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?
lazygal wrote: » Against whom did that discriminate?
Shrap wrote: » A conclusion of study 2 of the research I just referenced a few posts back: Pg 18/19http://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/2012/05/Corriveau-Chen-Harris-in-press.pdf
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
Swanner wrote: » I never suggested it was ok. I just accept the realities of it.
Shrap wrote: » You're wrong.
ABC101 wrote: » :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:
PopePalpatine wrote: » That's exactly what being OK with religious discrimination is!
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.
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.
kylith wrote: » children who are raised religiously have difficulty telling fact from fiction so it's also damning their critical faculties.
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.
ABC101 wrote: » Of course I am wrong.... I'm a believer after all!!:pac::pac:
Swanner wrote: » Question for all those pushing the "religious kids are dumber then atheist kids" argument.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Swanner wrote: » But not all are as sharp as you with their words :-)
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.
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.
Shrap wrote: » Or as Shrap, even People keep reading me wrong, sigh....
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.
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?
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?
