http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html

Young children who are exposed to religion have a hard time differentiating between fact and fiction, according to a new study published in the July issue of Cognitive Science.

Researchers presented 5- and 6-year-old children from both public and parochial schools with three different types of stories -- religious, fantastical and realistic –- in an effort to gauge how well they could identify narratives with impossible elements as fictional.

The study found that, of the 66 participants, children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school were significantly less able than secular children to identify supernatural elements, such as talking animals, as fictional.

By relating seemingly impossible religious events achieved through divine intervention (e.g., Jesus transforming water into wine) to fictional narratives, religious children would more heavily rely on religion to justify their false categorizations.

“In both studies, 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,” the study concluded.

Refuting previous hypotheses claiming that children are “born believers,” the authors suggest that “religious teaching, especially exposure to miracle stories, leads children to a more generic receptivity toward the impossible, that is, a more wide-ranging acceptance that the impossible can happen in defiance of ordinary causal relations.”

According to 2013-2014 Gallup data, roughly 83 percent of Americans report a religious affiliation, and an even larger group -- 86 percent -- believe in God.

More than a quarter of Americans, 28 percent, also believe the Bible is the actual word of God and should be taken literally, while another 47 percent say the Bible is the inspired word of God.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Not to say that the general results wouldn’t hold because I've seen it first hand. Still, a better study would include a much larger sample size (a thousand, let’s say) and older students, I’d say from 12-14. Truth be told, I’d say you need to look at 22 year olds to really get a firm grasp on this because many kids rethink shit in a big way by the time they’ve had a few years in college and the world at large.As it stands that study seems incredibly biased from the start.

Further, this really has nothing to do with religion at 5-6. It’s one hundred percent about whatever their parents have taught them since birth, because they really haven’t established their own world view at that point. I’m sure the next wave of neo-nazi skinheads consists of a bunch of Arian 5 year olds who refer to everyone who isn’t white as mud people. There’s considerably less outside influence on a child that age than, say, a 13 year old, and they’re much more whatever their parents have taught them to be than they will be later in life
.
That said, I’m not really a fan of indoctrinating kids into religion. My daughter’s day care is becoming something of a Sunday school to my observation, I’m concerned about this. Iit’s a point of contention with my wife as she doesn’t see the problem, plus it’s a relative of hers. I’m definitely deviating further and further from my old faith, even if remnants of it remain with me. In the end I don’t really care to indoctrinate my daughter and would rather see her arrive at her own conclusions later in life.

She’s extremely intelligent and soaks up information like a sponge, and for now I’m just going with it in order to keep the peace, as I see no inherent harm in it even if I don't like it. As she grows older I’ll be exposing her to all manner of information, hoping to help her grasp what is theory, what is fact, and what is fiction.

Cuz a lot of people have trouble with that

Especially if they're black. We don't want to talk about this though.

With everything you win some and you lose some.

>Especially if they're black. We don't want to talk about
>this though.

>>Especially if they're black. We don't want to talk about
>>this though.
>
>

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

If okps don't like te study result, the science is no good... But here you go.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=837

Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org
Give me that Old Time Religion…to reduce crime
By Dr. Jeff Mirus (bio - articles - email) | Jul 27, 2011
3 0 0 Google +0 Delicious0


Free eBook: Essays in Apologetics, Vol. II
Sociologist Byron Johnson has marshaled conclusive evidence that Church attendance is associated with reduced crime and delinquency. Johnson, who is Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, summarized his findings in an article entitled “The Religious Antidote” (First Things, August/September 2011).

Byron has both conducted studies himself and reviewed the studies of others. An early study (1986) by Richard Freeman examined housing projects in several major cities to determine factors that helped kids stay out of trouble. Religious faith was a key factor. Byron, working with several colleagues, replicated Freeman’s study in the late 1990’s, with the same result: The frequency of attending religious services was inversely related to the likelihood of young, poor, black males selling illegal drugs or otherwise breaking the law. The differences in getting into legal trouble between those who attended church and those who did not were on the order of 40 to 60 percent.

In 2000, Byron reviewed forty studies on the relationship between religion and delinquency, with similar results. The same was true of a review of sixty studies by Colin Baier and Bradley Wright in 2001, which further demonstrated that the inverse relationship between church attendance and delinquent behavior increased as studies grew larger and more comprehensive.

Very recently, Byron completed the most exhaustive systematic review to date, analyzing 273 studies published between 1944 and 2010 in a variety of fields. He found that 90% of the studies “report an inverse or beneficial relationship between religion and some measure of crime or delinquency.” Only 9 percent found no association, and only two studies (less than 1%) found the opposite relationship.

Professor Byron began his article by noting that if the studies generally showed the opposite—that religion or church-going contributed to crime and delinquency—the press would be all over the story, and a Federal commission would doubtless be established to make sure Americans were officially notified that religious practice is deleterious to your social health.

so i dont know about that whole, okps dont like... ish


but... this is not study results (i even went to the website)
this is a description of... i dont know.. things done and said
but there are no numbers, no description of sample design, no description of analysis,
even if it was a systematic review, there is nothing on here to go by
except what this dude byron is saying and hes not saying anything (where.is.the.data?)

>If okps don't like te study result, the science is no good...
>But here you go.
>
>http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=837
>
>Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org
>Give me that Old Time Religion…to reduce crime
>By Dr. Jeff Mirus (bio - articles - email) | Jul 27, 2011
> 3 0 0 Google +0 Delicious0
>
>
>Free eBook: Essays in Apologetics, Vol. II
>Sociologist Byron Johnson has marshaled conclusive evidence
>that Church attendance is associated with reduced crime and
>delinquency. Johnson, who is Distinguished Professor of the
>Social Sciences at Baylor University, summarized his findings
>in an article entitled “The Religious Antidote” (First
>Things, August/September 2011).
>
>Byron has both conducted studies himself and reviewed the
>studies of others. An early study (1986) by Richard Freeman
>examined housing projects in several major cities to determine
>factors that helped kids stay out of trouble. Religious faith
>was a key factor. Byron, working with several colleagues,
>replicated Freeman’s study in the late 1990’s, with the
>same result: The frequency of attending religious services was
>inversely related to the likelihood of young, poor, black
>males selling illegal drugs or otherwise breaking the law. The
>differences in getting into legal trouble between those who
>attended church and those who did not were on the order of 40
>to 60 percent.
>
>In 2000, Byron reviewed forty studies on the relationship
>between religion and delinquency, with similar results. The
>same was true of a review of sixty studies by Colin Baier and
>Bradley Wright in 2001, which further demonstrated that the
>inverse relationship between church attendance and delinquent
>behavior increased as studies grew larger and more
>comprehensive.
>
>Very recently, Byron completed the most exhaustive systematic
>review to date, analyzing 273 studies published between 1944
>and 2010 in a variety of fields. He found that 90% of the
>studies “report an inverse or beneficial relationship
>between religion and some measure of crime or delinquency.”
>Only 9 percent found no association, and only two studies
>(less than 1%) found the opposite relationship.
>
>Professor Byron began his article by noting that if the
>studies generally showed the opposite—that religion or
>church-going contributed to crime and delinquency—the press
>would be all over the story, and a Federal commission would
>doubtless be established to make sure Americans were
>officially notified that religious practice is deleterious to
>your social health.
>

Good enough. If you're a scientists and want actual scholarly data why don't you contact the guy. Are you seriously going to tell me you don't know how to do that or you expect thousands of data points in an article that's meant for mass consumption and not the scientific community. Okps kill me. Visit the Baylor website, find the guys email and ask if you want heavy duty data or stop faking like you're really trying to learn something.

>Good enough.

i dont know what a 'good enough' metric is
there are minimum criteria for a study to be considered valid
you cant just say x causes y just because - which is what these folks is doing
thats problematic

there are also problems with the study originally posted

association is not causation

Going out and getting all that data and the stats you want to see.

>Going out and getting all that data and the stats you want to
>see.


is that a fancy of way of saying you got nothing?

Nope. That's okay though because okp likes that study.

The way study results are described in mainstream articles are fine until you come across a study you don't like.

And yes if you want a scientific scholarly article and a bunch of data you know how to find it.

But it's stupidity to act like I should respond to an article like the original post with data from 273 studies or probably 3000 pages of data and stats for you to look over.

im asking for an actual study
something with actual data (and not naked %)
its one of the things you do when you have a study- especially one that shows 'causation'
description of sample, description of methods, results (more often than not in a summary table that includes sample size)
nobody ever publishes their datasets

>Nope. That's okay though because okp likes that study.

lol. i also said there are issues with that article. and that article is not a study report
its huffpo.
id call it an oped piece, if anything.

>The way study results are described in mainstream articles are
>fine until you come across a study you don't like.

what bullshit is this?

>And yes if you want a scientific scholarly article and a bunch
>of data you know how to find it.
>
>But it's stupidity to act like I should respond to an article
>like the original post with data from 273 studies or probably
>3000 pages of data and stats for you to look over.

stupidity?
you sure you want to go there?

And university and you are not asking for any of it, because you don't want it. Stop being intellectually dishonest pretending you're curious or want to see it if you don't. And yes it's stupid to go on a tangent about causation when the article clearly uses the word association.

"Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!"

You're the one who provided an article when ppl asked for "stats" that prove this assertion is true. If you are the one saying yes this hypothesis is true, and stats show it, it's on YOU to provide the links to the studies and the stats. not an article that says "this man read a bunch of studies and found 90% of them said this so that must be true." The article doesn't have any studies listed, no links to the anything, no info period and when ppl say this isn't correct, you get mad. HOW SWAY?

don't jump into shit if you not ready to defend the bullshit you gonna post.

Abstract: http://works.bepress.com/psheaton/1/
Paper: https://pdf.yt/d/THWiTlgHIKcbfZwg

I'm an economist, so I don't trust the empirical methods of sociology. While I was reading the post, I was instantly skeptical of the findings because the degree of religiosity in the community could be itself related to the level of crime.

Simple regressions don't handle that kind of simultaneous relationship no matter how many control variables you throw in. This paper tries to take care of that problem and finds no relationship between religion and crime.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

the website you posted only says there are numerous studies

anyway, this is silly.

its one of those, i dont really have anything to stand by
so instead i will proceed to insult you.

all the best with that

To dig into the data. lol at pretending the article I posted is any better or worse than the original article it responded to.

>lol at pretending the article I posted
>is any better or worse than the original article it responded
>to.


i get it now.

On subscriptions to scholarly journals so I can post some data for you or study designs.

I'll be right back...

I've seen the light and now realize that would be an appropriate response to a huff po article on a rap music bands website.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://i.imgur.com/BBCdhHc.jpg

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=12679713&mesg_id=12681136&page=

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

^ most prisoners are religious. the overwhelming majority reported believing in one of the major religions. LOL

You don't have to take the good with the bad. If you're defending religion with a pro/con argument, you must also assert that no combination of activities other than church offers the same benefits at less cost. It's a very hard argument to make when comparing to things like transcendental meditation.

It is important to realize that religious people are always at a disadvantage in serious arguments about the economics of it all; none of their core ideas can really be tested.

for the folks not buying it, I feel it, no one wants to believe they're hindering they're children with a doctrine they grew up with themselves, but it has to be some point where the childs' welfare trumps the caretakers take on stories/myths


meanwhile, folks are foregoing teaching their children religion & showing them how the world really works, while black/brown children have their childhood filled with teachings that only divide


i mean being taught an epic story that is ultimately not true can be terrible for a child. And most religions do not have the built in safety valve of questioning itself, rather it demands the opposite

are real
setting your kids back for the sake of acceptance
bad parenting
religion applies too but neither me or any of my friends are religious so don't really apply

that speaks fear into the core of an adult, even moreso a child



the tooth fairy and santa doesnt presnet this problem


aslo, people arent killing in the name of the tooth fairy and santa except during black friday and christmas eve

Drops mic and preacher towel -- walks off the stage.


.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

Don't you have some fairy tales to read?

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

But you have lots of experience believing things that aren't true.

due to lack of critical thinking. A child that was reared outside of religion would have an easier time decipher fact from fiction than someone reared in religion


the first child can learn by proof while the latter has to take a story and imagine it to be proof. that is problematic for a child, much less an adult

>due to lack of critical thinking. A child that was reared
>outside of religion would have an easier time decipher fact
>from fiction than someone reared in religion
>
>
>the first child can learn by proof while the latter has to
>take a story and imagine it to be proof. that is problematic
>for a child, much less an adult



Provide the proof without any margin of error.


.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

and a child who grew up in islam will most likely retain those views.

now


lets say you are given the opportunity teach him that something in the koran is impossible, like having muhammad remember the whole koran.


He believes this tale, but you know it to be false. Why cant he see this to be untrue?


Is it his faith? Or his inability to believe you are telling him the truth?

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

i didnt expect you to tackle that.

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

instead you do the opposite of what jesus said



i know you feel good about that

>Provide the proof without any margin of error.

all proof comes with a margin of error

It doesn't even need to be related to religion. If a bunch of seemingly impossible events are said to be true, it expands the limits of what a kid believes is possible.

If you have a kid believe Charlotte's Web is a true story, then when someone tells them a horse is talking they are more likely to believe it. Even though all of their life experiences thus far tell them it can't be true.

Provide evidence with no margin of error.

or hell, adults and most domestic network news broadcasts

And I ain't religious at all, but this rush to discredit/dismiss humanity's interest in the fantastic is pretty wrongheaded, IMO

and critical thinking is dimmed, proven by the many adults that take the bible/koran literally tho literal translations have been discarded long ago

A pretty big oversimplification, lol. I don't think self-loathing is that big of a part of people's pull towards the divine.

In any event tho', all these stories (legends, myths, epics, sagas, religious tales) all serve a purpose in the human experience and always will.

And that's a beautiful thing IMO

As a matter of fact, the after life is what draws the fear, also known as 'Love for God'



fact of the matter is that people dont really love god, they just dont want to burn in hell.


but given the narrative that is taught from childhood, they call on faith when real answers cannot be given. Its how the police mentally dance around with their acts of brutality and justifying it with the law

but we also do Santa, so people in glass houses...

who were obviously doing it very wrong (if at all). I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything close to "slaughter scores of men, women, and children for my name's sake".

yeah you played yourself.


no worries tho, no one expects you to come up with anything relevant in these types of discussions. we expect it so *yeezy shrug*

time and time again.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

I find Atheism to be a ironic and interesting set of beliefs.

Even atheists place value on the idea of god, simply by rejecting it.

You cannot be an atheist without god. God is essential to the belief structure. If Atheism was a mathematical formula, god would represent 0, or X. Still part of the equation.

It is best not to take any labels at all.

However, my point is, that religion as given to us by the indigenous people, as well as key figure heads such as Mohammad and Christ was a good thing. It is juts as good / evil / corrupting as finance, or politics. The tool is not the problem, it is rather what man has done with these tools.

Religion was founded on the laws observed in nature. When man over fished the rivers, he hurt the eco system and the village down the river, and thus he learned to have ethics, morals, and standards which promote the greatest good. That is the foundation of all religion. It was man's hope to commune with nature.

The earliest symbols of god/religion was a stone, then animal spirits (totem poles), and finally the stone, eventually took the shape of a man, and this is exactly where man lost his way. Once god took human form, we began to suffer from a hubris that still controls us. This is why people believe they can kill in the name of god.

Today's religions are useless. They offer nothing except fear, guilt, and the inability to experience and experiment with life. That being said, I have met alternative christians and muslims which have a far more advanced look on divinity than their mainstream counterparts.

where did you get these ideas about atheism from?
why do you state them as if they were true?

talking about what atheists believe. I even had one self-proclaimed atheist tell me that there was, in fact an atheist belief system.

Atheists simply do not believe in God.

>
>Atheists simply do not believe in God.


That right there is ironic of you to say, because you cannot be an Atheist without calling god into question. Not believing or believing in something doesn't make any less real as a concept. Simply by making that statement you evoke it's "being".

It's a very simple concept.

The absence of air is not air.
Your world is so god centric that everything is measured by that...
It doesn't mean everyone else is that way.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

are you suggesting that you do not have any beliefs at all? in anything?

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

>talking about what atheists believe. I even had one
>self-proclaimed atheist tell me that there was, in fact an
>atheist belief system.

my faith entails that i spread the system of disbelief.


*actually im more of an apatheist*

well, much respect to you.

>I find Atheism to be a ironic and interesting set of beliefs.
>Even atheists place value on the idea of god, simply by
>rejecting it.
>You cannot be an atheist without god. God is essential to the
>belief structure. If Atheism was a mathematical formula, god
>would represent 0, or X. Still part of the equation.
>It is best not to take any labels at all.


none of this really makes sense.
even when applying mathematical rules
zero represents something??

whoa

>

It is actually an ironic joke. What constitutes an atheist? Someone that doesn't believe in god. How will most atheists express their views? "I don't believe in god."

In every case, you cannot be an atheist without bringing god into the equation. It's more of a linguistic irony than anything else and I see I have failed to express it correctly using 0 and X. The fact that 0 doesn't represent anything or does not exist is precisely the point, as Atheists believe god does not exist. However, the paradigm of atheism is built on "god" just as much as zero performs an integral duty in mathematics.

I can not believe in the Loch Ness Monster without bring it into the equation. It's the believers who introduce it.

the loch ness monster would never have come into question unless it was invented, that is 100% true, but, god would have come into question no matter what in every part of the planet or universe where there are thinking beings

as thinking beings we always seek the root of things. you and everyone you know has had an independent thought along the lines of "where am i, where is the universe from, how was it created?"

it is the greatest mystery which man has. as soon as man thought to question where the snow comes from, or when children wanted to know where babies come from, they were on an inevitable path to the idea of god. we cannot juxtapose god with any fictitious fairy tale character because we would have never arrived at those characters through the expression of our own humanity, which is to question, but we found the idea of god because we innately questioned our own existence.

>the loch ness monster would never have come into question
>unless it was invented,

where there are thinking beings. meditate on that a minute. the loch ness monster would not.

it is not the same thing.

i think its an assumption based on the pervasiveness of xtianity (and its offshoots - and i include islam in this)

i think what is more pervase is a concept of an afterlife
which does not rely on the premise of there being a god
just a place where your dead kin can go hang out and chill and watch out for your best interests
(and when you all forget about them they become your ancestors)

the whole concept of a supreme being is a recently invented concept.

and the question about why humans have an innate desire to understand things?
its called intellect
its what separates us from animals (minimally, i should add)
thus we can thankgod for evolution

the idea of a singular supreme being depends on your interpretation of "recent". are thousands of years recent? look into Amun-Ra from Egypt, Zeus from Greece, Quetzalcoatl from the Mayans, Brahma, Abraham, etc.

there is only one small group of indigenous people on the planet that has no creation myth feauturing a creator. in contrast and clearly different, the loch ness monster comes from an isolated experience. the idea of god is anything but isolated.

i'd like to think that if our race lives long enough, we will grow through this immaturity and get to the real shit


but thats just real faith.


and the universe does not require god just because its a word, thats ridiculous.

in contrast, we have not proven whether or not god exists, and we are all still talking and thinking about it.

>and the universe does not require god just because its a word,
>thats ridiculous.

i think you skimmed over what i wrote because that's not what i said.

>in contrast, we have not proven whether or not god exists,
>and we are all still talking and thinking about it.


scientist and atheists are thinking about when some alleged proof is available, it will be looked at.. You are speaking in a round about way on why you yourself believe in a god of some sort.

>
>>and the universe does not require god just because its a
>word,
>>thats ridiculous.
>
>i think you skimmed over what i wrote because that's not what
>i said.

this is what you are saying:
That right there is ironic of you to say, because you cannot be an Atheist without calling god into question. Not believing or believing in something doesn't make any less real as a concept. Simply by making that statement you evoke it's "being".

^^^just because someone says they dont believe in (insert noun of any sort), doesnt mean that noun is recognized as real.

>>in contrast, we have not proven whether or not god exists,
>>and we are all still talking and thinking about it.
>
>
>scientist and atheists are thinking about when some alleged
>proof is available, it will be looked at.. You are speaking in
>a round about way on why you yourself believe in a god of some
>sort.
>

where did I state that I do or do not believe in a god?

>>
>>>and the universe does not require god just because its a
>>word,
>>>thats ridiculous.
>>
>>i think you skimmed over what i wrote because that's not
>what
>>i said.
>
>this is what you are saying:
>That right there is ironic of you to say, because you cannot
>be an Atheist without calling god into question. Not believing
>or believing in something doesn't make any less real as a
>concept. Simply by making that statement you evoke it's
>"being".
>
>^^^just because someone says they dont believe in (insert noun
>of any sort), doesnt mean that noun is recognized as real.

Once again, that is not what I said. I am not questioning the existence of, or whether or not god is real. I am stating that one cannot be an atheist without god, just as much as one cannot be a christian without god. neither can prove god does or does not exist, so the objective result for both is inconclusive. However, neither can exist without god which they share as the foundation of their belief structure, not just as a word, but as a governing concept, an emotion, expression, feeling, however you define the need to understand where we all came from.

The simplest way I can say it is that 0 represents nothing in mathematics but it is integral to it. god represents nothing in atheism but is integral to it. finally, god is integral to being religious. ironically, noone can come up with an objective answer that is definite. i think it's all pretty ironic and that's all i'm saying.

it doesnt resolve anything

go to any part of the planet and you will find an ancient creation myth, spanning thousands upon thousands of years. 15,000 to 30,000 years at least. the idea of God is not isolated to person, race, nationality, location, or era. the thirst to know is perhaps the only real thing we have in common, ironic in every imaginable way there is.

and you are talking about the absence of belief constituting belief, essentially.

now you're moving the goalposts to make disbelief in god some sort of unique exception. in other words this whole "mathematical expression" of disbelief as belief only applies in one (or at least very, very few) contexts.

what you are saying makes no sense.

>and you are talking about the absence of belief constituting
>belief, essentially.

That is not at all what I am suggesting. I am merely pointing out the irony in the specificity of taking "Atheist" as a label which defines ones set of beliefs. One cannot be an Atheist without evoking god into being, contextual or real is irrelevant, as neither an Atheist nor a Christian can prove or disprove god's existence.

>
>now you're moving the goalposts to make disbelief in god some
>sort of unique exception. in other words this whole
>"mathematical expression" of disbelief as belief only applies
>in one (or at least very, very few) contexts.
>


No. I am suggesting that the idea of god is unique. It is an idea that does not require verification and cannot be tested, thus the true existence of god is unknown to either an Atheist or a Christian. Christian's choose to believe in *god*, Atheists choose not to believe in *god*, in both cases god has been evoked into being. I am also saying that it an idea that was inevitable for man to encounter and to question given our nature. Please name any other "myth" that is like the idea of god.

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

>
> but, god would have
>come into question no matter what in every part of the planet
>or universe where there are thinking beings
>

i often wonder why we have the innate need to know. where does that need come from? why does man tirelessly search for answers? why are we not content with not knowing?

How you can just say, "Oh that's different".
It's not different at all. You just made up a silly condition to try to refute a perfectly acceptable point

I further explained the example I used in post 81

if religion did not exist (dear god this would be nirvana)
there would be no need to dispute it

so no. atheism is not built on a premise that god exists
atheism is a refutation of an existing belief system
its built on a premise that 'there are people who believe god exists'
and there are those who know better

but you are right. its better to be apatheist

>In every case, you cannot be an atheist without bringing god
>into the equation.

would i dont believe in higher beings make this easier?
cause i really dont get this argument.
it sounds like semantics

>if religion did not exist (dear god this would be nirvana)
>there would be no need to dispute it

religion was inevitable. i have studied this in great depth and it essentially comes from nature. for one, man wanted to know where the fish that gave him life came from, and they wanted to commune with that life force. that is the root origin of religion. is there anything wrong with that you think? to offer gratitude to the life force that sustains your people? where is the harm?

the idea of nirvana came from the very same quest to commune with the life force and to free oneself from suffering/dispute. there would be no nirvana if there wasn't anything to dispute. they are inseparable, what remains is your choice to resonate with one or the other.

>
>so no. atheism is not built on a premise that god exists
>atheism is a refutation of an existing belief system
>its built on a premise that 'there are people who believe god
>exists'
>and there are those who know better


that's not what i said: i said that 0 is integral to mathematics even though it represents nothing. "god" is integral to the idea of atheism.


>
>but you are right. its better to be apatheist
>
>>In every case, you cannot be an atheist without bringing god
>>into the equation.
>
>would i dont believe in higher beings make this easier?
>cause i really dont get this argument.
>it sounds like semantics
>

the safest and least committing answer is "i don't know". i don't know why people have to choose one or the other when a simple i don't know free's you from the need to defend your stance.

people will defend whatever banner they decide to represent, even when its supposedly a banner that aims to lessen the dispute. have you ever seen a calm peaceful conversation between a christian and an atheist? what exactly separates one from the other when you glance at them from a distance?

Both mythologies are rich with knowledge that shines a light on the structure and fabric of our society. More than that, it shines light on words we use without knowing their true meanings.

I get this logic 100 percent. This is true depending on the religion and where they grew up.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12679713&mesg_id=12679713&page=#12680096


but im banned tho.
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12679713&mesg_id=12679713&page=#12680096

im not a kid, though

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

there is no God.

lol

...i'm really surprised....

fact from fiction

We have to distinguish between religion vs dogma


>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html
>
>Young children who are exposed to religion have a hard time
>differentiating between fact and fiction, according to a new
>study published in the July issue of Cognitive Science.
>
>Researchers presented 5- and 6-year-old children from both
>public and parochial schools with three different types of
>stories -- religious, fantastical and realistic –- in an
>effort to gauge how well they could identify narratives with
>impossible elements as fictional.
>
>The study found that, of the 66 participants, children who
>went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school were
>significantly less able than secular children to identify
>supernatural elements, such as talking animals, as fictional.
>
>By relating seemingly impossible religious events achieved
>through divine intervention (e.g., Jesus transforming water
>into wine) to fictional narratives, religious children would
>more heavily rely on religion to justify their false
>categorizations.
>
>“In both studies, 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,” the study concluded.
>
>Refuting previous hypotheses claiming that children are
>“born believers,” the authors suggest that “religious
>teaching, especially exposure to miracle stories, leads
>children to a more generic receptivity toward the impossible,
>that is, a more wide-ranging acceptance that the impossible
>can happen in defiance of ordinary causal relations.”
>
>According to 2013-2014 Gallup data, roughly 83 percent of
>Americans report a religious affiliation, and an even larger
>group -- 86 percent -- believe in God.
>
>More than a quarter of Americans, 28 percent, also believe the
>Bible is the actual word of God and should be taken literally,
>while another 47 percent say the Bible is the inspired word of
>God.

1) the article appears in Cognitive Science, the preeminent journal in cognitive psychology

2) it was made available online in July for early view as it was being edited. The article is in the December issue i think. Not that anyone here (including me) was looking for the physical copy, but if u are...

Id actually argue for some exposure for kids so they can develop a rounded world view.


You figure out later in life whether you want to believe or not - and whether its fact or fantasy.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/why-atheists-make-85-percent-americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

dumbest shyt I've read

yal atheist ain't doing much trying to prove yals intellectual superiority over religious folk



but im banned tho.
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

90%+ of the people in jail are going to be believers of some sort.
That's just how it is, sorry.

I really thought atheist were big on logic?

yal got a lot in common with the religious fundamentalist



but im banned tho.
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

so like lol

and I like how u couldn't dispute anything bi said so u throw something irrelevant into the discussion


mighty Christian conservative of u

like I said

yal r just as bad as the fundamentalist

just on the opposite end of the spectrum

but im banned tho.
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

make a point about christianity and watch it come up short like your girlfriends kentucky shot

Can't believe I'm replying to these random weirdos

muhfuggas be sittin on lame ass drake comebacks for years waiting for me to reply to them

smh


but im banned tho.
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

that listens to the same music most teenage white girls listen to, & and bible beater


and got the nerve to call somebody weird, lol

♥♥Church Diva♥♥

Let them believe in Santa or that animals can talk or that superheroes exist, shit

They're children not adults. They'll grow up and lose that wonder and joy and innocence and be just as cynical and mistrustful of everything as everyone else in time


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

So we should be interested in factors that may or may not play a part in determining whether or not a 5yr old believes that Big Bird is real?