X-Message-Number: 30693
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: atheist millionaires
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 22:08:27 +0200
References: <>

On 8 Apr 2008, at 17:05, Daniel Crevier wrote:
> According to the Wikipedia page quoted by Kennita,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#North_America
>
> even though only 0.4% of the US population "positively claim to be
> atheists", between 5 and 10% "don't believe in a god."

According to both theory and the experimental results from Badger  
(1998), it is only those who indicate that they are certain that there  
are only natural forces, who would be in the correct category. That  
is, only those who answered "Strongly Agree" to the question (a  
majority answered "Agree"):

Being frozen is no guarantee that I will be revived someday, but I  
know my chances are zero if I am buried or cremated.

Also, one must take into account that getting good data in this area  
is problematic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

The second largest religion was indicated to be Jedi on the 2001 New  
Zealand census.



> Further, there seems
> to be a fairly strong negative correlation between wealth and  
> religiosity:
> the richer you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist.
>
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/ 
> 2007_10/012346.php

Given that our data was not from a random sample, that the most  
correct analysis has yet to be performed, and that there were several  
errors in the experimental procedures, the fact that we are within an  
order of magnitude of the current membership number is a strong  
indication that we are on the right track. The fact that we actually  
were within 10% of the correct number is nothing short of remarkable.  
Prior to this analysis, we had no way to explain why a third of  
persons chose cryonic suspension as a contest prize, but less than one  
out of a hundred thousand were members. Adjustments like those  
suggested will take a substantial investment, since stratified random  
samples will be required, and it is likely to be extremely difficult  
to reach some subsamples. Not too mention that we don't have a  
comprehensive theoretical framework to explain the results and  
therefore don't really know what questions to even ask.


>
> Yet I don't believe that extensive advertizing to that class of  
> people would
> yield dramatic results: cultural and social disincentives are also  
> very
> strong.

This is another major point from the reanalysis. Even targeted  
marketing will have a limited effect. The necessary approach is a  
repackaging of the product.


dss

David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30693