What to tell kids when they ask?

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

Cabaal..... so what would be your opinion of the Irish Divorce referendum which was passed by a majority of approximately of 11,000?

Against whom did that discriminate?

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

Against whom did that discriminate?

The right to live in a country where the constitution is a reflection of what you believe in..

Have a look for yourself here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

31% (approx) of the eligible voting electorate decided that Divorce should be written into the Irish Constitution.

xband

lazygal wrote: »

Against whom did that discriminate?

Those who wanted to force unhappy couples into loveless marriages, ensure battered wives and husbands couldn't move on and force people they didn't like to go into exile abroad.

The poor darlings were dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th century in 1995.

kylith

Shrap wrote: »

A conclusion of study 2 of the research I just referenced a few posts back:
Pg 18/19


http://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/2012/05/Corriveau-Chen-Harris-in-press.pdf

Thanks Shrap, I'm on the mobile so finding stuff can be a bit tricky.

That study always seems like a no-brainer to me. If you tell a child that it's a fact that a man can walk on water and people come back from the dead why wouldn't they accept that people can fly or trolls exist? It's no stranger than what they're being told is unquestionable truth in school.

looksee

ABC101 wrote: »

Kylith.... that must be one of the most ridiculous comments around.

If you seriously believe that... then perhaps it is you who is having difficulty in separating fact from fiction / blinkered bias!

Have you read the study?

Cabaal

ABC101 wrote: »

The right to live in a country where the constitution is a reflection of what you believe in..

Have a look for yourself here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

31% (approx) of the eligible voting electorate decided that Divorce should be written into the Irish Constitution.

errr it still does not discriminate, all you are doing is adding pointless whataboutery to this thread.

The only case I'm aware of of a person outright refusing to accept divorce is Mr Maurice Lyons of Co Kilkenny who was jailed for refusing to believe that his wife had the right to leave him inline with the laws of the Irish state.

Maurice got bank rolled by some religious organizations to fight the Irish state on the issue and to stop his wife leaving him. He didn't win the case and rightly so.

Lets remember that this is the same Mr Lyons who disputed the outcome of the recent marriage equality vote in May 2015 which was passed by a very large majority.

If you want to side with Mr Lyons by all means please do, I'm sure you'll be in great company.
:rolleyes:

xband

It added rights for other people and took none away.

If you don't want to get divorced, don't get divorced. Nobody's forcing you to.

You lost the right to stick your nose into the private lives and marital affairs of other citizens. That's all.

The situation of the school system mess actually does force people to do things they wouldn't agree to normally.

ABC101

Shrap wrote: »

A conclusion of study 2 of the research I just referenced a few posts back:
Pg 18/19


http://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/2012/05/Corriveau-Chen-Harris-in-press.pdf

The research states that while nearly all children found the figures in the realistic narratives to be real, secular and religious children were split on religious stories.

Of course... a child who is instructed not to believe in anything Religious...... will dismiss any religious stories as fictional.

A child who is brought up with a religious faith.... and has been told religious stories such as Noah & the Ark for example.... will believe Noah was a real person.

How can a believer believe in something.... if they don't believe.

In addition with real life events.... children of belief had no problems in distinguishing real life events.

WRT myself...

I am a believer....I believe in God... I believe God created the world / universe or allowed nature to take its course and nature (using the laws of nature) created the universe....and when I am asked how did the universe come about.... I am clearly (to an atheist) unable to separate fact from fiction, because I have included a fictional term (God) in my answer.

In addition.. this idea... can be extended to show that I am unable to discern fact from fiction in all other areas too...like what side of the road I am driving on... or is the car I am driving in... real or imaginary...don't ask me ... coz I am a believer who clearly does not know any better.... or is unable to know the difference.

Is that the finding of the study?

Please somebody tell me I am wrong!

One eyed Jack

xband wrote: »

There are many who it absolutely has done damage to too. Just because you're taking a look at an online discussion forum doesn't mean that you've any comprehension of the impact or lack of impact of the ethos of schools on the population.

Just as well I never made that claim then.

I was told by teachers that I wouldn't be allowed to go to secondary school without making my confirmation. I was sent out of class for "being a cheeky pup" because I didn't want to partake in a load of prayers.

I had to lie about going to mass as our teacher used to interrogate us about the gospel. I used t fake illnesses on Mondays to avoid this and actually started going to mass out of fear at one stage as a kid just to take notes.

I had to listen to a religion teacher rant at us about abortion.

I had to listen to authority figures condemning homosexuality as a "bad choice" unchallenged by anyone while being gay myself and felt if I had been bullied I had to deal with it myself without backup of the school. That's not something I would have had to consider in college or work at that time.

I didn't even bother complaining because it was just part of the conservative catholic ethos and I wasn't exactly in a position to protest.

If you weren't even bothered to complain, how did you expect anything would change? I rarely address people's personal experiences, because I don't want to diminish the impact they feel it has had on them. I'm very much aware of the impact that the RCC, religious orders and religion have had on Irish society throughout history, my own parents would make the WBC blush tbh! :pac:

So fundamentalist were they, that we never talked at all about sex and sexuality, and so in my teenage years it was quite the revelation for me when I realised that I was heterosexual (up until that point, I'd had no reason to question my sexual attraction to men, "it is what it is sure", I was never conflicted about it because nobody ever talked about "those things", too busy making the next generation of GAA players and digging turf to be thinking about men ).

When I moved out of home at 16, it was because I figured my parents and I were never going to see eye to eye as we were in constant conflict with each other, and it was a case of either they go or I go, and since it was their home, I went.

Look I could write pages and pages on the impact people who use religion as a control mechanism have had on my life, but I don't blame religion for that. I put the responsibility solely where it belongs - on the people who used their interpretation of religion to inflict cruelty upon other people. Thankfully, those people are in a tiny, tiny, almost forgettable minority, as is the impact of their influence upon my life.

I've met far more people who identify as part of a religious community who have been a positive influence in my life, including people who were resident in the Mother and Baby homes decades ago.

And in 2016 my brother is being put under big pressure to baptise his daughter despite him being an atheist and his wife being a non Irish atheist and both sets of grandparents being non religious.

That's basically the kind of nonsense that comes from Irish education policies.

Nope, that's basically the kind of nonsense that comes from people being too afraid to stand up for themselves. I had the same craic with my brother and his wife who both identify as atheist, they were asking me to be Godfather to their child. I wasn't going to judge them for it, because I understand that they were doing what they thought was best for their children.

My own wife is non-religious (has never identified as atheist, no interest at all in religious matters), and we seem to get on grand, never felt any pressure to do anything we didn't want to and it's never been an issue in how we chose to raise our child.

Shrap

ABC101 wrote: »

The research states that while nearly all children found the figures in the realistic narratives to be real, secular and religious children were split on religious stories.
..............................

Is that the finding of the study?

Please somebody tell me I am wrong!

You're wrong.

Finally, in both studies, secular children systematically categorized the characters embedded in fantastical stories as pretend, and most of their justifications referred to the impossibility of a central event in the story. Effectively, secular children responded to these stories just as they might respond to a fairy story—they inferred that the central characters were fictional because they were involved in an event that is ordinarily impossible in reality. The pattern of responding for children exposed to religion was different. In both studies, they were less likely to judge the characters in the fantastical stories as pretend, and in line with this equivocation, they made more appeals to reality and fewer appeals to impossibility than did secular children.

To summarize, despite important parallels between the story judgments of the secular and religious children, we also see a divergence—not just in their responses to the religious stories—but also in their responses to the fantastical stories. The secular children responded to the fantastical stories just as they might respond to a fairy story, whereas this stance was muted among the three religious groups. They were less systematic in their categorizations, less likely to invoke the impossibility of the story event, and more likely to appeal to reality

What is most disturbing to me is that of the four groups of children - a)non-church going/secular school, b)church going/secular school, c) non-church going/parochial school and d) church going/parochial school, ONLY the non-church going and secular schooled children displayed this massive divergence with the others and the wholly systematic catagorisation of characters doing impossible events as pretend characters.

Which goes to show that our non-religious children are being as held back in their critical thinking as are religious, in having to go to schools with a religious ethos. Even if they are sitting at the back of the class colouring pictures.

PopePalpatine

Swanner wrote: »

I never suggested it was ok. I just accept the realities of it.

That's exactly what being OK with religious discrimination is!

ABC101

Shrap wrote: »

You're wrong.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Shrap

ABC101 wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Glad you find it so funny. Did you see where you had gone wrong in your reading of the research? I did explain it to you as well.

The Bishop Basher

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That's exactly what being OK with religious discrimination is!

No it's not. Accepting a reality as a reality and being ok with that reality are two separate things.

For example, I'm not ok with the fact that FG are in government. I do however accept the reality that they are.

ABC101

Shrap wrote: »

You're wrong.



What is most disturbing to me is that of the four groups of children - a)non-church going/secular school, b)church going/secular school, c) non-church going/parochial school and d) church going/parochial school, ONLY the non-church going and secular schooled children displayed this massive divergence with the others and the wholly systematic catagorisation of characters doing impossible events as pretend characters.

Which goes to show that our non-religious children are being as held back in their critical thinking as are religious, in having to go to schools with a religious ethos. Even if they are sitting at the back of the class colouring pictures.

Sharp....

The study relates to separating fact from fiction in religious or fantastical stories....

This is not the same that children of faith have problems separating fact from fiction in real stories.

Or that believers are unable to think critically about engineering problems / financial issues or what not etc

Do you think a child who holds a faith.... would have trouble separating fact from fiction with regards to Ronald Regan... or Margaret Thatcher?

I mention those two figures...because the IT had articles in today's edition about the Anglo Irish Agreement.

It should come as no surprise that a child / adult who believes in the great flood / the Ark.....also believes in Noah.

ABC101

Shrap wrote: »

Glad you find it so funny. Did you see where you had gone wrong in your reading of the research? I did explain it to you as well.

Of course I am wrong.... I'm a believer after all!!:pac::pac:

The Bishop Basher

For starters I haven't found anywhere in the study that has outright said...

kylith wrote: »

children who are raised religiously have difficulty telling fact from fiction so it's also damning their critical faculties.

Equally there are a number of other studies that show children have no problems whatsoever discerning fact from fiction. I'll dig them later on the laptop.

Finally, and admittedly lazy of me as I haven't had time to read the full report yet, i've only read the overview but this is an interesting article which challenges the findings with some convincing points.. Many tie in with points raised by ABC101...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/did-study-really-show-that-christian-kids-are-more-gullible-124140/

All i'm trying to say is that one study is just that, one study, We would need a number of studies showing a trend with similar results before conclusively stating these findings as facts.

looksee

ABC101 wrote: »

Sharp....

The study relates to separating fact from fiction in religious or fantastical stories....

This is not the same that children of faith have problems separating fact from fiction in real stories.

Or that believers are unable to think critically about engineering problems / financial issues or what not etc

Do you think a child who holds a faith.... would have trouble separating fact from fiction with regards to Ronald Regan... or Margaret Thatcher?

I mention those two figures...because the IT had articles in today's edition about the Anglo Irish Agreement.

It should come as no surprise that a child / adult who believes in the great flood / the Ark.....also believes in Noah.

You may have read it but you have not understood it.

The Bishop Basher

Question for all those pushing the "religious kids are dumber then atheist kids" argument.

Do any of you have Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or the easter bunny at home ?

Shrap

ABC101 wrote: »

Of course I am wrong.... I'm a believer after all!!:pac::pac:

You said it, not me. I don't say things like that.

I personally find that research fascinating. It is what it is, ie. a study of children's analysis of made up stories based on their exposure to religion. It is not a claim that religious people cannot live in the real world, it is just a claim that children exposed to religion have more trouble identifying impossible events as fantasy than children who are not exposed to religion.

Shrap

Swanner wrote: »

Question for all those pushing the "religious kids are dumber then atheist kids" argument.

Sorry now, where are you seeing this argument? Nobody has said any such thing. A claim has been made that children who are exposed to religious teaching (whether they are religious or non-religious children actually) are less likely to be able to distinguish an impossible event in a story as a fantasy. That's all. Not that any of the kids are dumber. Get it right mate.

Shrap

Swanner wrote: »

All i'm trying to say is that one study is just that, one study, We would need a number of studies showing a trend with similar results before conclusively stating these findings as facts.

For what it's worth, I agree with you here. However, I also agree with Kylith's quoted statement but would have prefered if she had put the word "greater" in front of the word "difficulty".

Huntergonzo

Swanner wrote: »

No it's not. Accepting a reality as a reality and being ok with that reality are two separate things.

For example, I'm not ok with the fact that FG are in government. I do however accept the reality that they are.

It's not a valid example in fairness, you may not be ok with FG but they were democratically elected by the people of Ireland (personally I find the elections a bit of a charade but that's reality of the situation). The church discriminates without any mandate and does so with the funding of the state, you talk about a free ride!!!

Ps, you could say that you are at odds with the political system itself of course, I wouldn't be a fan of it myself.

The Bishop Basher

Shrap wrote: »

For what it's worth, I agree with you here. However, I also agree with Kylith's quoted statement but would have prefered if she had put the word "greater" in front of the word "difficulty".

Agreed. The wording was designed to get a reaction...

Likewise I have no issue with your wording of it here...

Shrap wrote: »

It is not a claim that religious people cannot live in the real world, it is just a claim that children exposed to religion have more trouble identifying impossible events as fantasy than children who are not exposed to religion.

But not all are as sharp as you with their words :-)

Shrap

Swanner wrote: »

But not all are as sharp as you with their words :-)

Or as Shrap, even People keep reading me wrong, sigh....

The Bishop Basher

Huntergonzo wrote: »

It's not a valid example in fairness, you may not be ok with FG but they were democratically elected by the people of Ireland (personally I find the elections a bit of a charade but that's reality of the situation). The church discriminates without any mandate and does so with the funding of the state, you talk about a free ride!!!

Ps, you could say that you are at odds with the political system itself of course, I wouldn't be a fan of it myself.

Nonsense. It's a perfect analogy particularly when you look at the census 2011 figures and see that the vast vast majority of people in this country define themselves as belonging to a religious organisation. 84% of the population define themselves as Roman Catholic. Yet you say they have no mandate ?

You mightn't like it but they have a very significant mandate from the vast majority of the population and the stats support that.

MrPudding

ABC101 wrote: »

Sharp....

The study relates to separating fact from fiction in religious or fantastical stories....

This is not the same that children of faith have problems separating fact from fiction in real stories.

Hmmm, you seem to have completely missed the point. First of all, it is not religious or fantastical stories, it is religious and fantastical stories. They were given religious stories and they were also given fantastical stories that were not religious in nature.

You second line is actually kind of stupid, and this is what shows you completely missed the point. These children believed the religious AND the fantastical stories where real stories. That is the point. To be frank, the result seems so obvious, what else would one expect? If you teach children to believe fantastical stories that happen to be religious in nature are you really surprised that those same children happen to also believe fantastical stories that aren't religious?

If you chip away and suppress a child's critical thinking and, at the same time, fill it with sh1t like believing stuff without evidence is a positive trait, what, exactly, do you expect to produce?

Also, what does "separating fact from fiction in real stories" even mean?

MrP

The Bishop Basher

Shrap wrote: »

Or as Shrap, even People keep reading me wrong, sigh....

I was tempted :-)

Huntergonzo

Swanner wrote: »

Nonsense. It's a perfect analogy particularly when you look at the census 2011 figures and see that the vast vast majority of people in this country define themselves as belonging to a religious organisation. 84% of the population define themselves as Roman Catholic. Yet you say they have no mandate ?

You mightn't like it but they have a very significant mandate from the vast majority of the population and the stats support that.

It's a rubbish analogy and your above response is also rubbish I'm afraid. How many of these '84%' received an unbiased education?

Ps, what mandate, when did we vote for the church to receive state funding and to run over 90% of our publicly funded primary schools?

The Bishop Basher

Huntergonzo wrote: »

It's a rubbish analogy and your above response is also rubbish I'm afraid. How many of these '84%' received an unbiased education?

I don't know. Do you ? Are you suggesting they're not really Roman Catholic ? Are you saying you understand their beliefs better then they do ? Please elaborate. I'm intrigued to know where your going with this one..

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ps, what mandate, when did we vote for the church to receive state funding and to run over 90% of our publicly funded primary schools?

We vote for our government, made up primarily of Christians and even more primarily of Roman Catholics, who in turn make these decisions. That's democracy in action. Sorry it doesn't suit your agenda but as with my original point, while I don't like it any more then you do, I accept that for now it is the reality.