotionally attached to beliefs they cannot prove are extremely dangerous.
quote:Besides, in this certain case, I hardly believe that Javert's parents will trust him less when they discover his true beliefs.
Of course not. That's my point. They won't trust Javert any less, so they will instead start trusting atheists more.
quote:Tarrsk, agreed. It is more likely to be biased, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong in saying that myself and the christians I know distrust atheists.
I think you missed a "don't" in that sentence - a Freudian slip, perchance? However, your personal circle is in any case totally beside the point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Javert, The question of telling them is certain. You should tell them as straight-forward as possible, I think that would make them respect you more.
BlackBlade said: "Are you perhaps hoping that you can help them see the virtues of atheism and the folly of theism?" First off, it's best you don't call people who believe in God fools or lacking in virtue. Some would argue the exact opposite.
I don't think counseling Javert to call his family foolish is wise either. Nor is it wise to say they are lacking in virtue.
What are trying to tell this poor man to do?
I think you misread my post,
1: I myself believe strongly in a God who is quite active in the affairs of this world,
2: That list was purely a list of POSSIBLE reasons for coming out. I've heard of people coming home to parents and saying, "Guess what mom and dad, I'm an atheist because I got some smarts in college, I hope both of you will stop being dumb and come join the bandwagon."
If you reread my post you would realize I am not suggesting he take any specific course of action with the exception of the very end bit.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
BlackBlade, the context of the post seemed to indicate that you believed those reasons. I take back what I said then.
The University of Minnesota study doesn't prove your claim, it's one study that only says that atheists are distrusted, and mostly only in the midwest of the United States. That link specifically says that more educated people are not as distrusting. Nowhere does it say that christians (or other religious groups) are scared of atheists.
quote: Well, yes. When was the last time an atheist burned anyone at the stake? People who become emotionally attached to beliefs they cannot prove are extremely dangerous.
Didn't you know we have freedom of religion here in the United States? Do you fear for your life because you're an atheist? Do you think you're going to be burned at the stake? That was an age past, a less educated and accepting time. If you're afraid of being burned at the stake, you're nothing short of being delusional or paranoid. Even if this an example, it's a poor one, because you're using something that was done hundreds of years ago that is currently forbidden not only by law, but also by belief. Anybody who does burn people at the stake is no christian.
quote: I think you missed a "don't" in that sentence - a Freudian slip, perchance? However, your personal circle is in any case totally beside the point.
I have edited my post. Don't call a typo a Freudian slip to further your argument, it makes you look stupid. I'm not talking about a personal circle, I'm talking about pretty much every christian I've met. The U of M study that you're so eager to refer to even says that the most distrusting people are in the midwest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you add the east and west coast together, isn't that most of the population the United States? That study specifically said that the problem is more in the midwest than anywhere else.
Lets not hijack this thread any more than we have though, we should start a new thread to discuss the claims of that study.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
We've already had a thread discussing that study, iirc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nick,
My experience (here in the midwest even!) is quite similar to yours.
Specific religious beliefs are not really a factor in my relationships.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.
If you hadn't quoted it, I would have .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: [QB]The University of Minnesota study doesn't prove your claim, it's one study that only says that atheists are distrusted, and mostly only in the midwest of the United States.
My claim: Christians distrust atheists, on average. Study: Atheists are distrusted. Additional fact: Most Americans are Christians. Conclusion from study: Christians distrust atheists.
I honestly do not see how you can possibly say this doesn't support my claim. Perhaps you're playing games with 'prove'? Sure, no study ever proves anything 100%, but there's such a thing as a middle ground between "Totally unsupported assertions based on what feels good" and "Confirmed by 100 years of experimental data".
quote:
quote: Well, yes. When was the last time an atheist burned anyone at the stake? People who become emotionally attached to beliefs they cannot prove are extremely dangerous.
Didn't you know we have freedom of religion here in the United States?
You certainly have a law saying there's freedom of religion, yes. I won't even deny that it's quite often enforced. But atheists still often find it necessary to go to court to get rights that everyone else can take for granted. Consider, for example, the Smalkowski case, second link on the page.
quote:Do you fear for your life because you're an atheist? Do you think you're going to be burned at the stake? That was an age past, a less educated and accepting time. If you're afraid of being burned at the stake, you're nothing short of being delusional or paranoid. Even if this an example, it's a poor one, because you're using something that was done hundreds of years ago that is currently forbidden not only by law, but also by belief. Anybody who does burn people at the stake is no christian.
I'm just not going to go there, ok? If it calls itself Christian and believes Jesus was divine, then it's a Christian for purposes of this discussion. I do not care what doctrinal differences you might have.
As for burning at the stake, I agree that this is unlikely; lynching would be the preferred method, or beating and ostracising as in the case above. And certainly I should not care to attempt attending a military academy around here. Again, there does exist a middle ground between fatal persecution and just not quite being as good as everyone else.
quote:I'm talking about pretty much every christian I've met.
That is your personal circle. Anyway, what are you, a thought reader? Do you go about asking all these Christians whether or not they distrust atheists? If not, how do you know what their attitude is? Come up in conversation often, does it? "Oh, by the way, I don't distrust atheists. How about you?"
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I said that the study doesn't prove the claim you made about Christians FEARING atheists, not distrusting them. I thought that was plain.
But as I said before, if you want to continue this discussion, lets start a new thread. I hope you don't because it seems obvious that you have some issues against christians. It almost seems as if some have persecuted you in some way, and that your anger is clouding your reason.
Better yet, lets not waste Hatrack bandwidth, email me.
[ May 29, 2007, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:People who become emotionally attached to beliefs they cannot prove are extremely dangerous.
Which makes this even more deliciously ironic.
I don't happen to think that his anger is clouding his reason, but I don't there's any question that KoM is, in fact, pretty emotionally invested in atheism.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: I said that the study doesn't prove the claim you made about Christians FEARING atheists, not distrusting them. I thought that was plain.
Then I suggest you actually read the study in question, not the summaries. Some extracts:
quote:For all these respondents, atheists represent a general lack of morality, but for some, this lack was associated with criminality and its dangers to safety and public order, while for others the absence of morality was that of people whose resources or positions place them above the common standards of mainstream American life.
quote:One man, DD, a Democrat who is also a pastor involved in social justice outreach, told our interviewer,
quote:You know, anybody can effect change but it has, most non-faith-based organizations do it much more from the perspective of what’s in it for me, and it’s more [a] possible takeover situation, “I’m gonna force you to do whatever I want to do” .|.|. [I]t’s a healthy faith-based tradition that I always recognize as being fixed in community, and working together, and looking out for the well-being of the other person just as much as myself.
quote:It is important to note that our respondents did not refer to particular atheists whom they had encountered. Rather they used the atheist as a symbolic figure to represent their fears about those trends in American life—increasing criminality, rampant self-interest, an unaccountable elite—that they believe undermine trust and a common sense of purpose.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
What do you want me to say KoM? That the study is right and Christians distrust atheists, and you're a victim of distrust?
I hardly believe 2,000 phone samplings is enough to produce an accurate result. Basically, 2,000 people polled can speak for the 300 million people in the United States? If you take those numbers literally, that means that one of those phone poll participants spoke for 150,000 people. I don't know if I buy that. I think it shows that a group of 2,000 people distrust atheists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well, if you're really so emotionally attached to the idea of Christian tolerance that you're going to throw out the whole method of representative samples, and most of sociology therewith, I can't stop you. I would suggest you take a deep breath, though, and think things through before you get quite that defensive. Also, you should please note that the word 'victim' appears in none of my posts.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
My tolerance of other beliefs doesn't have anything to do with my belief in Christianity.
I'm simply saying that the method the of information-gathering is imperfect.
I'm one man in a city of 150,000 (actually the population of the city I live in), would you be alright with me speaking for you if you lived in the same city?
I hardly think I'm throwing out the whole method of representative sampling, I'm saying their sampling was far too inadequate to produce accurate results. That's being logical, not defensive.
I'm not saying you called yourself a victim of distrust. This study says it for you if you accept it as fact.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Are you really not aware of how representative sampling is done? Of course I don't want you speaking for me; but in a sample of 2000 people, it is extremely likely that there will be someone who does speak my opinions, even though atheists are fairly rare. At 3%, that sample will contain roughly 60 atheists.
Please note, most election polls are done on rather smaller samples than this, and probably less well selected for genuine representativeness; do you reject those too? If you do, you need to explain how they nevertheless manage to have a decent track record of predicting election outcomes. 2000 people is in fact enough to get a good cross-section of the population.
As for being a victim, I may let a study speak for me on facts, but I'll make my own interpretations, thanks.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm not even sure why this argument is happening, but at this point I think the thread is officially hijacked. Javert has gotten about all the good advice he’s going to get by now, and besides, he’s probably already made his mind on what to do anyway.
Nick, your point is well taken, but you have asserted it so aggressively that it really does seem like you're assuming what the average American Christian opinion of atheism is. That study very well may not amount to much at all, but neither does your personal experience when it comes to assessing such a large scale opinion - and by personal experience I mean your opinion AND that of "pretty much every christian" you've ever met. It's basic psychology that we humans have a historically unreliable perception of what other people believe or how they see things. I believe “false consensus effect” is the concept I’m thinking of here. Not that I’m accusing you of this fallacy, but this is how you’re coming across to me and apparently to others as well.
Consider my own home town as a counterexample to your experience. To an unknowing visitor, the people here are your average upper-middle class. Do a little research and you’ll find that 90% of the land and businesses in this city are owned and run by the overwhelming majority of Christian conservatives that founded it. Spend a little time here and you’ll soon learn just how religious these people are. How religious are they? I once witnessed our city council argue for thirty minutes over what constitutes an “act of God” (as an exemption from immediate lawn care liability of all things) - the phrase itself was never questioned. They also begin and end each of their meetings with prayer.
I happen to know several people (two are present coworkers) that have been shunned or otherwise rejected by their families because they’re gay, atheist, or simply prefer a different Christian denomination. On a persona level, I have a small but considerable (and growing) fear that my family will refuse to ever speak to me again when they find out I don’t believe in God. I have justifiable reasons for this fear, and I am not alone. I’ve conversed with other atheists from all over the country through forums, instant messages, and emails. There are even websites specifically targeted to people like me or Javert that offer support and advice.
We don’t need polls and surveys to tell us we’re not very well liked. This is simply our reality. It’s wonderful that you and your friends and family don’t discriminate, but can’t you see how that is completely irrelevant when our own friends and families do?
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, well, if you're really so emotionally attached to the idea of Christian tolerance that you're going to throw out the whole method of representative samples, and most of sociology therewith, I can't stop you. I would suggest you take a deep breath, though, and think things through before you get quite that defensive.
I am not so sure that that survey is a very acurate representation of most Christians. I am the son of a pastor, and plan to become a pastor myself. In the last three places i have lived 2 of my best friends have been atheist (the other a Morman). I still talk to my old atheist friend from 2 schools ago and I trust him more than i trust some people that say they're Christians.
Personally I would much rather have someone tell me he/she is atheist, than clam to be a Christian but don't live out their faith. I have found that some of the greatest Christians i know were once atheist. They started searching for God by first eliminating him, but eventually came back to him.
My thoughts are that If you say you hate Atheists, How Christian are you really? Christians should be considered the most loving people in the world. The fact that we're not says we are falling short of God's plan for us.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I-don't-care-what-you-think-a-Christian-should-be. I-care-only-whether-someone-claims-to-be-a-Christian. You-do-not-have-the-right-to-say-who-is-Christian-and-who-isn't.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
"2000 people is in fact enough to get a good cross-section of the population."
Really? Really do the math, and you'll see that one Christian extremist bigot or one atheist makes a severe difference on a number as small as 2000. It is possible that we both disagree on how much sampling is necessary, rather than having to have one of us be wrong? By the way, political polls have long been worthless to me. I look at information relating to propositions and/or candidates, and I vote. Polls are irrelevant.
Doesn't the study, in fact, say atheists are distrusted? So you don't like the word victim. Then what shall we say, a target of the country's distrust? That's all I'm saying.
Please note, the word victim has more to do with others around and less about yourself. I wasn't saying you're making yourself a victim, I'm saying the study is. I can't think of another way to interpret it.
I'm not going to accuse you of anything, but ask a simple question: Do you think all Christians distrust atheists?
rollainm, I'm shocked by your anecdote. There is no separation of church and state there? If that happened in my city, or neighboring cities for that matter, people would sue, the local newspaper would headline it, "City council requires prayer before meeting commencement" and people would be outraged. The schools I went to banned any mention of religion, coaches can be fired for praying before games. I know that I can't use these facts to support a counter-point for the study, but I can say they give me reason to have doubt of it's validity.
On a side note, maybe 3% of the country is atheist, but it sure seems like a lot more than 3% of the people where I live are atheist. A good deal more are agnostic.
I know this may surprise you KoM, but I feel I must apologize for any discrimination you have suffered at the hands of Christians. They should let their actions speak for them instead of speaking out against atheism, for this only frustrates atheists and convinces them that Christians are self-righteous fools. I imagine you've seen plenty of that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Really? Really do the math, and you'll see that one Christian extremist bigot or one atheist makes a severe difference on a number as small as 2000.
Indeed? You consider one-twentieth of a percent to be a large difference? And now do the math and figure out the probability that one such extremist is actually going to be in a sample of two thousand.
Further, this is what margins of error are for. Let's suppose we had a study to determine the number of atheists in the US, and we asked 2000 people. Let's say 60 of those respond "I'm an atheist". We would then quote the atheist percentage, by respectable statistical methods, as (3+-0.4)%. Now, let's do it the other way: Let's say we got it right, and there really are exactly 3% atheists. What is the probability that we are only going to get 50 atheists in our study, and therefore quote a wrong percentage of 2.5%? By simple Poisson (or you can work it out using probabilistic methods of pick-2000-from-300-million, if you prefer), it is a mere 2.3%. So, you'd have to repeat the study 50 times to get, on average, one that was off by half a percent!
I do not wish to flame you, but it does seem to me that you have not studied this subject, but are instead arguing from your gut feeling, plus some revulsion over what this particular study shows. If I may ask, what is your mathematical background?
quote:By the way, political polls have long been worthless to me. I look at information relating to propositions and/or candidates, and I vote. Polls are irrelevant.
Excuse me, you did not read what I wrote. Of course polls are irrelevant to whom you vote for; so they should be! But polls nonetheless do a pretty good job of predicting who is going to win. And they do so with samples no larger than in this study. If you reject this study based on the sample size, you need to explain how polls manage this trick. Whether you, personally, use them to inform your vote is utterly irrelevant.
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I-don't-care-what-you-think-a-Christian-should-be. I-care-only-whether-someone-claims-to-be-a-Christian. You-do-not-have-the-right-to-say-who-is-Christian-and-who-isn't.
I dont have the right to say who is a Christian and who is not one. Your 100% correct. I was just trying to say that it is not a very Christian thing to show hate toward anyone, and I'm sorry some Christians mis-represent us that way.
Jesus says in the bible the greatest comandment is to love your God, the next greatest is to love your neighbor as yourself. My opinion is that if you say you hate your neighbor your not really acting out your faith. But I'm not about to say someone is, or is not a Christian, I leave that up to God.
King of Men, I don't know who you are and what you have been through, but it almost seems like your proud of the fact that some Christians dislike your lifestyle. My two best friends that are atheist, don't where their choice like an honor badge. They ask me questions and test my faith sometimes, but I never get a negative vibe from them.
I'm not trying to say I think your a bad person at all(you like OSC how bad could you possibly be ). I just don't understand why you have to believe Christians hate you. I'll tell you right now, I "clam to be a Christian" and I dont hate you or any other atheist. My family "clams" to be Christians and they don't hate you either. Add us to the 2000 plus my church of 300. That will sway the numbers a little bit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I will let you speak for yourself. I might even let you speak for your family. When you begin speaking for a church of 300 people, I'm having to wonder where you get your information. I asked this question of Nick also, and got no answer: How do you know that those people you claim to speak for don't distrust atheists? Is this a topic that often comes up in conversation, between hymns perhaps?
Also, you don't seem to understand the fundamental point about representative samples: You're already represented. Someone in that study spoke for you, saying "No, I don't distrust atheists in particular". But you are in the minority.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dog Walker: I dont have the right to say who is a Christian and who is not one. Your 100% correct. I was just trying to say that it is not a very Christian thing to show hate toward anyone, and I'm sorry some Christians mis-represent us that way.
If all Christians are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God, then it's not really a mis-representation. In fact, if a majority of Christians believe in something, then by their majority, they are the best representation.
Interestingly (to me at least) that was one of the factors that helped me to decide Christianity was not for me. Most of them talk big, but don't walk the walk.
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: [/qb]
If all Christians are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God, then it's not really a mis-representation. In fact, if a majority of Christians believe in something, then by their majority, they are the best representation.
Interestingly (to me at least) that was one of the factors that helped me to decide Christianity was not for me. Most of them talk big, but don't walk the walk. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Man. I hate to hear it when Christians do stuff that causes others to reject the faith. I'm sorry you have run into some big talking Christians. I once heard "the greatest single cause of atheisism is Christians... who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out of the door and deny him by their lifestyle."
Nothing gets to me more than hypocritical Christians. I mess up all the time and I'm no better than anyone else, but I try to live a life that is pleasing to God. I wish i could do something to make up. I wish i could meet you man. My family has helped out drug addicts, homeless people, gang members, homosexuals, people from every ethnic group, and all kinds of people during our years in the ministry. In the bible it says that everyone was "beautifully and fearfully made". Who am I to disrespect anyone God created.
Mighty Cow, I sorry the Christians in your life did not show you God's love. I wish I could meet you and try to change your feelings toward what Christians are.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
"I do not wish to flame you, but it does seem to me that you have not studied this subject, but are instead arguing from your gut feeling, plus some revulsion over what this particular study shows. If I may ask, what is your mathematical background?"
Oh, so what I say is dismissed because my mathematics don't go beyond high school? I'm also saying that the sampling is flawed because how many different cities and regions with different customs and beliefs are there? Many more than 2000. It's a big country.
I'm arguing with my gut and not my brain? You're not worth discussing this with if you won't accept that somebody can think differently than you without being wrong.
I wish I could meet you, maybe somehow show you that not all Christians are holier-than-thou jerks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if you're not arguing from gut feeling, why don't you post some math that supports your point, as I did? How else are you going to convince me that you're right? And if your mathematics indeed doesn't go beyond high school, then how do you know that you're right, in the first place?
I can accept you thinking differently on, let's say, the merits of Shakespeare; but in mathematics, there actually is such a thing as a correct answer. You are welcome to show that I made a mistake in arriving at my conclusion. Until you do so, I am indeed going to have to dismiss your argument. If you want respect for your argument, make one based in math, not handwaving.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I once heard "the greatest single cause of atheisism is Christians... who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out of the door and deny him by their lifestyle."
It seems to me that the greatest single cause of atheism is no dang evidence for theism.
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I will let you speak for yourself. I might even let you speak for your family. When you begin speaking for a church of 300 people, I'm having to wonder where you get your information. I asked this question of Nick also, and got no answer: How do you know that those people you claim to speak for don't distrust atheists? Is this a topic that often comes up in conversation, between hymns perhaps?
Also, you don't seem to understand the fundamental point about representative samples: You're already represented. Someone in that study spoke for you, saying "No, I don't distrust atheists in particular". But you are in the minority.
You know I cant speak for everyone in my church, but I do know the people very well. I spend much of my time with these people and i have listened to their views on the world. I have even talked with some of them about atheists, and none of them hated them.
One question I have about the study.... Does it say the sample was taken out of 2000 Christians, or just people in general? I don't remember. Also were they Catholics, Mormans, different Protestant groups, Cult groups that are still "Christians" because they mention Christ in their religion, our some other sect of the faith?
Also think about who answers these kinds of studies. In my intro to Stats class we talked about a Journalist that reported that 78 percent of parents said they wished they didnt have their child. Now who do you think took the time to mail a letter to the paper in responce to the question? The people that were not happy. These stats did not give a good representation of the majority of parents.
Just like how you don't write a letter to the resturant if you enjoyed your dinner. You only take the time to write back if the service was bad and the food was cold. If I got a phone call about if I distrusted atheist i would hang up, because the whole study would sound stupid to me.
Those are some things to think about.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm also saying that the sampling is flawed because how many different cities and regions with different customs and beliefs are there? Many more than 2000. It's a big country.
That's why you don't go out on a street in a single city and ask the first 2000 people you meet. There's a whole science to getting a really random sample from all over the country. And while there are more than 2000 people in it, there are not more than 2000 categories of people for something fairly simple like this. You can just split the data say eight ways: {Christian/Other}x{Coast/Midwest}x{Male/Female}.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
KoM, you obviously have it in against Christianity, for this is not the only thread you seem to want to attack the belief.
My argument isn't so much mathematics as it is logic. You still haven't addressed the fact that there are more areas in the country than there are poll participants. That doesn't have anything to do with your mathematical proof.
Is it really necessary to be so condescending?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dog Walker: Mighty Cow, I sorry the Christians in your life did not show you God's love. I wish I could meet you and try to change your feelings toward what Christians are.
Don't worry. It wasn't the bad Christians who lead me away. I realize that there are some awesome Christians, but I started to look around, and realized that there are just as many awesome non-Christians. Once I realized that Christians didn't have any corner on the morality market, it helped me be able to step back and realize that I was believing something that didn't make any sense to me, and it didn't even offer me any benefit.
I'm willing to accept that people might have a good reason to believe something illogical if it offers them a concrete benefit. If there isn't any benefit which can't be found elsewhere, I figured I'd rather believe things which made more sense.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Not really... 1. Christian 2. Other beliefs 3. Heterosexual Male 4. Heterosexual Female 5. Homosexual Male 6. Homosexual Female 7. Rural residents 8. Urban residents 9. West Coast 10. East Coast 11. Midwest
I could keep going...
And by the way, you can't say that say Orange County will be similar to San Francisco. They're both on the west coast, but drastically different politically and morally. That's just one of many differences in your so called "eight-way data split".
It seems that I'm not the only one arguing from my gut. You seem to detest religion from what I've seen on other threads. Is it your personal mission to do this?
Random doesn't mean it's infallible in terms of representative sampling. If you don't have a large enough polling, you won't get accurate results.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: My argument isn't so much mathematics as it is logic. You still haven't addressed the fact that there are more areas in the country than there are poll participants. That doesn't have anything to do with your mathematical proof.
There are exactly 2000 areas in the country, for a given size of area. For a different size, there is only one area. You need to show that it is your size that matters. Once again I direct you to the poll results. How do they predict election outcomes, if representative sampling doesn't work?
quote:Also think about who answers these kinds of studies. In my intro to Stats class we talked about a Journalist that reported that 78 percent of parents said they wished they didnt have their child. Now who do you think took the time to mail a letter to the paper in responce to the question? The people that were not happy. These stats did not give a good representation of the majority of parents.
This exact reason is why major sociology studies are not done by mail. Let me point out to you the part of the paper that discusses this very objection; incidentally, you really ought to read the study we're quarreling about, permit me to link you.
quote: The core data for this article are drawn from the telephone survey we designed and fielded through the Wisconsin Survey Center. Households were randomly selected, then respondents were randomly chosen within households. The survey, on average, took slightly more than 30 minutes to complete. Additionally,African Americans and Hispanics were over-sampled to provide complete data on these populations; to facilitate this over-sampling, the survey could also be conducted in Spanish if the respondent preferred. Our response rate, using a calculation that includes only known households, is 36 percent.
quote:To investigate non-response bias in our sample, we checked many of our variables against the same measures in two surveys known to be of high quality, the General Social Surveys (GSS) and the much larger Current Population Survey (CPS). Our data are quite closely aligned with both.
In other words, they thought of that and took steps to deal with it.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm done. You can think you're right and I'm an idiot who isn't as "smart" as you. This is going nowhere. We can go back and forth all day and night. I've invested enough of my time in this discussion with you, and frankly, you haven't even come close to convincing me. It seems you're more interested in "I'm right and you're wrong, you don't know enough math to keep up with me!" You can respond to this if it makes you feel better, I just will not be reading it.
I'm over it.
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: [/qb]
Don't worry. It wasn't the bad Christians who lead me away. I realize that there are some awesome Christians, but I started to look around, and realized that there are just as many awesome non-Christians. Once I realized that Christians didn't have any corner on the morality market, it helped me be able to step back and realize that I was believing something that didn't make any sense to me, and it didn't even offer me any benefit.
I'm willing to accept that people might have a good reason to believe something illogical if it offers them a concrete benefit. If there isn't any benefit which can't be found elsewhere, I figured I'd rather believe things which made more sense. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Mighty Cow you seem like a good person. Your not flaunting your beliefs and it seems like your just trying to figure things out, and I respect that.
I not ganna get into why I believe what I believe on an online forum. I just want to say that their was a time in my life right after I moved (for the 6th time in 10 years) where I was really getting messed with. I hated the people in my new school, my football coaches, myself, and even my God(who i was trying to deny at the time).
It was right at the time I was getting ready to do something very stupid that God become so real to me. I began to feel loved. I found joy even when people were messing with me EVERY day. I began to turn back towards God and ever sense I have had a great peace I cant describe.
I started reading the bible, I mean really reading the bible and I saw how truely great God is. It gave me advise on how to handle practicle things in my life that i was having problems with. I was able to forgive those that hurt me and now can show love to everyone. Its amazing how great life is when you love everyone no matter what they do.
Oh, by the way, I moved out of that school and into a new one. Here I was runner up for homecoming prince, I have a ton of friends, and have great guys for coaches.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Not really...
(...)
And by the way, you can't say that say Orange County will be similar to San Francisco. They're both on the west coast, but drastically different politically and morally. That's just one of many differences in your so called "eight-way data split".
It seems that I'm not the only one arguing from my gut. You seem to detest religion from what I've seen on other threads. Is it your personal mission to do this?
This isn't even about religion, it's about the mathematics of representative sampling. You seem to have missed my point: You need to show why your particular way of splitting the country is the correct one. As for Orange County, consider this: Either Orange County is typical of a large group, one with a lot of people in it. Maybe they aren't so similar to San Francisco, sure, but they're similar to, say, New York instead. In that case they will be represented in the study with a very high probability - maybe not someone from Orange County, precisely, but someone who answers the questions the same way. The other alternative is that Orange County is a really tiny group, totally unique. In that case, who cares if they're missed?
To consider this more simply, let us consider a study consisting only of a single yes/no question. Now there are exactly two groups of people in the United States: Those who answer yes, and those who answer no. Now suppose County A consists only of yes-answerers, while County B only contains no-answerers; the populations are the same size. Now, my sampling is such that I can only call up one person in these two counties; I flip a coin to find out which one it'll be. That coin-flip, then, determines whether I'll get a yes or a no. But over a large number of coin-flips, and I assure you that in this context 2000 is a large number, the percentage of yes responses will indeed match the percentage who actually do answer yes.
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
King of Men you never answered my question about who was in the study. Do you know?? Look up 8 or 9 posts to see my question.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I did. I linked to the study. I also quoted what they say about the selection. It was random from the whole population.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I started reading the bible, I mean really reading the bible and I saw how truely great God is. It gave me advise on how to handle practicle things in my life that i was having problems with.
Could you elaborate on this? Please provide specific examples and direct quotes if possible.
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote: I started reading the bible, I mean really reading the bible and I saw how truely great God is. It gave me advise on how to handle practicle things in my life that i was having problems with.
Could you elaborate on this? Please provide specific examples and direct quotes if possible.
Sure. I'll give you a few of the top of my head and then I'm off to bed for the night.
On dealing with anger/ Revenge:
Mathew 5: 38 You have heard that it was said, "Eye for Eye, and tooth for tooth" But I tell you Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also.
This helped me during my times i was being messed with. Often times I would fight back but that only made things worse. As I started "turning the other cheek" I noticed people layed off and respected me a little more.
About Judging others
Mat 7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.... Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
I was thinking I was all "high and mighty" until I read this. Now I try not to judge people because I got enough stuff on my own. I also understood why some people had problems with me. They were seeing the crap in my own life, but i was telling them all the wrong things they were doing. This has helped me make more, and better friends.
Lust/respect for women
You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery" But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his heart.
I am 17 and as you could guess lust can be a problem. After reading this verse I now have a greater respect for all women. I try to respect them even when some of them don't respect themselves.
Telling the Truth
Matt 5: 37 Simplt let your "Yes" be "Yes" and your "No" be No".
Telling the truth is such a great thing. How many problems go away when you just start to be honest.
There is advise for parenting, how to be a good kid, and how to respect those in athority over you. I think its in Galatians or Ephesians, I'm not sure.
Genesus 38-49
These chapters go into the life of Joseph. Joseph shows me what true integrity is. He was a great man in times of pain, troubles and heart-ache, as well as in times of joy, power, and happyness. I cant get into it all because it is so long.
1 and 2 Sam. plus Psalms (The life of King David).
David shows me that we are all ganna make mistakes but it is our love for God and our love for others that matters. We need to try to become the best we can be, but God will still forgive us when we fall.
The Life of Jesus
Jesus hung with everyone. He cared more about people than he did about power or fame. He loved us so much he died for us. He died even though he knew not everyone would follow him. He knew some would disrespect and mock him, but he died all the same.
I try to live a life that puts others first, not caring what type of people they are. Its amazing, the second I stopped trying to be popular and cool, and started being nice to everyone, I became "popular" (what ever that means). I still don't get high and wasted every weekend and am not "banging any chicks" but I am not a loser.
I am no great Pastor or a very learned Christian, so this is the best I can think of right now. I wish i had more of the top of my head but I don't right now. I also don't feel like looking a bunch up so this is it. I hope this is an ok responce.
Ohhh.... I forgot verses that show why I feel God is so great. Some is with the life of Christ but their is so much more. I cant get into right now but if you want more on that I might say something after school and before work tommorrow.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There many philosophies that advocate the same virtuous behaviors. Was the Bible just the first place you looked for this sort of advice, or did you select it over other sources for a particular reason?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There seems to be a fundamental disconnect, there. If I said "The Invisible Pink Unicorn says you should turn the other cheek", and in fact I do say that, would the success of your strategy be proof of the IPU's (bbhh) existence?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dog Walker: Mighty Cow you seem like a good person. Your not flaunting your beliefs and it seems like your just trying to figure things out, and I respect that.
Thanks. I try to be a good person, even though I don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible or the existence of a supernatural creator. I like to think I can be a good person, have a great life, be happy, forgive people, and love others even without organized religion.
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There seems to be a fundamental disconnect, there. If I said "The Invisible Pink Unicorn says you should turn the other cheek", and in fact I do say that, would the success of your strategy be proof of the IPU's (bbhh) existence?
I was not trying to prove my faith with those verses. I was merly answering the question about what practicle advise I have fond in the bible. I am not trying to prove my God's existence by the fact that the bible has praticle advise that can help.
Nothing about that post was saying God is real because it works. That throws out your whole deal with the "Invisble Pink Unicorn".
I'm not trying to start a big debate on if God is real or not with you. I've found out debates don't work so much when both sides will not sway from their original postion. The only result is two angery sides and no progress.
King of Men, you do not remind me much of the other atheist I have come in contact with. None of them WANTED people to hate them, or distrust them as it seems you do. I don't hate atheists, I dont distrust people souly on the fact that they are atheist, and I wont hate you, even if you like to compare my God with Unicorns.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'd imagine KoM chose unicorns specifically because there are exactly as many verifiable unicorn sightings as there are god sightings.
Of course, as a Christian (or any sort of religious person, really), that's something you may as well learn to deal with. He won't be the last person to make that comparison.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think many of the Christians on this board think that it's an accident that there's no scientific way to prove god's existence.
After all, it doesn't take much faith to believe in a god you can touch, taste, see, hear, or smell.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's worth pointing out, though, that only in the last couple of hundred years has this become enshrined in doctrine. Back in the day, people believed what they were told and saw nothing wrong in it. It's only because of the huge success of science that religion is now forced to make an actual virtue of unsupported faith.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: KoM, you obviously have it in against Christianity, for this is not the only thread you seem to want to attack the belief.
My argument isn't so much mathematics as it is logic. You still haven't addressed the fact that there are more areas in the country than there are poll participants. That doesn't have anything to do with your mathematical proof.
Is it really necessary to be so condescending?
I think you're missing KoM's point. Although I'll agree that his manner is quite abrasive, probably moreso than it needs to be, he is not actually presenting an argument from authority ("your credentials suck, therefore you are wrong"), which you seem to think he is.
The problem is that, if you never took any classes on statistics (or at least made some effort to learn the theory and methodology behind modern polling), then you will be fundamentally incapable of understanding what gives a study like the UoM one cited in this thread its power. It is completely irrelevant how many "areas of the country" there are, because the sample is selected randomly from people anywhere in the country. On average, all of the viewpoints of interest will be represented in the resulting data, in numbers proportional to what you would find if you could actually poll every single person in the population.
Hoo boy. I am not a statistician by any possible definition of the word, but let me see if I can explain this...
Think of it this way. Let's say you have a country of 100 people, and you're trying to predict the result of a presidential election with two possible candidates. If you ask ten people out of the hundred, selected randomly (and this is key), who they plan to vote for, you will get a ratio very close to what you would get if you actually asked all 100 people. You don't need to actually ask all 100 people, because your random sample already accurately reflects what all 100 people are thinking. Even if this hypothetical country is split up into states of, say, 5-30 people, with vastly different political preferences between states, your results will be approximately the same every single time, as long as you are careful to randomize your sampling. There will inevitably be some minor variation between polls, but all other things being equal, they will always be surprisingly close.
The study cited in this thread works on the same general principle, although at a more complex level, obviously. Your criticism is irrelevant because the simple act of choosing a random sample of the population renders regional differences within the population moot.
As for your anecdotal example ("I don't know anyone who distrusts atheists"), while I have no doubt that you're telling the truth, and that your friends and family are in fact very open-minded Christians who bear no particular grudge against atheists, you cannot extrapolate from your personal experiences to the greater population because they do not constitute a random sample! There are many reasons why, but let me describe one: your sample only contains people who you have interacted with personally. Since you have no particular grudge against atheists, it is likely that the Christians with whom you primarily associate are of like mind. If the Westboro Baptist Church, to use an extreme example, decided to picket your school, I doubt you would go hang out with them. You would recognize them as a bunch of loud, bigoted assholes, and rightly so. Yet they are still American citizens (much as we wish they would go away), and a truly random sample would take that into account.
Now, returning to the university study... out of those 2000 people in their sample, is it likely that one of them was actually an active member of the WBC? Probably not, because there are so few of them. But that's fine! There are so few members of WBC that, for all intents and purposes, they are irrelevant to the study of the American population as presented in that report. And if one manages to sneak in, well, that will very slightly bias the study in one direction, but since that person is just one out of 2000, his or her effect will still be almost nonexistant. That's why when results like this are reported, they are always reported with a margin of error, which effectively states: "given a random sample of <this size>, out of a total population of <this size>, we can only state our results with an accuracy within <this range>." I haven't read the actual paper in question, but with a sample size of 2000, I would be shocked if the margin of error was more than +/-3%.
Hope that made some semblence of sense. And if there's anyone out there who has taken statistics more recently than four years ago (or who has taken more than rudimentary intro stat ), feel free to elaborate and/or make corrections to my description as necessary. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I've never taken even an intro statistics class and I understood you quite clearly.
But then, I understood KoM, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've calculated standard deviations and such. And I happen to agree with Nick. Not, perhaps, for the reasons he stated. But because there really is no such thing as a sufficiently random sample with these sorts of studies. Too many sampling biases are almost certain to be present, biases in how the questions are phrased are absolutely guaranteed to be present, etc.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
quote:My argument isn't so much mathematics as it is logic.
This just goes to show how little math you know...
It is true that a study with a sample size of 2000 cannot 100% accurately predict the status of a population of more than 200M. It can only have 100% confidence for those studied. However, when you consider that the 2000 person sample was pretty much randomly chosen (as is the case in all valid surveys), the odds of the study drastically misrepresenting the truth get very small. Small enough that the burden of proof shifts to you, Nick, to show that the study's results are misleading.
You cannot refute the study with anecdotal evidence, especially with fewer than 2000 examples.
There are two ways to properly dismantle such a study. The first is to conduct a study that is at least as comprehensive, but gets the opposite results. This may be possible, but such a study would be susceptible to a large observer bias.
The other way is to show that the study had improper methodology or systemic errors. This could demonstrate that the study is inconclusive, but it cannot show that the study is wrong.
(Note that I don't expect Nick to respond. I am posting this simply because I have too much appreciation for math to idly let it be abused like this. We could all use a better understanding of statistical methods. And more respect for experienced researchers.)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:I once heard "the greatest single cause of atheisism is Christians... who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out of the door and deny him by their lifestyle."
I used to own that DC Talk album too (I may even still own it, but who knows where it is). As an atheist myself, these days, I can tell you that man's behavior has nothing to do with my newfound atheism. It has everything to do with "God's" behavior.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I've calculated standard deviations and such. And I happen to agree with Nick. Not, perhaps, for the reasons he stated. But because there really is no such thing as a sufficiently random sample with these sorts of studies. Too many sampling biases are almost certain to be present, biases in how the questions are phrased are absolutely guaranteed to be present, etc.
Yeah, sampling bias is something I didn't want to get into too much, since it's a huge can of worms and I wanted to make sure I got the basic concepts right. However, as someone noted earlier, the researchers can and did take measures to minimize the effects of known confounding factors. There's obviously only so much they can do, since they can't do anything about unknown factors, but I think they've been reasonably scientific about their work. YMMV.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I think they've been reasonably scientific about their work.
I don't disagree . . . to the extent that is possible with this sort of study. I happen to think studies like this are not terribly worthwhile, for exactly the types of reasons I outlined. Doesn't mean I don't read such studies, but it does mean I take them with an exceedingly large grain of salt.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But i don't mind re-explaining myself. My dad and I rarely talk religion, but we did have a decent discussion the other day about more generic belief things, if not our specific belief systems. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I think Rakeesh is right.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And I happen to agree with Nick. Not, perhaps, for the reasons he stated. But because there really is no such thing as a sufficiently random sample with these sorts of studies. Too many sampling biases are almost certain to be present, biases in how the questions are phrased are absolutely guaranteed to be present, etc.