Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(reply to Aschlafly)
("The Minister's Son")
Line 35: Line 35:
 
: 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)
 
::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)
 +
 +
== "The Minister's Son" ==
 +
 +
I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 08:57, 26 February 2008

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.KarlJ 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I welcome more research. The Google search is a start, and speaks for itself.--Aschlafly 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--Aschlafly 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. Aboganza 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.KarlJ 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in Liberal logic Aboganza 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)
You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--Aschlafly 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!!KarlJ 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in Liberal style . Aboganza 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--Aschlafly 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --GDewey 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)
No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in second generation atheists, very little shows up.--Aschlafly 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
I told you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.KarlJ 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --GDewey 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --GDewey 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits might reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says nothing about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing American figures with world-wide Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

Philip J. Rayment 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the minister's son article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --CabbageCrate 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Yet the minister's son article does have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote does indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of Presbyterian ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. Philip J. Rayment 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Applying the same logic: A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. Humblpi 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--KimSell 06:22, 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?--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. Humblpi 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"The Minister's Son"

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." Aboganza 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)