Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should religion be taught in schools?

1…1314151618

Comments

  • #852
    crucamim
    Registered Users Posts: 897 ✭✭✭crucamim


    youngmagee wrote: »

    If everyone pays taxes equally then the money raised for education should be spent in a way that insures all children have equal education opportunities.

    "Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?


  • #853
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,395 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    crucamim wrote: »
    I thought that you had said that you were leaving this thread. Why did you not keep that promise?

    I'm free to do as I choose which I'm sure must be really annoying for you since I'd be in prison if you had your way.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

    crucamim wrote: »
    "Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

    Statistically it's more likely the bullies would be catholic children since most children are raised as catholic. What an incredibley ridiculous accusation to make of anyone you know nothing about. I'm not anti catholic by the way, my whole family are catholic, as I'm sure is the case for a lot of people posting on here, so quit throwing around moronic accusations at people.


  • #854
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    While crucacim is clearly talking a load of rubbish, it is undeniably true that Catholic schoolchildren should have the right to their own schools. They should be under no obligation to take non Catholic students.

    All children should have the right to attend whatever kind of school that their parents choose, so long as the basic national curriculum is adhered to. One has to recall that the reason why Catholics own so many schools is because they built them in the first place. They do receive grants - but so do all schools, whether Catholic or not.

    I really don't know why there are no atheist schools in the country, or are there?


  • #855
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,634 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    crucamim wrote: »
    "Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

    The stae has indeed a obligation to protect catholic children. And all other children also. And it does this reasoably well, from what I can see. If the church is not happy with this service, or still feels that it's children are threatened then it is free to withdraw from state interferance and funding. I suggested this ages ago - where is the porblem?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #856
    youngmagee
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭youngmagee


    crucamim wrote: »
    "Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

    Everyone has the right to be free from bulling but I believe segregation can only make things worse as children need to see that there is nothing wrong with someone believing in a particular religion. if their segregated and thought that their different because of their beliefs, it will definitely lead to bullying in later life.

    I'm not sure why why you think that I am anti-catholic. I was born a catholic. I was raised a catholic. My family and friends are catholic and not once in this thread have I denounced any type of faith. I'm just trying to say what I believe to be the most fair solution.


    I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you had your way with schools (you can correct me if you think I am wrong). Because such a large amount of schools are catholic owned it would result in a huge amount of children not been able to have an education. You say you don't want anti-catholic sentiment, well then you don't want this. It would even lead to parents pretending to be catholic so their children can get an education. I cant imagine that you would think that, that would be right. I think its really disrespectful to the religion to pretend to believe in so you can something else out of it.


  • #857
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    crucamim wrote: »
    I am not in the least interested as to why people are anti-Catholic so long as they are not in a position to hurt Catholics. Hence my wanting Catholic schools for Catholics.
    Dont dodge the question. Answer it.
    The institution of Roman Catholicism has been caught out for the corrupt, power hungry perverse institution it is.

    So


    Why shouldnt people be anti it?


  • #858
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    youngmagee wrote: »
    Everyone has the right to be free from bulling but I believe segregation can only make things worse as children need to see that there is nothing wrong with someone believing in a particular religion. if their segregated and thought that their different because of their beliefs, it will definitely lead to bullying in later life.

    I'm not sure why why you think that I am anti-catholic. I was born a catholic. I was raised a catholic. My family and friends are catholic and not once in this thread have I denounced any type of faith. I'm just trying to say what I believe to be the most fair solution.


    I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you had your way with schools (you can correct me if you think I am wrong). Because such a large amount of schools are catholic owned it would result in a huge amount of children not been able to have an education. You say you don't want anti-catholic sentiment, well then you don't want this. It would even lead to parents pretending to be catholic so their children can get an education. I cant imagine that you would think that, that would be right. I think its really disrespectful to the religion to pretend to believe in so you can something else out of it.
    Already happening


  • #859
    youngmagee
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭youngmagee


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Yea you're dead right, I suppose it was technically mythical, there's even a type thought to be bigger iirc. Hows about one that has any kind of supernatural element to it though?

    Sorry I took so long to get back to this. Proving things considered supernatural is a lot harder. It is normally just a missunderstanding of what really happening which is not suprising give that we are only fully understanding them in recent years. The only two examples are Will-o'-the-wisp and the Aurora Borealis. I know this is know of disproving supernatural things but for a long time people didn't believe Will-o'-the-wisp even occurred as it is so uncommon


  • #860
    crucamim
    Registered Users Posts: 897 ✭✭✭crucamim


    I suspect that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to wind me up. I do not believe that anyone could believe that:-

    a) segregated education for Catholic children could be a bad thing;
    b) Catholics have no right to keep their defenceless, little children out of the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers;
    c) Catholics have no right to refuse to allow their children to share classrooms or playgrounds with the children of anti-Catholics;
    d) in a Catholic school, non-Catholics have a right to equality with Catholics;
    e) Catholic schools should not be allowed to restrict their intake to the children of practising Catholics;
    f) all Catholics should be punished just because some priests misbehaved;
    g) all Catholics should be insulted.

    Because of my suspicion, I will not post again on this thread. The safety of Catholics is not a joking matter.


  • #861
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,634 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    crucamim wrote: »
    I suspect that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to wind me up. I do not believe that anyone could believe that:-

    a) segregated education for Catholic children could be a bad thing;
    b) Catholics have no right to keep their defenceless, little children out of the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers;
    c) Catholics have no right to refuse to allow their children to share classrooms or playgrounds with the children of anti-Catholics;
    d) in a Catholic school, non-Catholics have a right to equality with Catholics;
    e) Catholic schools should not be allowed to restrict their intake to the children of practising Catholics;
    f) all Catholics should be punished just because some priests misbehaved;
    g) all Catholics should be insulted.

    Because of my suspicion, I will not post again on this thread. The safety of Catholics is not a joking matter.

    Go for it. Said it before, saying it again. If this is the way catholics want to exist in their own world, then go for it. It sounds like you want the state to leave you alone and I for one think you should be. If theer are enough of you, Godspeed. If not, come back and live with the rest of the State and lie by State rules. If you want to take up issues of tax, that's a whole different ball game - we all see our taxes spent on stuff we don't agree with - but we live as a part of the State, we live by the State's rules. All of us.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • #862
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    crucamim wrote: »
    I am not in the least interested as to why people are anti-Catholic so long as they are not in a position to hurt Catholics. Hence my wanting Catholic schools for Catholics.
    crucamim wrote: »
    "Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

    Quit with the ant-Catholic persecution complex you've developed.

    I think you'll find that most people ITT are not anti-Catholic per se.

    I'd hazard a guess that most folk are anti wasting the time of teachers and children in schools by presenting religious nonsense as some kind of rational subject.


  • #863
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    youngmagee wrote: »
    The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

    When did I ever claim it was? You are ignoring all the points I am making and instead attacking one I never made. However if there is absolutely no reason on offer at all to think X is true, then I see no justifiable reason to think teaching X in a school is valid on any level.

    It is worth being aware of what you mean when you say what you just did. Given all the other things there is no evidence FOR or AGAINST you are equally arguing that they are all just as valid as the god hypothesis. You may not realise it, but you are actually advocating teaching everything from alien abduction, to unicorns, to alchemy, to wicca to anything else at all.

    Thankfully the standards of proof of many people are a lot more rigorous than your own when deciding what to teach our children. My own position is to have such standards adhered to a little more rigorously and have other evidence devoid ideas (like god) taken out too.
    crucamim wrote: »
    Leave it to Catholics to decide what is taught in Catholic schools. Thank you.

    No thanks. I think I will keep pushing for a secular board of education who design and implement a secular national curriculum. Thanks for your advice all the same.
    philologos wrote: »
    Faith has an overwhelmingly positive role in the majority of peoples lives. This is testified again and again by research and studies that are done into it.

    Which studies? It certainly is not testified to in any I have seen. For example the Prayer experiments not only showed that prayer had no positive effect at all, but those who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse. I guess their faith in prayer was far from useful or helpful therefore.

    I imagine there is no small amount of bias in your opinion, and likely in any reports or studies you cite (really, cite please) in that they only look at the people who HAVE the faith. Do the studies you cling to (if they exist, as I said: Cite) actually look at the effect of faith on those AROUND the faithful. For example the story last year of the parents who watched their child die of a perfectly treatable form of diabetes, solely because their faith told them that certain medical interventions (using needles into the blood in that case Ithink) were against god? How positive was faith in the lives of children like that?
    Eramen wrote: »
    So, we have a shortage of scientific skills in the country and you want to pin the problem on 'religion' ?

    Not on religion Per Se, but certainly on the decision to have so large a % dedicated to it in the school day. If religion is so important to parents, let them engage in after school or home lessons for it. There is no justifiable reasons to my knowledge for having it on the school curriculum.
    Vicxas wrote: »
    Honestly Crucamim i cant take your posts seriously because i find it hard to believe that anyone thinks like that....

    I think that user is a troll yes and is not serious about half he posts. However do not be fooled into thinking there are no people who think like him. I spent a few days over on the forum here and was banned for being too anti religion and too pro homosexual rights. Trust me, some of the people over there make this troll look tame.


  • #864
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Here's a link to what I said earlier. There are also other studies done in respect to health, happiness and other areas but this is a start.


  • #865
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    philologos wrote: »
    Faith has an overwhelmingly positive role in the majority of peoples lives. This is testified again and again by research and studies that are done into it.

    How the hell can you cary out a study on 'faith'?

    You might be able to carry out a study on people who claim to believe in this, that, and the other but you can't carry out a study on 'faith'.

    Also, I'm pretty sure you'd get the same result if you carried out those studies on all sorts of 'believers'.. maybe even that one where they think rats are reincarnated dead relatives.


  • #866
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's a link to what I said earlier. There are also other studies done in respect to health, happiness and other areas but this is a start.

    A you are still alive then. Maybe you can get on with replying to my last post then, or do I have to campaign at you for over a week to get you to take the finger out like I did with the post before that?

    This is ONE study, hardly a lot to back up the statement "This is testified again and again" but let us look at the study all the same. Some points of concern:

    1) As predicted the "study" focuses only on the people who have the faith, not on those affected by their faith. For example if you did a study only of pedophiles and not their victims you would likely find they would testify to pedophilia being a positive thing in their lives... I am sure it is great fun for them bedding children.... but this misses a huge part of the picture does it not???? As such I do not find the study to be at all controlled. "Control" being an important keyword in statistics and studies.

    2) Bias is a concern here. This is not a peer reviewed "study". It is a "study" done by evangelicals to promote their own cause and posted not in any peer reviewed journal but on their own website. Alarm bells, red flags and more go up when you see people operating in this fashion.

    3) This is not actually a proper study, but an article. A real study should show the workings, show how statistics were compiled, what the questions actually were, how bias was cut out, how other factors were normalised for and more. None of that is apparent at all in this "study".

    4) If you look at page 5 of the "study" citing their results, most of them are correlatative at best. There is nothing there to suggest a causal link at all and as such does not show any support for "faith" being a good thing. The authors of this self masturbatory article really are just latching on to things that are "good" and saying "Because people of faith said these things are good, faith must be good too". For example look at "94% agree it's a duty to care for the environment". Thats great, but what has that got to do with faith whatsoever? The authors are attempting to piggy back faith on the back of other good things, and look good by proxy. Dishonest is not a good enough word for that.

    Summary: So not this is not a "study" at all but an article which is based on a questionaire we are not allowed read, results of figures we can not see and interpretation of those figures that we have no way to check the validity of and all posted on the site of the people who did the study and it just happens to support the aims of the people who did the study. I see nothing here therefore that is valid, unbiased or in any way usable.... and what is there is at best correlation and is entirely running away from the concept of causation.

    The correlations however which you speak of are ones I would have predicted anyway. For example you and the study claim that "The more time an evangelical Christian spends reading the Bible each week, the more active they are in other areas of their faith. They are more likely to volunteer, to give money, to pray frequently and talk about their faith."

    I would have predicted this anyway because it appears that people who study, read a lot, and are generally interested in intellectual pursuits will also be people active in charity and volunteer work. Look for example at the more secular countries of the EU and compare their crime rates, literacy rates, charity per capita rates and so on to more religious countries like the US. How did your "study" normalise for these things? Not at all would be the apparent answer.

    How were the people chosen to answer the questions? How did they normalise for that? Did they approach people who were already working with them on things like volunteer work for example. This would skew the figures in the "right" direction if the people conducting the study do the study on the people they meet through such "activism" already.

    So no, I see nothing in this "study" that shows faith to be a positive thing, but that people of faith are more than happy to piggy back faith on those that do good things and attempt to make it look good by proxy.


  • #867
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    How the hell can you cary out a study on 'faith'?

    You can carry out studies on the impact that faith has in peoples lives.

    nozzferrahhtoo: All they have done is collected figures and reported them. It's shown that there is a correlation between Bible reading and volunteering and this takes place amongst evangelicals at a higher rate than in the general public. A study in America found similar.

    Here's another on faith in relation to health.

    I don't see what the issue is with accepting that there are many good things which follow from faith. It doesn't affect your position that faith is misguided, but it does challenge any view that Christianity is evil or that Christianity is ultimately bad for the adherent.


  • #868
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    nozzferrahhtoo: All they have done is collected figures and reported them. It's shown that there is a correlation between Bible reading and volunteering and this takes place amongst evangelicals at a higher rate than in the general public. A study in America found similar.

    Did it? Cite it too please and we will see if it is any more valid, or better executed.

    However no I do not think the "study" finds what you claim it does. Firstly it is not a "study" at all as I pointed out as there are certain standards one has to attain before one can be a genuine study. Simply calling something a "study" does not magically impart credence to it any more than suddenly starting to call yourself "Professor" would.

    If you approach a group of volunteers in your church and do a study, of course you will find higher levels of volunteer figures. The result is self selecting. It is a biased article, not a study, posted on the website of a church in order to further the aims of that church and has not been subjected to any of the rigours of peer review AT ALL.

    And again even if we were to magically accept the figures and their interpretation, AT MOST the study shows a correlation. It does not show faith has had ANY beneficial effect at all. You are just assuming that due to the correlation. The correlation can in fact be entirely reversed if one wishes. Maybe people who are genuinely good, charitable and helpful people are attracted to certain churches. The faith/church has nothing to do with making them good, they were that way already.... they went to a church... and the church happily, and cynically, sits there claiming it is faith that has the "good" effect.

    No, this is no study, and it certainly does not support any of the claims you and the authors want to make off the back of it.
    philologos wrote: »
    Here's another on faith in relation to health.

    Another what? I see nothing. Did you forget a link? Edit: Ah I see you added it in a post edit. Will go read it now. I hope it is better than your first "study" which was not a study at all.
    philologos wrote: »
    I don't see what the issue is with accepting that there are many good things which follow from faith.

    I have a problem with accepting anything that I have been offered literally no reason to accept. No evidence, argument, data or reasons. That is all. Especially if I meanwhile HAVE been shown many bad effects of it, such as the death of the child I mentioned because her parents thought the simple medication she needed was against gods plan.


  • #869
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's another on faith in relation to health.

    Well again you have provided a simply 4 page article not any kind of peer reviewed study and again it is one of those RED FLAG ones where the people do the study themselves, post it on their own website, and it just happens to fit exactly with their own agendas. Alarm bells once again.

    The only useful thing I find in this 4 page "non study article" is the paragraph on causality. They at least realise that nothing they are claiming addresses this issue and that their results... which we do not get to see of course.... show a correlation at best.

    I know you studies philosophy and computer science, so I am not unsurprised you appear to have no ability whatsoever to tell between an article and an actual study. I would recommend you start with reading Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" which is a wonderful transition book between the lay man and the trained statitician. A good stepping stone to start with on the road to learning how to read, recognise and interpret real studies.

    For example citing the "Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, et al. (April 2006). "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer"" is a real study. It shows its figures, its methodology, the sources of interpretation, how they normalised for certain factors, how the control groups worked, and what was ACTUALLY studied and how. The article was peer reviewed and then posted in a Journal. THATS a real study.

    Linking to articles supporting the Christian faith, written by people OF the Christian faith, and posted on their own websites designed to further the christian faith... all without showing a single figure or working however is NOT citing studies. It is citing self masturbatory, confirmation bias fueled nonsense.


  • #870
    dpe
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭dpe


    crucamim wrote: »
    I suspect that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to wind me up. I do not believe that anyone could believe that:-

    a) segregated education for Catholic children could be a bad thing;
    b) Catholics have no right to keep their defenceless, little children out of the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers;
    c) Catholics have no right to refuse to allow their children to share classrooms or playgrounds with the children of anti-Catholics;
    d) in a Catholic school, non-Catholics have a right to equality with Catholics;
    e) Catholic schools should not be allowed to restrict their intake to the children of practising Catholics;
    f) all Catholics should be punished just because some priests misbehaved;
    g) all Catholics should be insulted.

    Because of my suspicion, I will not post again on this thread. The safety of Catholics is not a joking matter.

    You're funny. Have you thought of going on the stage with this act?


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    tfitzgerald wrote: »
    Catholic country catholic schools so yes religion should be taught in school. The same old rubbish about the church is being trotted out again what about the untold good the church has done in this country

    Yes indeed. "Eaten bread is soon forgotten", as the saying goes. A huge amount of us would not have received an education (and therefore the ability to debate on fora like this) were it not for the religious.

    Yes, the clerical abuse scandal was that - an absolute scandal; to which the state was also a party.

    But you cannot ignore what the religious have done for this country (and many others). Ever.

    I, for one, am eternally grateful to them.


  • #872
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    dpe wrote: »
    You're funny. Have you thought of going on the stage with this act?

    He probably already is. Though I hear they prefer to call it a "pulpit" than a "stage".


  • #873
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Answer my question.
    Why shouldnt people be anti Catholic Church? (which is not the same as being anti catholics).
    Before answering cast you mind back to various reports i,.e Ryan. Murphy, ferns etc and have a gander at the international scandals and then stand back and look at The Vaticans attitude to it all.
    Im anti racism as well. Does this mean i should be accepting of whites only schools?


    So. Will you answer?

    Should people be, let's say, anti-parent because of the level of parental abuse in this country at present. There have been many instances of this in the past few years. Are ALL parents then abusers? One to ponder.

    And what, precisely, is racism? There are many different forms; from the "positive discrimination" in favour of certain ethnic groups to the marginalisation of indigenous Irish people should they dare to question such practices. Is this not discrimination in reverse? If an Irish native dares to question preferential treatment (above what a normal citizen receives) to a particular group or nationality they are immediately classed as racist. What utter horse shyte.


  • #874
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo: Look to the citations in the article perhaps? - The article cites the studies that show that faith plays a positive role in peoples lives.

    The first is still very much valid - it shows that 81% of evangelical Christians in Britain volunteer. The Guardian article that I linked to notes that 26% of the British public do. Therefore it is clearly above average.

    Secondly the figures showed, as I've mentioned in the post I linked to that the more than one read the Bible, the more active they were in terms of charitable volunteering and giving as well as more active in their faith.

    Why is it so difficult to accept that faith can and does play a positive role in the vast majority of believers lives? Or is it just a case of confirmation bias?
    I know you studies philosophy and computer science, so I am not unsurprised you appear to have no ability whatsoever to tell between an article and an actual study. I would recommend you start with reading Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" which is a wonderful transition book between the lay man and the trained statitician. A good stepping stone to start with on the road to learning how to read, recognise and interpret real studies.

    I'm finished that degree now, but we can do this discussion much better without this sort of patronising nonsense. The second article very very clearly cited all the studies you could ask for on it. Good reading also involves good following of footnotes.

    In fact quoting an article is better because not all posters will have access to JSTOR and other journal sources.


  • #875
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Its a secular country the majority (an ever shrinking one) of the population of which happens to be catholic.
    :D

    In fairness, take a deep breath and read that again!


  • #876
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    later10 wrote: »
    One has to recall that the reason why Catholics own so many schools is because they built them in the first place.

    Case closed I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #877
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Look to the citations perhaps? - The article cites the studies that show that faith plays a positive role in peoples lives.

    Hey, it is your claims, so it is for you to back it up with citations. I am more than happy to look into the articles you actually cite and take the time out of my day to work them over and see what is good/bad in them and spell it out for you.

    However it is not up to me to do YOUR homework for you. That is just lazy. I am not your secretary sitting here ready to do the work to back up your claims for you on your behalf. If you want to make a claim and back it up with a citation, then you do the citing and I will do the reading.

    However I am glad to see you are at least calling it an "article" now and not a study.

    So far however I have seen you cite nothing to back up the original claim that you made...
    philologos wrote: »
    Faith has an overwhelmingly positive role in the majority of peoples lives. This is testified again and again by research and studies that are done into it.

    ... if there are so many studies (again and again you said) then it should not be hard to find one of them. So far you have simply linked to two articles, not studies, which were self bias fulfilling nonsense written and posted on the websites of people in order to further their own agendas.


  • #878
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    See above. Not all posters on boards.ie are university students or university faculty and won't have access to JSTOR and other academic journal repositories and I'm fairly sure that if I downloaded the PDF's and chucked them onto my own webspace that it would be illegal. So the best compromise is to cite an article with reference to the studies which are actually unavailable without payment / studying at a university.


  • #879
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Ah another one of your post edits. It seems I keep replying to you and then when I scroll back up I find the message I am replying to has changed massively. Have you considered using the PREVIEW button at all before posting?
    philologos wrote: »
    The first is still very much valid - it shows that 81% of evangelical Christians in Britain volunteer.

    No it CLAIMS that. It does not SHOW it because it did not show the questionaire, it did not show the workings, it did not show a single figure, it did not show the methodology. It showed NOTHING. Nothing at all. It simply claimed it by fiat.

    Anyone can write an article claiming anything. It is whether they can back up their claims that is of importance here. Seemingly they (and you) can not.
    philologos wrote: »
    Secondly the figures showed

    Again, no they did not. There IS no figures shown in your article. Once again I appeal to you to do some actual learning on what a statistical study actually is and how to read, recognise and interpret them. This is an article, not a study, and it cites NONE of the figures it claims to be based on.
    philologos wrote: »
    Why is it so difficult to accept that faith can and does play a positive role in the vast majority of believers lives?

    Why ask me a question you asked once already and I already answered not even an hour ago????? Are you just trying to prove what I have accused you of numerous times before... that you reply to peoples posts without actually reading them???

    I repeat: I find it difficult to accept because I have been shown no reasons, evidence, arguments OR data to accept it. That is why I find ANYTHING difficult to accept when I in fact do.
    philologos wrote: »
    I'm finished that degree now, but we can do this discussion much better without this sort of patronising nonsense.

    Nothing here is intended to be patronizing, and it certainly is not nonsense. It is just very clear that you have no training in statistics or how to read, recognize or even interpret an actual statistical study. I am attempting to help you now by letting you know a good place to start such training (Bed Goldacres book really is indispensable for the lay man on this) and by showing you how to recognize that your two articles are not in ANY way "studies".


  • #880
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    See above. Not all posters on boards.ie are university students or university faculty and won't have access to JSTOR

    There are studies everywhere, and many of them do not require special access to anything. You should have no issue finding one to support your claims.... especially given your comments which suggest you think there are a great number of such studies.... yet you can not find a single one.


  • #881
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    There are studies everywhere, and many of them do not require special access to anything. You should have no issue finding one to support your claims.... especially given your comments which suggest you think there are a great number of such studies.... yet you can not find a single one.

    I've presented an article that very thoroughly goes through the studies on the role of faith in medical situations. I've also presented an article with the latest statistics from evangelical churches all around the UK in relation to faith and how that impacts their lives in a tangible level.

    What is profound about what I've just cited is:
    Evidence from over 1,200 studies and 400 reviews has shown an association between faith and a number of positive health benefits, including protection from illness, coping with illness, and faster recovery from it. Of the studies reviewed in the definitive analysis, (3) 81% showed benefit and only 4% harm.

    3) being reference to Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. Oxford University Press, 2001.

    If you'd read them and go through what issues you have with them that would be considerably more conducive to discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    I've presented an article

    You presented two in fact. But I did not ask for articles. YOU very clearly claimed that your claims were supported time and time again by "studies". I simply asked you to cite one of those studies.

    So far you cant.

    Very telling.
    philologos wrote: »
    If you'd read them and go through what issues you have with them that would be considerably more conducive to discussion.

    Again I have "gone through" and adumbrated by "issues" with everything you have cited and linked to so far. I will continue to do so. So keep citing things. However your request to have me go look for something else myself because you cant/wont is denied. I have spent enough time on forums citing studies to back up the things that I claim myself. I am not about to spend more time doing it for you because you cant be bothered or.... more likely.... are incapable of finding studies that back up what you claim is true.

    It simply appears you are happy to make preposterous claims on this forum.... declare by fiat that "time after time" studies support your claims.... but you can not, or will not, back up those claims with a single citation to a study that supports you.

    One more time: YOU said there are studies supporting your claim. Please CITE and LINK to one of those studies.


  • #883
    Needler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 753 ✭✭✭Needler


    dpe wrote: »
    You're funny. Have you thought of going on the stage with this act?
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Yes indeed. "Eaten bread is soon forgotten", as the saying goes. A huge amount of us would not have received an education (and therefore the ability to debate on fora like this) were it not for the religious.

    Yes, the clerical abuse scandal was that - an absolute scandal; to which the state was also a party.

    But you cannot ignore what the religious have done for this country (and many others). Ever.

    I, for one, am eternally grateful to them.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    He probably already is. Though I hear they prefer to call it a "pulpit" than a "stage".
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Should people be, let's say, anti-parent because of the level of parental abuse in this country at present. There have been many instances of this in the past few years. Are ALL parents then abusers? One to ponder.

    And what, precisely, is racism? There are many different forms; from the "positive discrimination" in favour of certain ethnic groups to the marginalisation of indigenous Irish people should they dare to question such practices. Is this not discrimination in reverse? If an Irish native dares to question preferential treatment (above what a normal citizen receives) to a particular group or nationality they are immediately classed as racist. What utter horse shyte.
    philologos wrote: »
    nozzferrahhtoo: Look to the citations in the article perhaps? - The article cites the studies that show that faith plays a positive role in peoples lives.

    The first is still very much valid - it shows that 81% of evangelical Christians in Britain volunteer. The Guardian article that I linked to notes that 26% of the British public do. Therefore it is clearly above average.

    Secondly the figures showed, as I've mentioned in the post I linked to that the more than one read the Bible, the more active they were in terms of charitable volunteering and giving as well as more active in their faith.

    Why is it so difficult to accept that faith can and does play a positive role in the vast majority of believers lives? Or is it just a case of confirmation bias?



    I'm finished that degree now, but we can do this discussion much better without this sort of patronising nonsense. The second article very very clearly cited all the studies you could ask for on it. Good reading also involves good following of footnotes.

    In fact quoting an article is better because not all posters will have access to JSTOR and other journal sources.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    :D

    In fairness, take a deep breath and read that again!
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Case closed I think.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Hey, it is your claims, so it is for you to back it up with citations. I am more than happy to look into the articles you actually cite and take the time out of my day to work them over and see what is good/bad in them and spell it out for you.

    However it is not up to me to do YOUR homework for you. That is just lazy. I am not your secretary sitting here ready to do the work to back up your claims for you on your behalf. If you want to make a claim and back it up with a citation, then you do the citing and I will do the reading.

    However I am glad to see you are at least calling it an "article" now and not a study.

    So far however I have seen you cite nothing to back up the original claim that you made...



    ... if there are so many studies (again and again you said) then it should not be hard to find one of them. So far you have simply linked to two articles, not studies, which were self bias fulfilling nonsense written and posted on the websites of people in order to further their own agendas.
    philologos wrote: »
    See above. Not all posters on boards.ie are university students or university faculty and won't have access to JSTOR and other academic journal repositories and I'm fairly sure that if I downloaded the PDF's and chucked them onto my own webspace that it would be illegal. So the best compromise is to cite an article with reference to the studies which are actually unavailable without payment / studying at a university.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Ah another one of your post edits. It seems I keep replying to you and then when I scroll back up I find the message I am replying to has changed massively. Have you considered using the PREVIEW button at all before posting?



    No it CLAIMS that. It does not SHOW it because it did not show the questionaire, it did not show the workings, it did not show a single figure, it did not show the methodology. It showed NOTHING. Nothing at all. It simply claimed it by fiat.

    Anyone can write an article claiming anything. It is whether they can back up their claims that is of importance here. Seemingly they (and you) can not.



    Again, no they did not. There IS no figures shown in your article. Once again I appeal to you to do some actual learning on what a statistical study actually is and how to read, recognise and interpret them. This is an article, not a study, and it cites NONE of the figures it claims to be based on.



    Why ask me a question you asked once already and I already answered not even an hour ago????? Are you just trying to prove what I have accused you of numerous times before... that you reply to peoples posts without actually reading them???

    I repeat: I find it difficult to accept because I have been shown no reasons, evidence, arguments OR data to accept it. That is why I find ANYTHING difficult to accept when I in fact do.



    Nothing here is intended to be patronizing, and it certainly is not nonsense. It is just very clear that you have no training in statistics or how to read, recognize or even interpret an actual statistical study. I am attempting to help you now by letting you know a good place to start such training (Bed Goldacres book really is indispensable for the lay man on this) and by showing you how to recognize that your two articles are not in ANY way "studies".
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    There are studies everywhere, and many of them do not require special access to anything. You should have no issue finding one to support your claims.... especially given your comments which suggest you think there are a great number of such studies.... yet you can not find a single one.
    philologos wrote: »
    I've presented an article that very thoroughly goes through the studies on the role of faith in medical situations. I've also presented an article with the latest statistics from evangelical churches all around the UK in relation to faith and how that impacts their lives in a tangible level.

    What is profound about what I've just cited is:


    3) being reference to Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. Oxford University Press, 2001.

    If you'd read them and go through what issues you have with them that would be considerably more conducive to discussion.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You presented two in fact. But I did not ask for articles. YOU very clearly claimed that your claims were supported time and time again by "studies". I simply asked you to cite one of those studies.

    So far you cant.

    Very telling.



    Again I have "gone through" and adumbrated by "issues" with everything you have cited and linked to so far. I will continue to do so. So keep citing things. However your request to have me go look for something else myself because you cant/wont is denied. I have spent enough time on forums citing studies to back up the things that I claim myself. I am not about to spend more time doing it for you because you cant be bother or.... more likely.... are incapable of finding studies that back up what you claim is true.

    It simply appears you are happy to make preposterous claims on this forum.... declare by fiat that "time after time" studies support your claims.... but you can not, or will not, back up those claims with a single citation to a study that supports you.

    Blah.


  • #884
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo: In respect to the second article, what do you have that suggests what they've cited concerning health on the basis of academic studies is wrong?

    Or is it just that confirmation bias is getting in the way?

    What is wrong with the content of what is being said is what I want to know.


  • #885
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    nozzferrahhtoo: In respect to the second article, what do you have that suggests what they've cited concerning health on the basis of academic studies is wrong?

    They did not cite anything. They did not show a single figure, or working. That is my problem.

    YOU claimed there is studies to back up what you are saying here yet YOU can not cite a single one of them. Your words even indicated that the studies you claim there are are quite numerous.... which makes your inability to find a single one even more comical.
    philologos wrote: »
    What is wrong with the content of what is being said is what I want to know.

    What is wrong with the content is that it appears to be entirely unsubstantiated. I have... as you will have gathered from my posting history on this forum and others... a massive problem with entirely unsubstantiated claims.... most especially when the people making them falsely CLAIM there is a lot of substantiation and then utterly fail to present a scrap of it when called on it.


  • #886
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How is it unsubstantiated when the CMF study cites the material. This is getting a little tedious and it reeks of confirmation bias. The other is based on figures that they've collected themselves in churches and it is far from a propaganda piece because they also publish what is concerning to them about evangelical communities, namely that younger believers don't read their Bible as regularly as older members and that they don't contribute as much in terms of giving, but that they do talk about their faith more with others. The purpose of the first was to help church leaders to determine the direction of their churches in the future. It would be woeful if it was just a propaganda piece as a result. That's why I've asked you to read it rather than complain about it prematurely.

    The page I've given you from the CMF website has footnotes and citations for everything they've argued.


  • #887
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    How is it unsubstantiated when the CMF study cites the material.

    That is not how it works. Have some decorum here please. Not the first time you have attempted to shift the burden of proof on this thread.

    I have had the decency to read everything you have linked to. I have taken significant time out of my morning to do so infact. I will even continue to do so. If you feel one of the links supports your claims then simply tell me which one and I will go read it. I am however unwilling to do your homework for you much as you want me to.

    Plus given only an hour ago you did not understand the difference between a study and an article, I think the activity of reading those links yourself a useful and educational one.

    The onus of proof is on the person making the claims. YOU came here claiming that faith has beneficial effects and YOU claimed there are studies that back that up. The onus therefore is on YOU to cite the studies that in fact do so, and not send any one who calls you on your false claims on a wild goose chase that is essentially saying “find it yourself” in order to run away from the fact that YOU claimed there are studies backing up your position while you are even yourself unaware of a single one.

    If we did it your way I would read all the links and if I did not find proof FOR you you would ask me to read all the links at the bottom of those... and at the bottom of those.... in a futile attempt to send me on a wild goose chase so I would simply stop pointing out that YOU are entirely unable to back up YOUR own claims.
    philologos wrote: »
    The other is based on figures that they've collected themselves

    Says you. Show me the figures. Show me the methodology used to collect, collate and interpret them. Show me the normalisation and control techniques used. Show me... as I keep saying.... an actual study with actual figures and workings. Not some self confirmational articles written and only published on their own website to further their own claims. Propaganda indeed. Tedious indeed.
    philologos wrote: »
    That's why I've asked you to read it rather than complain about it prematurely.

    For the 4th or 5th time... I HAVE read everything you HAVE linked to and I will continue to do so. If you think there is a study that I should read that actually backs up what you claim.... cite it. Simple as that.

    I am being massively generous with my time and resources for you here. I am however drawing a line in the generosity and refusing to do YOUR homework for you. YOU claimed there are studies that back you up and I am saying I am MORE than willing to read them. All you need do is cite me a direct link to one.

    Which should not be so hard given the vast number of them you implied there was.


  • #888
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is not how it works. Have some decorum here please. Not the first time you have attempted to shift the burden of proof on this thread.

    Nonsense. I've cited you an article which systematically looks at the current evidence in studies to suggest that faith plays a postive role in a medical context. I'm asking you to suggest what is wrong with the actual article or is it just that it doesn't agree with your position? I haven't seen any logic on your part other than just complaining about the article even when it cites the studies it is basing itself on.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I have had the decency to read everything you have linked to. I have taken significant time out of my morning to do so infact. I will even continue to do so. If you feel one of the links supports your claims then simply tell me which one and I will go read it. I am however unwilling to do your homework for you much as you want me to.

    Great, what's the objection? - I've given you a reason as to why I can't show you a lot of the research directly, but I can give you links to articles discussing it. I'm asking you to present your difficulty with the actual content of the article something which you've failed to do thus far.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Plus given only an hour ago you did not understand the difference between a study and an article, I think the activity of reading those links yourself a useful and educational one.

    Tripe. I said that studies back the view that faith is positive for the most part in peoples lives and I've provided something of the basis for that position.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The onus of proof is on the person making the claims. YOU came here claiming that faith has beneficial effects and YOU claimed there are studies that back that up. The onus therefore is on YOU to cite the studies that in fact do so, and not send any one who calls you on your false claims on a wild goose chase that is essentially saying “find it yourself” in order to run away from the fact that YOU claimed there are studies backing up your position while you are even yourself unaware of a single one.

    I've substantiated them by two articles one on the basis of original data collected and another on the basis of peer reviewed studies.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If we did it your way I would read all the links and if I did not find proof FOR you you would ask me to read all the links at the bottom of those... and at the bottom of those.... in a futile attempt to send me on a wild goose chase so I would simply stop pointing out that YOU are entirely unable to back up YOUR own claims.

    I've provided 2 links. That's all you really need to look at to see that faith does play an overwhelmingly positive role in peoples lives. As for your own personal prejudices they are your own to deal with they aren't mine to deal with.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Says you. Show me the figures. Show me the methodology used to collect, collate and interpret them. Show me the normalisation and control techniques used. Show me... as I keep saying.... an actual study with actual figures and workings. Not some self confirmational articles written and only published on their own website to further their own claims. Propaganda indeed. Tedious indeed.

    I've shown you two articles which systematically look at figures collected, or figures collected in other studies with full citations.

    As I said already, I'm not going to satisfy your prejudices or confirmation biases as they are your own to deal with. I've presented the current knowledge on the subject.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    For the 4th or 5th time... I HAVE read everything you HAVE linked to and I will continue to do so. If you think there is a study that I should read that actually backs up what you claim.... cite it. Simple as that.

    You've presented no evidence that you have read it other than to moan about having no direct links to studies which I've given crystal clear the reason why.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am being massively generous with my time and resources for you here. I am however drawing a line in the generosity and refusing to do YOUR homework for you. YOU claimed there are studies that back you up and I am saying I am MORE than willing to read them. All you need do is cite me a direct link to one.

    Show me your actual objections to the findings documented.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Which should not be so hard given the vast number of them you implied there was.

    Tripe. I've given you two articles that present the findings in a clear manner. If you're willing to pay for JSTOR access or if you are a student at university you will be able to look at the studies that are cited in the CMF article.

    If the next post isn't about the actual content and findings that are mentioned in the Evangelical Alliance study or the CMF article I don't see the point in wasting my time.


  • #889
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Teach them about all the different belief systems but don't hammer one particular one into them. If you have to teach religion.


  • #890
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Nonsense. I've cited you an article

    Again I did not ask you to cite me an article. I responded to this post here where you very clearly claimed there was Research and Studies. Link me to them, not some self confirming articles people write for their own website.

    You even indicated that there was a large number of such studies. So your continued inability to find even ONE is comical at best and a gross example of your lies at worst. especially given most of the "links" at the end of the second article are not even to studies either but to books. Even your citations citations arent citations :p

    You claimed the studies are there. You cant find them. I call foul. I call liar.
    philologos wrote: »
    which systematically looks

    Systematically???? Do not make me laugh. It is a 4 page article, and the other is mostly made up of pictures. There is nothing systematic in there... at.... all. Not a single figure is cited. Not a single working shown. Not a single application of anything even remotely approaching a methodology. Where is this "systematic" approach you are fantasizing about??????????????????

    You appear to have been fooled. You do not know the first thing about statistics, or how to interpret or even recognise them. So there is no surprise that you think anything about this 4 page article, the other is made up most of pictures and large fonts, has anything "systematic" in it. What was systematic there? I am agog to hear.
    philologos wrote: »
    I've given you a reason as to why I can't show you a lot of the research directly

    No you have given me a cop out excuse as to why you can not show me a small proportion of it directly. I am asking why you can not show me ANY OF IT AT ALL ANYWHERE EVEN ONCE.
    philologos wrote: »
    I've provided 2 links.

    To self confirmation articles which do not show a single working, let alone a systematic approach and are nothing to do with the MANY actual studies you indicated there exists. Studies you can not link to EVEN ONE OF.
    philologos wrote: »
    I've shown you two articles which systematically look at figures collected

    Again neither article does any such thing so this outright lie will not wash I am afraid. There is not a figure cited, not a methodology used. I do not think you know the meaning of the word systematic... or worse you do know but you choose to openly lie about it.

    You keep lying that they presented the findings... they did no such thing. Not a figure cited, not a methodological interpretation of the figures used or displayed. Again I repeat: What was systematic here?

    In fact just out of curiosity I would have you look at the list of citations in your 4 page article and tell me which one on the list is the first citation to an actual study and not simply a book.... or the notes kept from a meeting? I am curious to see if you can even recognise a study when you see one in other words.


  • #891
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo: There is an assessment of the studies cited in the CMF article. One can follow them up if they wish. To save myself from a gratuitous increase in blood pressure I'm going to leave it here. I'll take it up with people who aren't as intransigent and who are willing to discuss it. I think this is best for both of us.

    Also I think it is probably best that I put you on my ignore list because you've accused me of lying again. One of the things I value in posters is honesty and respect. I've shown that there is a large number of studies which have dealt with this subject. Therefore I'm not lying at all in the slightest and it is dishonest of you to suggest this. When you prove your ability to have a civil, calm and polite discussion then and only then will I remove you.

    Otherwise I'm wasting my time and you are wasting yours.


  • Advertisement
  • #892
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Religion is all based on lies, anyways.


  • #893
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    nozzferrahhtoo: There is an assessment of the studies cited in the CMF article. One can follow them up if they wish. To save myself from a gratuitous increase in blood pressure I'm going to leave it here. I'll take it up with people who aren't as intransigent and who are willing to discuss it. I think this is best for both of us.

    You can use any personal insult you wish to cover your cop out and retreat if you want, it is no skin off my nose. The fact is that you claimed there was not only studies backing up your claims, but a large amount of such studies, yet when asked to cite a single one of them you not only failed to do so numerous times, but you insulted the intelligence of everyone here by linking to what essentially amounts to Christian Blog Posts instead in the hope people would fall for that and think these were valid "studies".

    I can at least imagine the red faced feeling of being called on being asked to cite a study when you not only claimed they existed, but implied there was in fact a large number of them, but I am not about to hold off on calling "Lie" when I see one just to save your face.
    philologos wrote: »
    I've shown that there is a large number of studies which have dealt with this subject.

    Really? Where? You appear to have shown there there exists TWO articles. One of those Articles appears to suggest there is a couple of pages in a few books. However studies you have shown ZERO let alone a "large Number". Saying you have shown a "large number" when you have cited exactly ZERO is exactly why I keep using words like "liar" here. I do not use such words lightly.

    In fact it appears you can not even answer my question above of which of the references in your article is a "study" showing you likely would not even recognize a study if it was placed in front of you. The vast majority of the references in your "article" are not studies at all, but the selective quoting of single pages out of books.
    philologos wrote: »
    Otherwise I'm wasting my time and you are wasting yours.

    You may be, but I have already adumbrated the great utility I find in calling people on their claims on forums such as this.... and then hammering home their cop outs when called out. When someone claims there is a massive amount of studies backing them up.... I ask for them.... and they fail to produce even a SINGLE ONE of that massive number.... I have far from wasted my time but have in fact highlighted quite effectively the willingness of Christians to "lie for jesus" and engage in hypocracy and fantasy and lies in order to further their aims.

    You are welcome to try the same on me in return. Find a single time I have EVER claimed there was a study, or studies to back up something I was saying... and then when asked to cite that study or studies I then either did not do so.... or proceeded to engage in a serious of cop out gymnastics in order to avoid having to do so.

    When you fail to find me doing such things... compare and contrast our approaches and tell me which of us is the honest one here.


  • #894
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    The thing I hate about this whole religious faith having health benefits or not is that the "studies" are so ****tily done that I'd actually consider the publication of one in a peer reviewed journal an attempt to subvert the standards of science. Two things are almost certain, this a field of study where no matter how ****ty your research is it will probably get a lot of attention. It is also a field of study where your research is very vulnerable to getting dragged out of context.

    Also I'm still waiting patiently on this.


  • #895
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Also I'm still waiting patiently on this.

    And this but given the content from him on the latter is almost identical to the content of the former, you are essentially waiting for a reply to BOTH posts now.

    He promised us a Mark II of his list someday, I am not sure if that second post was intended to be it. I hope not as it is just the Mark I list reworded and represented again.

    Alas I am afraid the likelyhood of seeing the Mark II list ever is about the same as the likelyhood of him saying a study exists, and then actually being able to cite it when called out on it.


  • #896
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Oh yeah I saw that reply actually, forgot about it though. I appreciate the effort it took him to write such a long post, but really it's just the vanilla reworded a bit.


  • #897
    Vicxas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,403 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    Thats all it is really, its him spouting religious references to the benefit of prayer from the CMF.... really?


  • #898
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Vicxas wrote: »
    Thats all it is really, its him spouting religious references to the benefit of prayer from the CMF.... really?

    Not at all. If you actually read the article it makes clear reference to studies which point to the benefit of faith in medical recovery. Reading the footnotes as well as the article helps to see what the basis for their conclusions is.

    I don't guarantee to be able to shake prejudices or confirmation biases that people may have. All I claim to do is present what the current research is on the issue.


  • #899
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Vicxas wrote: »
    Thats all it is really, its him spouting religious references to the benefit of prayer from the CMF.... really?
    philologos wrote: »
    Not at all. If you actually read the article it makes clear reference to studies which point to the benefit of faith in medical recovery. Reading the footnotes as well as the article helps to see what the basis for their conclusions is.

    Alas what the user above says is not true. The article does not in any way show how the numbers they mention in the main article were drawn from the source material(s) listed. No methodology is displayed, no direct citations or workings are shown. I can not actually see how any of the figures claimed in the articles match the numbers and claims in the references cited.

    Secondly the references are almost always NOT to studies in the articles the user above cited. They are in fact selective quotations from books and not studies of any kind.

    In short reading the footnotes of the articles is about as helpful as reading the articles were. That is: Not helpful at all.
    philologos wrote: »
    I don't guarantee to be able to shake prejudices or confirmation biases that people may have. All I claim to do is present what the current research is on the issue.

    No but what you DO gaurantee, at least in your actions, is that if you are called on evidence that you do not have you likely will revert to blaming it on the confirmation biases of those who do not agree with you.

    Alas we can all play that game if we wanted to be dishonest. I could sit here saying you only accept the invisible evidence actually exists cause you are biased that way, and you could sit there claiming that I only do not see it because I am biased that way.

    At the end of the day this does not change the fact that you said there was quite a large number of studies, you were asked to cite them, and you can not.


  • #900
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    philologos wrote: »
    Not at all. If you actually read the article it makes clear reference to studies which point to the benefit of faith in medical recovery. Reading the footnotes as well as the article helps to see what the basis for their conclusions is.

    I don't guarantee to be able to shake prejudices or confirmation biases that people may have. All I claim to do is present what the current research is on the issue.

    Which citation or reference, in your opinion, do you think makes the most pertinent point?


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Which citation or reference, in your opinion, do you think makes the most pertinent point?

    As I've mentioned already. I think that this quote below is hugely significant:
    Evidence from over 1,200 studies and 400 reviews has shown an association between faith and a number of positive health benefits, including protection from illness, coping with illness, and faster recovery from it. Of the studies reviewed in the definitive analysis, (3) 81% showed benefit and only 4% harm.

    The article even goes through some of the difficulties and examines the methodology behind many of the studies:
    2. The problem of proving causality We have already seen that a number of studies show that religious belief is associated with better health. However, does religious faith cause better health, or is the relationship brought about by other factors? Take this absurd example: over 90% of deaths occur in bed. Does this mean that going to bed causes death? Of course not – in this case, another factor, such as a severe illness, causes the patient both to be bedridden and subsequently to die. Some of the association between faith and health may be related to other underlying risk factors, so called 'confounding variables', such as social class. Solutions to the problem of causality include carrying out observational trials prospectively to prevent false retrospective judgments being applied to data, and by adjusting for known risk factors. But even after these correctives, the benefit of faith remains.

    Prior to doing this, it looks at what has commonly been found in the research, and after doing this it looks as to why this may be the case including factors such as how faith influences mental outlook, positive health behaviours, social contact, and so on. It's a good presentation of the current research out there and it looks at it in quite a thorough manner. For example it admits that prayer studies are inconclusive at present:
    Various studies looked at the efficacy of intercessory prayer on health outcomes. These were summarised in a 'Cochrane' meta-analysis, which concluded that overall there was no significant improvement in groups of patients prayed for, although one trial did show improvements in certain end-points including death.
    In another, patients receiving prayer did better post-operatively than those not receiving prayer, but only if they did not know they were being prayed for. The review authors conclude that the evidence is insufficient to advise for or against prayer, (26) and considerable controversy surrounds the interpretation and implications of the studies in question. (27) The reasons why God chooses to answer some prayers and not others are outside the scope of this File, but the assumption that God can be summoned like a genie in a lamp is closer to magical thinking than an authentically Christian understanding of prayer.


    That's why I'm seriously wondering if people actually read it or if they fobbed it off immediately.


Advertisement