I will comment on the WaPo ABC poll you think will upset me when I can see the numbers behind the numbers. They admit they polled 1000 people, by phone (already a problem as phone polls are notorious for being unreliable) and, since the categories reported aren't attached to any numbers, we have no idea how big the sub samples of those are. I have no idea if the sample you seem to want to take such pride in "non-religious" is a large one or even what "non-religious" comprises. If, as with the PEW category "Nones", it includes people who aren't members of any denomination, I would be included in that group you seem to want to represent as being atheists. So, already, the assumption it does what you want it do doesn't work. If it is a conglomeration of disparate groups, it doesn't tell you much.
I would wonder at a poll of 1000 that sampled in proportion to the presence of a group in the general population. For atheists that would be a sample of fewer than 30 people. I wouldn't trust that sample to tell you anything about atheists in the general population and what they think. I can't even seem to find the kind of atheist I know in the hundreds I encounter online. Most of the atheists I know, personally, aren't bigoted jerks like you and your blog buddies. If the percentages in the polls aren't representative of the general population, that is also a problem with the assertion it tells us anything about the population it allegedly represents.
Considering we got into a huge fight a couple of years ago over one of your favorite shows, 24, torture promotion porn making the torture advocate, Rupert Murdoch money, it's kind of rich for you to think you've got something to tell me about it. Not to mention your habitual approval for the Israeli actions in Gaza and elsewhere. I'm also on record as disapproving of torture there and generally. In fact, I just posted part of an old piece I did arguing why it should be illegal. It wasn't the only one I wrote to that effect.
More generally, it is your beloved TV that is the foremost promoter of torture to the American people, including that show you love which presents young(ish) Sutherland as a sexy torturer. And you called me a snob the last time I pointed out how much I hated TV. See also: my comment dissing American movies the other day.
My question with such polls (and it's a favorite among "atheists"): "How do you prove it?"
ReplyDeleteElection polls either accurately reflect the election they predict, or they don't. How do you know a poll of 1000 people tells you anything about the population at large, much less the 1000 people?
Considering how many polls are taken for each election cycle, and how many of them are proven wrong, why is the methodology of those polls (assuming it is used uniformly; a big assumption) going to produce results that are true and can be trusted about something as amorphous and indistinct as religious preferences?
One of my questions is would the same sample of people give you the same results two weeks from now if asked identical questions or if different samples of 1000 people sampled by the same method give uniform results. It's like I used to ask my brother when he told me he listened to several weather reports in the morning, if they differ which one do you believe? And the questions that were asked in this poll were pretty badly worded, leading questions. They were obviously searching for a result they wanted.
DeleteI have come to the conclusion that this kind of polling is junk that is cheaper than reporting facts, especially as the facts so often aren't convenient to the people who buy the pollsters services, and the pollsters know that. I just read that Pew, generally claimed to be reliable, had to admit they'd done some bad polling.
Another thing I want to know is why the opinion of the Senate report on torture held by someone who never read it, never mind has the background to evaluate it, matters. Most people who know anything about it know about it from such sources as the Washington Post, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc. If they are wrongheaded about it, it's due to them not reporting the facts in a manner sufficient to inform The People. Though I am absolutely certain that entertainment shows like 24 and movies are where most people form their opinions about torture and are frightened and duped into believing it is "effective" instead of a moral atrocity. As I have indicated, I don't think it's possible for atheism to generate the metaphysical basis for discerning that such a thing as a moral atrocity exists or generates determinative moral responsibilities. Atheist regimes have been known to make extensive use of torture, after all. Perhaps the foremost academic advocate of it in recent years is the atheist, Alan Dershowitz who arrived at his position via "Israel, right or wrong." Something of an irony, in itself, considering who was hectoring me over the issue.