Projection onto God

[Psychic Missile]

You're so clever...

Don't I know it!

[Jichard]

Of a whopping 18 people...

That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?

and it's an absolute shock... SHOCK I tell you... that Americans were found generally egocentric when it comes to what they think God's standards are...

Onc again, you show that you didn't actually read the research in question before commenting on it. For example, the research was not just limited to Americans (ex: it includes Koreans(.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u...wledge-survey/

That doesn't provide any evidence for your claim that: "It's of little surprise that people foist their opinions onto God when a majority think that God is their personal ATM."

Second, what reason do we have for thinking that church leaders (and people who wrote the biblican texts) were'nt simply projecting onto God as well? Why the special pleading for them?

That's another subject. For a Christian, the scriptures are God's Word, and no matter what we WANT to believe, that Word SHOULD come before our belief on what God "should" say on the subjects.

No, it's not another subject; it's right in line with the subject of this. Given the evidence on projection, what reason do we have for thinking that church leaders (and people who wrote the biblical texts) wern't projecting onto God as well? Why the special pleading for them?

No, moron. I read the ones I could access for free,

No, you didn't. For example, you made false claims about the study, false claims you would not have made if you had read the studies and then tried to accurately represent the contents. For example, you false acted as if the studies were just about surveys, and when your mistake was pointed out to you, you falsely acted as if the priming and imaginig studies included just 18 people. You also acted as if the studies were just about Americans, which is also false.

but I don't have the time to go through them with a fine tooth comb to comment on why they aren't as concrete as you claim,

You don't have enough time to actually go through the studies but you do have time to laugh at the studies, falsely act as if the studies are just surveys, then call the studies "crap"?

"Jichard posted a bunch of survey "studies" [...] I'd love to have the time and give-a-crap to go through each of those "studies" and show where each is just plain crap, but I'd rather organize my fast food straw collection, which can't be any less useless than the moronic crap of those surveys."

It just goes to show that you'll attack scientific research that's inconveneint for your pet ideology, without bothering to read and understand the research first. And that makes the following post of your's all the more hypocritical:

"Now, do you care to address the article I cited, or are you too busy trying to discredit people who disagree with your pat answers?

[..] You saw someone post something that bucked the current research, and immediately went into attack dog mode. That's not how science is done. It's why I loved discussing things like this with Sylas before the crash, He was FAR more reasonable than you could ever hope to be on the topic."

nor your flawed thinking that they somehow prove that man made up God.

I never claims that the studies "prove that man made up God". I wouldn't claim that for a number of reasons. For example, science does not "prove" things, since science isn't math or formal logic; instead, science provides evidence. I made it clear what claim I was actually defendind in the OP:

"I'm going to go over some scientific evidence showing that humans (in this case, I'l be focusing largely on Christians) project onto God, where this projection is often influenced by culture and one's personality."

So please stick to that claim, as opposed to the strawman you erected.

[Bill the Cat]

That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?.

You dang skippy.

Source: http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/epley2009a.pdf

Study 7. Eighteen healthy, right-handed volunteers (8 men, 10 women; age 18
to 45 years, Mdn # 21 years) participated in exchange for $40. Of these, 17
reported believing in God in a prescreening survey and are included in the
analyses.

© Copyright Original Source

Eighteen is the same as 18.

[Jichard]

That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?

You dang skippy.

Source: http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/epley2009a.pdf

Study 7. Eighteen healthy, right-handed volunteers (8 men, 10 women; age 18
to 45 years, Mdn # 21 years) participated in exchange for $40. Of these, 17
reported believing in God in a prescreening survey and are included in the
analyses.

© Copyright Original Source

Eighteen is the same as 18.

Ok, so now you've moved on to quote-mining scientific research. That's really bad. Your quote-mine left out the priming studies, which were studies 5 and 6. Instead, you quote-mined the paper to mention only study 7. This was a fairly disreputable thing for you to do.

To recap: you acted as the studies contained only surveys. When it was pointed out to you that your claim was false since there was also priming and imaging work, you acted as if the priming and imaging work included only 18 people. When it was pointed out that this claim of your's was false, you then moved to quote-mining the research to exclude the priming studies, so that you could act as if the number was only 18. That's really bad, Bill. You shouldn't misrepresent scientific research like this.

Once again, you made false claims about scientific studies you hadn't read. For example, the first paper listed isn't just a "survey "stud[y]"". Instead, said paper includes a priming study and an imaging study.

Of a whopping 18 people

That still doesn't explain why you claimed the results were just surveys, when that wasn't actually the case. And are you really going to falsely claim that the priming and imaging studies were only done on 18 people?

Now, Bill, please give me an honest response: how many people were involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies?

And please answer without quote-mining the paper to exclude the priming studies.

[Bill the Cat]

Ok, so now you've moved on to quote-mining scientific research. That's really bad. Your quote-mine left out the priming studies, which were studies 5 and 6.

Study 5 was an online self-survey and a survey of what the person thought another person thought. Dumbass. Same with 6. Questionnaires, all but the brain scans. Therefore, my claim remains correct. Out of 7 different studies, only 1 actually measured something outside of an individual's choices on a bubble sheet. And that single one had such an insignificant sample size, it can be all but excluded.

Instead, you quote-mined the paper to mention only study 7. This was a fairly disreputable thing for you to do.

No it wasn't. It was the only one that wasn't "fill in this bubble sheet on what you think" Those are surveys, regardless of what you try to call them.

To recap: you acted as the studies contained only surveys.

And other than an insignificant blip of 18 people, the first one was. The others were opinion pieces backed by similar surveys.

When it was pointed out to you that your claim was false since there was also priming and imaging work, you acted as if the priming and imaging work included only 18 people.

The "priming" work were both surveys.

When it was pointed out that this claim of your's was false, you then moved to quote-mining the research to exclude the priming studies, so that you could act as if the number was only 18. That's really bad, Bill. You shouldn't misrepresent scientific research like this.

I'll bet you are the type that will argue that there is more than just cereal in the box, aren't you? You'd probably point to something like this and call whoever was serving you a liar and that their claim was false, and that they gave you cereal, bug parts, and mouse poop. Things like generalizations are lost on you, I see.

[Jichard]

Study 5 was an online self-survey and a survey of what the person thought another person thought. Dumbass. Same with 6. Questionnaires, all but the brain scans.

Study 6 was not an online survey. It was a priming study done in the laboratory. If you think that studies 5 and 6 only involved people filling out surveys, then you either didn't read the research very well or you're lying. Please read pages 21537-21538 of the paper before making anymore false claims about the research.

Also, please stop your false dichtomoy between just surveys and just brain scans. There's at least a third option: priming study.

Therefore, my claim remains correct.

No, you weren't. There were more than 18 people involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies.

Out of 7 different studies, only 1 actually measured something outside of an individual's choices on a bubble sheet.

Once again, false. The priming studies investigated people's responses (studies 5 and 6) to various experimental primes. This involved more than a survey, though you pretend otherwise.

And that single one had such an insignificant sample size, it can be all but excluded.

That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I think I get what's going on here. Based on past experience with you, you don't usually read scientific papers. You instead get your information of science from the press, most often denialist/conservative sources. So you don't actually know what sample sizes are needed in scientific papers that are doing neuroimaging. Because if you did actually did know that, then you wouldn't be pretending that 18 people is insufficient for the imaging arm of a study.

No it wasn't. It was the only one that wasn't "fill in this bubble sheet on what you think" Those are surveys, regardless of what you try to call them.

Same old misrepresentations dealt with above.

And other than an insignificant blip of 18 people, the first one was.

Another mistake based on you not understanding the relevance of sample size.

The others were opinion pieces backed by similar surveys.

And now you've moved on to misrepresenting scientific papers as "opinion pieces". Sad.

The "priming" work were both surveys.

Mispresentation dealt with above.

I'll bet you are the type that will argue that there is more than just cereal in the box, aren't you? You'd probably point to something like this and call whoever was serving you a liar and that their claim was false, and that they gave you cereal, bug parts, and mouse poop. Things like generalizations are lost on you, I see.

Irrelevant trolling.

[Catholicity]

Study 6 was not an online survey. It was a priming study done in the laboratory. If you think that studies 5 and 6 only involved people filling out surveys, then you either didn't read the research very well or you're lying. Please read pages 21537-21538 of the paper before making anymore false claims about the research.

Also, please stop your false dichtomoy between just surveys and just brain scans. There's at least a third option: priming study.



No, you weren't. There were more than 18 people involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies.



Once again, false. The priming studies investigated people's responses (studies 5 and 6) to various experimental primes. This involved more than a survey, though you pretend otherwise.



That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I think I get what's going on here. Based on past experience with you, you don't usually read scientific papers. You instead get your information of science from the press, most often denialist/conservative sources. So you don't actually know what sample sizes are needed in scientific papers that are doing neuroimaging. Because if you did actually did know that, then you wouldn't be pretending that 18 people is insufficient for the imaging arm of a study.



Same old misrepresentations dealt with above.



Another mistake based on you not understanding the relevance of sample size.



And now you've moved on to misrepresenting scientific papers as "opinion pieces". Sad.



Mispresentation dealt with above.



Irrelevant trolling.

Like it or not 18 people is not a good size study. Not according to statistical evidence, A reasonable sample size for good hard evidence should contain 1 percent of the represented population. Which is a high number of people. So if 30 percent of Americans have Clinical Depression or 100,000,000 people, then for a 95 percent confidence level you should survey 1,000 people. Now 18 people might give you the idea that A study should be re done to a statistically significant standard, but unless its for a very rare disease, disorder, dysfunction or problem, its not going to get much in the way of attention.

[Jichard]

Like it or not 18 people is not a good size study. Not according to statistical evidence

I'm pretty sure that's false, as shown by the fact that the study has statistically significant results from the imaging sutdy, the study passed peer-review, and plenty of other neuroimaging studies yield statistically significant results with said sample size or smaller.

A reasonable sample size for good hard evidence should contain 1 percent of the represented population. Which is a high number of people.

A false, arbitrary claim. Different experimental techniques use different sample sizes. For example, it's absurd to expect a neuroimaging study to have the same sample size as a large-scale epidemiological study. And not even people doing polls act as if they need to poll 1% of a population in order to get an accurate sample. As far as I can tell, you seem to have arbitrarily selected the 1% figure; it doesn't seem to have any basis in science.

So if 30 percent of Americans have Clinical Depression or 100,000,000 people, then for a 95 percent confidence level you should survey 1,000 people.

I've taken courses in statistics (specifically the statistics one would use in a biological setting), and what you said makes no sense to me. Why do you think that a 95% CI requires sampling 1% of the population? Because it doesn't.

Also, I don't think 1000 is not 1% of 100,000,000. It's a much lower percentage than that. A 1% survey (by your standards) would require looking at 1,000,000 people.

Now 18 people might give you the idea that A study should be re done to a statistically significant standard, but unless its for a very rare disease, disorder, dysfunction or problem, its not going to get much in the way of attention.

The imaging study yielded statistically significant results. These are gone over on page 21536 of the study, along with the statistical tests used.

[Catholicity]

Here is a handy dandy quick guide I found rather than quoting my stat book:

[cite]https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/deter...ize/Population[/cite]

A z score of 1.96 is relatively standard when using populations and calculating how many are necessary for the standard .95 percent. 1 percent is generally whats estimated after a standard deviation of 1 each way. Its not arbirtary, its not false. Search for it, do the math equation. If a study of 18 people yields a sturdy result then it ONLY MEANS that the study is worth reproduction. That's how clinical trials get started.

[Bill the Cat]

Study 6 was not an online survey. It was a priming study done in the laboratory. If you think that studies 5 and 6 only involved people filling out surveys, then you either didn't read the research very well or you're lying. Please read pages 21537-21538 of the paper before making anymore false claims about the research.

Also, please stop your false dichtomoy between just surveys and just brain scans. There's at least a third option: priming study.

Both "priming studies" concluded with surveys.

No, you weren't. There were more than 18 people involved in the priming studies and the imaging studies.

And the "priming studies were concluded with surveys.

Once again, false. The priming studies investigated people's responses (studies 5 and 6) to various experimental primes. This involved more than a survey, though you pretend otherwise.

But it included a survey, didn't it? And the fact that you admit it "involved more than a survey" shows that you know it included one.

That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I took a few statistics courses in college. I know what insignificant sampling sizes are. While not an expert by any stretch, I do know that 18 people out of several hundred million is insignificant.

I think I get what's going on here. Based on past experience with you, you don't usually read scientific papers. You instead get your information of science from the press, most often denialist/conservative sources.

I dare you to back that claim up, liar.

So you don't actually know what sample sizes are needed in scientific papers that are doing neuroimaging.

Cite where they listed their methodology in selecting the sample size they used. Again, I dare you to put up or shut up.

Because if you did actually did know that, then you wouldn't be pretending that 18 people is insufficient for the imaging arm of a study.

I know how sampling size works, moron. I'm now challenging you to prove it was significant based on the paper.

[Jichard]

Both "priming studies" concluded with surveys.

Both priming studies included more than surveys. No need for you to pretend otherwise.

And the "priming studies were concluded with surveys.

Both priming studies included more than surveys. No need for you to pretend otherwise.

But it included a survey, didn't it? And the fact that you admit it "involved more than a survey" shows that you know it included one.

Both priming studies included more than surveys. No need for you to pretend otherwise.

I took a few statistics courses in college.

Did you actually pay attention?

That's an incredibly silly claim for which you have no evidence. Are you under the impression that all experimental techniques have to have the same size? If so, then you are deeply confused on how neuroscience works. By your logic, every neuroscience paper should have imagining studies from tens of thousands of people since those are the sample sizes used in various epidemiological studies. The sample size for the imaging studies was sufficient; hence it passing peer review, and hence the authors showing that the results of the imaging study yielded statistically significant results.

I know what insignificant sampling sizes are. While not an expert by any stretch, I do know that 18 people out of several hundred million is insignificant.

OK, you just showed that you're not familiar with what you're talking about. Your response was made to a post about statistical significance. You seem to think that the "significance" in that phrase is about the the size of the sample relative to the size of the whole population. But that's false; that's not "significance" is about. The "significance" is (roughly and in laymen's terms) about the likelihood that one's effect size was produced by randomness. Basically, the significance here tells you whether you can reject the null hypothesis with respect to one's results. If you'd taken any basic course in statistics for science (and paid attention), as you claimed to, then you'd know this.

Now, the paper's author's got statistically signficant results using the imaging studies, and they even stated the statistical tests they used to get those results. For example:

""

A p-value of less than 0.05 would count as statistically significant.

Further tests of statisticaly significance are presented here, on pages 3, 8, 10, and 11.

I dare you to back that claim up, liar.

Here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...573#post260573

Cite where they listed their methodology in selecting the sample size they used. Again, I dare you to put up or shut up.

I already cited for you where they showed that their sample size yielded statistically significant results. You apparently weren't aware of that, since you apparently either didn't read the paper very closely before discussing it, or you didn't understand the paper.

Of course, the authors could have run something like a power analysis before-hand to figure out how much of a sample size they would need for a predicted effect size to yield statistically significant results. I've done something similar for my own experiments. However, in a scientific paper, one typically doesn't need to show said power analysis, once one shows one has statistically significant results. The power analysis is simply a tool for figuring out how to get said significant results (on the assumption that the effect size is real, and not due to randomness). Once one gets those results, the power analysis is no longer required.

I know how sampling size works, moron. I'm now challenging you to prove it was significant based on the paper.

Quoted for you above.

You should really read scientific papers (andu nderstand them) before commenting on them.