(May 12, 2025 at 12:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Not only is your sample size far to small, the fact that you're happy to publicly generalize from such a particular speaks volumes about your own thought process. Stick to philosophy, because you don't know shit about statistics or demographics or analysis.

It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect. And no statistician would treat Bel's suspicion as invalid; they would simply say that the inference doesn't carry that much information or that it has low reliability. But that's both obvious and implied in the conversation, unless, of course, you're an obtuse and uncharitable reader. 

But since you know about statistics and analysis, surely you can at tell us what the appropriate sample size should have been? (Tip: You can't answer that unless you know how much information we wish to obtain, among other things, which you don't.)

(May 12, 2025 at 10:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 12:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Not only is your sample size far to small, the fact that you're happy to publicly generalize from such a particular speaks volumes about your own thought process. Stick to philosophy, because you don't know shit about statistics or demographics or analysis.

It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect. And no statistician would treat Bel's suspicion as invalid; they would simply say that the inference doesn't carry that much information or that it has low reliability. But that's both obvious and implied in the conversation, unless, of course, you're an obtuse and uncharitable reader. 

But since you know about statistics and analysis, surely you can at tell us what the appropriate sample size should have been? (Tip: You can't answer that unless you know how much information we wish to obtain, among other things, which you don't.)

You miss the point that saying how some Christians have the right image of god while others have wrong does not help you, but it rather shows what a frivolous thing god is that it can't be even defined.

If we start with the Bible, we can see that it gives, what you would call, a simplistic image of god - as a man with human anatomy who walks around, has human feelings and lives in the sky.

Now, any other ideas of a more complex god is just a simplistic image of god plus ad hoc rescues.

"If God lives in the sky, why can't I see him?"

"Because he is very high up."

"But rockets flew very high and didn't see him."

"That's because he is invisible."

"But if his heavenly kingdom is so big that millions of dead people and angels live in it, then we would encounter it, like an airplane would flew into it and crashed."

"That's because his kingdom is in another dimension."

And so on. And this is how you get your "sophisticated" god.

Quote:It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect. And no statistician would treat Bel's suspicion as invalid; they would simply say that the inference doesn't carry that much information or that it has low reliability. But that's both obvious and implied in the conversation, unless, of course, you're an obtuse and uncharitable reader. 

But since you know about statistics and analysis, surely you can at tell us what the appropriate sample size should have been? (Tip: You can't answer that unless you know how much information we wish to obtain, among other things, which you don't.)

So no refutation to his point then

(May 12, 2025 at 10:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 12:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Not only is your sample size far to small, the fact that you're happy to publicly generalize from such a particular speaks volumes about your own thought process. Stick to philosophy, because you don't know shit about statistics or demographics or analysis.

It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference

Quote:Belacqua Wrote:
I remember meeting a Christian couple...I asked them about their theological beliefs and they said they had never thought about it. 

So I suspect this is true of the majority. 

Yeah ok. 

Quote:no statistician would treat Bel's suspicion as invalid

Not a one you say, well well, is this from another handy poll, that only you and @Belaqua seem to know about? It was, and is a hasty generalisation fallacy. 

Quote:since you know about statistics and analysis, surely you can at tell us what the appropriate sample size should have been?

I am not of course an expert, but I will go out on a limb here, and suggest that an unevidenced anecdote about just two people, is insufficient to leap to "I suspect this is true for the majority of countless billions". 

Quote:You can't answer that unless you know how much information we wish to obtain, among other things, which you don't.

Of course we can, just to be clear then, substantially more than an unevidenced anecdote about two people, if you're going to project that onto a majority from a demographic of billions of Christians, that globally are made of over 45k different sects and denominations.

AI to the rescue..

"For a demographic of billions, a good sample size for statistical analysis is generally considered to be between 300 and 1000 participants. While a larger sample size is always preferred for greater accuracy, practical considerations like cost and time often make it necessary to use a smaller sample. The minimum sample size for any meaningful statistical analysis is typically 100, but for populations of billions, a sample size of 1000 is often sufficient."

(May 12, 2025 at 10:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect.

Sure, he's free to "suspect". And I'm free to point out how stupid it is to "suspect" anything about 1.2 billion others based upon talking to two -- count 'em, two! -- of them.

(May 12, 2025 at 10:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 12:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Not only is your sample size far to small, the fact that you're happy to publicly generalize from such a particular speaks volumes about your own thought process. Stick to philosophy, because you don't know shit about statistics or demographics or analysis.

It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect. And no statistician would treat Bel's suspicion as invalid; they would simply say that the inference doesn't carry that much information or that it has low reliability. But that's both obvious and implied in the conversation, unless, of course, you're an obtuse and uncharitable reader. 

But since you know about statistics and analysis, surely you can at tell us what the appropriate sample size should have been? (Tip: You can't answer that unless you know how much information we wish to obtain, among other things, which you don't.)

Bold mine - that's because the two of you babble the same language.

(May 12, 2025 at 10:34 am)Angrboda Wrote: The fact that religious belief so strongly correlates with the belief of the person's parents and their community and culture suggest that the relationships and environment in the family and the community play an outsized role in determining what people believe, far beyond any attribution to personal choice unfettered by coercive factors.

Exactly this. People (by and large, not completely) from the same culture tend to speak the same language, eat the same foods, and wear the same clothes. It is unsurprising that they would have the same religious views. Cultural inertia does more to explain religious belief than the pronouncements of scholars, no matter how many times they are cited.

Boru

(May 12, 2025 at 12:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 10:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect.

Sure, he's free to "suspect". And I'm free to point out how stupid it is to "suspect" anything about 1.2 billion others based upon talking to two -- count 'em, two! -- of them.

Collar that dog, mate! I once saw an inebriated Finn knock out three policemen before the other three managed to cuff him. I therefore ‘suspect’ that all Finns are violent alcoholics.

Boru

(May 12, 2025 at 12:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 10:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect.

Sure, he's free to "suspect". And I'm free to point out how stupid it is to "suspect" anything about 1.2 billion others based upon talking to two -- count 'em, two! -- of them.

Indeed, and globally 1.2 billion wouldn't even cover the Catholics, this is assuming he was only talking about Christians alive today of course, and that wasn't at all clear to me, but perhaps plucking stats about billions out of thin air, from one anecdotal chat with a couple, who by his own admission had "not given their believes any thought" (priceless by the way), is something the finer university philosophy departments teach? Along with John knowing what most psychologists know, and all statisticians think, right off the cuff. 

What's most disappointing is that not once has anyone cited Aristotle.

(May 11, 2025 at 11:17 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(May 11, 2025 at 4:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The overwhelming majority of Christians don’t give a rat’s charbroiled arse about theology.

I'm stealing that turn of phrase.

With my blessing. ✝️

Boru