Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply to Aschlafly
Line 34: Line 34:     
: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used.  The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist.  A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions.  Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
 
: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used.  The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist.  A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions.  Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
 +
::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
333

edits

Navigation menu