Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Children - Fact vs. Fiction

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?
President of DDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:36:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I would be interested in seeing this study continued to older children/teenagers. Also, I would like to see a study of children taught critical thinking skills who are also exposed to religion.

I personally believe we should teach children how to think, and not what to think.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:52:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I agree with Skepticalone, I would love to see this same test (with less obvious points of fiction) done with older children, possibly teens.

I do think, however, that this shows that raising a child with religion will cause them to lack critical thinking skills, or at least not have them at the level that they should.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:36:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I would be interested in seeing this study continued to older children/teenagers. Also, I would like to see a study of children taught critical thinking skills who are also exposed to religion.

I personally believe we should teach children how to think, and not what to think.

Agreed all schools should teach children decision making skills.

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 7:26:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I see it as problematic. A good dose of reality goes a long way towards a healthy life. Much of our personality and emotional intelligence is formed at a very young age.

I have a special needs child. She is 6 years old and after a very difficult year of kindergarten I decided to home school her. She has extreme phobias and social anxiety. Rather than dosing her with medication I have opted for the alternative. It was difficult and very expensive to find a home school curriculum that is secular and doesn't promote biblical stories as historical fact.

Anyway, the reading portion of her curriculum is 2nd grade level (she is gifted) and is the same exact textbook being used in public schools. As part of the curriculum, along with each reading unit we differentiate between fantasy and realism within the story. I'm happy to see that differentiating between fact an fiction at such a young age is being promoted in children who are in the public school system.

I believe that by promoting fantastic and miraculous stories that the private, faith based schools are teaching is an injustice to the emotional development of young children. Reading fiction, watching a movie, playing a video game, or creative play is something children must be able to discern as fantasy in order for them to approach real life scenarios with a realistic expectations.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 7:38:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

By "religion," does the study mean Christianity and reading the Bible or being taught things from the Bible? I am assuming so as it states that the families of the children went to church.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 7:45:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As others have said, it would be nice to know how much this trend continues into adolescence. If it doesn't get better, then I would definitely say this is a problem. Parents and teachers telling kids fantastic things as though they're real leads to those kids having trouble differentiating between reality and fantasy. Is anyone surprised by that? I'm kind of surprised that the more hardcore theist parents aren't fighting against teaching critical thinking skills in school. If you arm a kid with those tools, I would think his/her acceptance of any religion would wane somewhat. They must be pretty confident in their indoctrination.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 7:53:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:36:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I would be interested in seeing this study continued to older children/teenagers. Also, I would like to see a study of children taught critical thinking skills who are also exposed to religion.

I personally believe we should teach children how to think, and not what to think.

Agreed all schools should teach children decision making skills.

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

The new common core initiative (which I do not support) is very logic driven. But I do believe that a certain amount of logic should be promoted along with creative reasoning. There is a balance that is necessary between logic and creativity. Creative thought combined with logical reasoning is what helped the greatest minds in history make important discoveries. With that being said however fantasy vs. fiction is a very important lesson. It does no one any good to believe in a fictional/philosophical story as fact. The balance has to be there and learning logical skills is very important to that balance.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls? Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in there head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:26:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

Let's define atheism:

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

A lack of a believe in god is the natural position. No one is born believing in a god. Just like no one is born believing in the devil, sins, or fairies.

And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls?

Well, in my chemistry class, my teacher has already dismissed the understanding that electrons orbit the nucleus.

Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in there head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 7:53:28 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:36:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I would be interested in seeing this study continued to older children/teenagers. Also, I would like to see a study of children taught critical thinking skills who are also exposed to religion.

I personally believe we should teach children how to think, and not what to think.

Agreed all schools should teach children decision making skills.

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

The new common core initiative (which I do not support) is very logic driven. But I do believe that a certain amount of logic should be promoted along with creative reasoning. There is a balance that is necessary between logic and creativity. Creative thought combined with logical reasoning is what helped the greatest minds in history make important discoveries. With that being said however fantasy vs. fiction is a very important lesson. It does no one any good to believe in a fictional/philosophical story as fact. The balance has to be there and learning logical skills is very important to that balance.

I totally agree with you that creativity should be allowed to flourish in schools. Saddest thing is hearing how some schools have no music or art.

Secular Atheist do not have a commodity on critical thinking skills.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein

So many people want schools to spit out dense headed little skeptics, that know only what is told to them or published in some scientific paper. It's a stall to progress of humanity.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:33:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:30:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So many people want schools to spit out dense headed little skeptics, that know only what is told to them or published in some scientific paper. It's a stall to progress of humanity.

Skeptics, by definition, don't just believe what is told to them. Your sentence there doesn't make any sense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:39:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:26:17 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

Let's define atheism:

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Oh yeah back to the definition of Atheism. How much more will atheist try to steal from agnosticism? Always fall back on the definition of atheism after/before claiming god is imaginary. When you get called out on a claim.

A lack of a believe in god is the natural position. No one is born believing in a god. Just like no one is born believing in the devil, sins, or fairies.

1. A natural position does not grant any special privileged of being truer. We are born with the natural position of being unable to walk and crapping on ourselves. Study a little bit about the electromagnetic spectrum or quantum mechanics the Natural position of thinking how you see things is correct would be wrong.

2. Where is this baby survey that gives credence to anyone saying a baby is born lacking belief in God? You constantly ask for objective evidence... Well where is the scientific experimental objective evidence that every baby is born without a belief in God/s?! You have known.


And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls?

Well, in my chemistry class, my teacher has already dismissed the understanding that electrons orbit the nucleus.

You'd think after all these decades that would occur earlier.


Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in thier head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:41:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:30:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:53:28 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:36:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I would be interested in seeing this study continued to older children/teenagers. Also, I would like to see a study of children taught critical thinking skills who are also exposed to religion.

I personally believe we should teach children how to think, and not what to think.

Agreed all schools should teach children decision making skills.

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

The new common core initiative (which I do not support) is very logic driven. But I do believe that a certain amount of logic should be promoted along with creative reasoning. There is a balance that is necessary between logic and creativity. Creative thought combined with logical reasoning is what helped the greatest minds in history make important discoveries. With that being said however fantasy vs. fiction is a very important lesson. It does no one any good to believe in a fictional/philosophical story as fact. The balance has to be there and learning logical skills is very important to that balance.

I totally agree with you that creativity should be allowed to flourish in schools. Saddest thing is hearing how some schools have no music or art.

Which is sickening to me. I've never met a child who wasn't an artist.

Secular Atheist do not have a commodity on critical thinking skills.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein

That in my opinion is the most brilliant thing Einstein said. And I'm a big fan of his mind.

So many people want schools to spit out dense headed little skeptics, that know only what is told to them or published in some scientific paper. It's a stall to progress of humanity.

It is. Creativity allows us to think for ourselves and logic enables us to discern what is true. No matter what someone believes they came to that belief through creative thinking and logic based on evidence that they have compiled through experience and learning. Experiences differ and so do beliefs as a result. I think it's awesome.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:44:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:33:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:30:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So many people want schools to spit out dense headed little skeptics, that know only what is told to them or published in some scientific paper. It's a stall to progress of humanity.

Skeptics, by definition, don't just believe what is told to them. Your sentence there doesn't make any sense.

I didn't say believe. I said know. you can know of stuff you don't accept true.

I was referring to the space of knowledge a secular atheist school system would want the children to discern beliefs from.

but thanks for changing my words and trying to make me look foolish.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:44:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

At first I thought this was a dig at the common core curriculum but now it's clear it's just anti-atheistic. The cool thing about logic and its rules is that it's not monopolized by either side of the religion debate.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

Default position is a valid state. As you grow up you're told things, you learn, you do not come into the world with presuppositional beliefs. You can't know something before it's even presented. And it makes sense to examine what is presented. If the evidence for a claim is not sufficient you remain in your original position, which is not knowing.

And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

You're right, because we don't know the entire universe a negative assumption would be fallacious. By the way, there is a magic tea pot floating around in space. It tells me to cut off my children's foreskin and blame the gays for bad weather. What are you going to do? Assert that there isn't a teapot? Such a negative assertion can't be claimed without knowing every inch of the universe! How convenient that the only being capable of knowing the whole universe in order to disprove the teapot is the teapot itself which proves the teapot exists! Good ol' atheist logic, am I right?

And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

Congratulations.

You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls? Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in there head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.

Now these are valid criticisms against public education. Why you have to bring up atheism is beyond me. Despite the stereotype of college academia being an atheist stronghold I don't think K-12 is the same way.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:49:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:39:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:26:17 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

Let's define atheism:

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Oh yeah back to the definition of Atheism. How much more will atheist try to steal from agnosticism? Always fall back on the definition of atheism after/before claiming god is imaginary. When you get called out on a claim.

Well, I'm not stealing anything. I'm just using the definitions from a credible source.

A lack of a believe in god is the natural position. No one is born believing in a god. Just like no one is born believing in the devil, sins, or fairies.

1. A natural position does not grant any special privileged of being truer. We are born with the natural position of being unable to walk and crapping on ourselves. Study a little bit about the electromagnetic spectrum or quantum mechanics the Natural position of thinking how you see things is correct would be wrong.

I agree on that. A lot of things people naturally believe turn out to be wrong once evidence suggests differently.

2. Where is this baby survey that gives credence to anyone saying a baby is born lacking belief in God? You constantly ask for objective evidence... Well where is the scientific experimental objective evidence that every baby is born without a belief in God/s?! You have known.

I concede this point. After researching, evidence has proved me wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls?

Well, in my chemistry class, my teacher has already dismissed the understanding that electrons orbit the nucleus.

You'd think after all these decades that would occur earlier.

That's true. The educational system needs improvement.


Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in thier head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.

So retract my point "A lack of a believe in god is the natural position. No one is born believing in a god. Just like no one is born believing in the devil, sins, or fairies." due to evidence to the contrary.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:50:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:44:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:33:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:30:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So many people want schools to spit out dense headed little skeptics, that know only what is told to them or published in some scientific paper. It's a stall to progress of humanity.

Skeptics, by definition, don't just believe what is told to them. Your sentence there doesn't make any sense.

I didn't say believe. I said know. you can know of stuff you don't accept true.

I was referring to the space of knowledge a secular atheist school system would want the children to discern beliefs from.

but thanks for changing my words and trying to make me look foolish.

My mistake. You still seem to be talking about what they'll believe, though. Regardless, it still doesn't make much sense. What space of knowledge do you think a "secular atheist school system" would involve?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:00:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:44:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

At first I thought this was a dig at the common core curriculum but now it's clear it's just anti-atheistic. The cool thing about logic and its rules is that it's not monopolized by either side of the religion debate.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

Default position is a valid state. As you grow up you're told things, you learn, you do not come into the world with presuppositional beliefs. You can't know something before it's even presented. And it makes sense to examine what is presented. If the evidence for a claim is not sufficient you remain in your original position, which is not knowing.

I know when an Anti-theist is called out on making claims about God, atheist tactics says refer back to the definition of Atheism and play like an agnostic.

And your argument stinks. babies know of pain before it is presented. Pain is a presuppositional knowledge.

Plus you are making a case that there is no A priori knowledge. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience.


And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

You're right, because we don't know the entire universe a negative assumption would be fallacious. By the way, there is a magic tea pot floating around in space. It tells me to cut off my children's foreskin and blame the gays for bad weather. What are you going to do? Assert that there isn't a teapot? Such a negative assertion can't be claimed without knowing every inch of the universe! How convenient that the only being capable of knowing the whole universe in order to disprove the teapot is the teapot itself which proves the teapot exists! Good ol' atheist logic, am I right?

You didn't define "magic teapot" as omniscient. But given the universe is so big and time so long, I'm sure there is a teapot that spontaneously emerged from natural causes by chance.


And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

Congratulations.

They work hard at it, and I help where and when I can. I'll be sure to pass on the grats.


You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls? Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in there head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.

Now these are valid criticisms against public education. Why you have to bring up atheism is beyond me. Despite the stereotype of college academia being an atheist stronghold I don't think K-12 is the same way.

Well I'm presenting my thoughts on the matter. I think the way the schools have handled other issues I can just imagine that any curriculum teaching decision making skills or critical thinking would be full of erroneous statements taken directly from atheist secular proselytizing.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:05:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I think this was a very unfairly designed study. In the first study, the "supernatural" stories were so closely based on biblical stories that the churchgoing children were familiar with and the non-churchgoing children weren't, that it's ridiculous. They even used biblical characters in their magical stories

Here's an example of a magical story they used:

"This is David. One day, he fought a nine-foot-tall monster who was protected in armor. David had no armor on so he didn't know what to do. David had a magic stone and when he threw the stone, the monster was killed instantly! David won the battle!"

These children were only 5 and 6 years old, so I think it's just trying to trick them. There was nothing about talking animals, by the way.

In the second study, they tried to fix it by using stories that weren't so closely tied to biblical stories. Here's an example:

"This is John. John led his people when they were escaping from their enemies. When they reached the mountain, John waved his magic stick. The mountain separated into two parts and John and his people escaped through the pathway in the middle."

When would these 5 and 6 year olds have heard about "John" and "his people" escaping from enemies except in a biblical context? Of course such narratives would feel more familiar to children who read the bible than to those that don't. This study seems set up on purpose to deceive churchgoing children.

I think research like this is problematic, yes, but I don't think we need to be concerned about churchgoing children on the basis of this research.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:07:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I admit that many religious parents in the United States teach their kids religion, while thinking seems to be discouraged.
However, this doesn't have to be the case. The Bonhoeffers, for instance, were a very religious family, but they also taught their kids to think.
Their most famous child, Dietrich, was quite intelligent, possibly a genius.

I wish that Christians would return to their intellectual roots...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:10:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:49:24 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:39:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:26:17 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

Let's define atheism:

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Oh yeah back to the definition of Atheism. How much more will atheist try to steal from agnosticism? Always fall back on the definition of atheism after/before claiming god is imaginary. When you get called out on a claim.

Well, I'm not stealing anything. I'm just using the definitions from a credible source.

A lack of a believe in god is the natural position. No one is born believing in a god. Just like no one is born believing in the devil, sins, or fairies.

1. A natural position does not grant any special privileged of being truer. We are born with the natural position of being unable to walk and crapping on ourselves. Study a little bit about the electromagnetic spectrum or quantum mechanics the Natural position of thinking how you see things is correct would be wrong.

I agree on that. A lot of things people naturally believe turn out to be wrong once evidence suggests differently.

2. Where is this baby survey that gives credence to anyone saying a baby is born lacking belief in God? You constantly ask for objective evidence... Well where is the scientific experimental objective evidence that every baby is born without a belief in God/s?! You have known.

I concede this point. After researching, evidence has proved me wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls?

Well, in my chemistry class, my teacher has already dismissed the understanding that electrons orbit the nucleus.

You'd think after all these decades that would occur earlier.

That's true. The educational system needs improvement.


Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in thier head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.

So retract my point "A lack of a believe in god is the natural position. No one is born believing in a god. Just like no one is born believing in the devil, sins, or fairies." due to evidence to the contrary.

Evidence is nothing without explanation. Someone could come up with a different explanation for the same observations.

It's interesting research, but my point is you can't say that because no one has talked to a bunch of babies to discern what their beliefs are. And as yet, I do not think you can cat scan a persons brain and tell Calvinist from Buddhist.

You define natural position as a state before evidence is presented. You claim Atheism is a natural position based on "babies are not born..." a point you know concede.

You also have not shown that a natural position is more likely than not to be true. So even as a heuristic a natural position being right is unlikely. A natural position can ONLY be an agnostic position of "I do not know". In which case the natural position can not imply or infer any conclusion that assert the truth value of the subject.

So no natural position can say God is imaginary.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:12:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 9:05:29 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I think this was a very unfairly designed study. In the first study, the "supernatural" stories were so closely based on biblical stories that the churchgoing children were familiar with and the non-churchgoing children weren't, that it's ridiculous. They even used biblical characters in their magical stories

Here's an example of a magical story they used:

"This is David. One day, he fought a nine-foot-tall monster who was protected in armor. David had no armor on so he didn't know what to do. David had a magic stone and when he threw the stone, the monster was killed instantly! David won the battle!"

These children were only 5 and 6 years old, so I think it's just trying to trick them. There was nothing about talking animals, by the way.

In the second study, they tried to fix it by using stories that weren't so closely tied to biblical stories. Here's an example:

"This is John. John led his people when they were escaping from their enemies. When they reached the mountain, John waved his magic stick. The mountain separated into two parts and John and his people escaped through the pathway in the middle."

When would these 5 and 6 year olds have heard about "John" and "his people" escaping from enemies except in a biblical context? Of course such narratives would feel more familiar to children who read the bible than to those that don't. This study seems set up on purpose to deceive churchgoing children.

I think research like this is problematic, yes, but I don't think we need to be concerned about churchgoing children on the basis of this research.

For real?!
...Well, it's easy to see why some people on the Left would benefit from pulling a dirty trick like that.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:16:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:50:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:33:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:30:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So many people want schools to spit out dense headed little skeptics, that know only what is told to them or published in some scientific paper. It's a stall to progress of humanity.

Skeptics, by definition, don't just believe what is told to them. Your sentence there doesn't make any sense.

I didn't say believe. I said know. you can know of stuff you don't accept true.

I was referring to the space of knowledge a secular atheist school system would want the children to discern beliefs from.

but thanks for changing my words and trying to make me look foolish.

My mistake. You still seem to be talking about what they'll believe, though. Regardless, it still doesn't make much sense. What space of knowledge do you think a "secular atheist school system" would involve?

I'm sorry I do not know the incompleteness of all secular atheist knowledge so I am not making a claim.

May be you can keep talking and I'll have a measure of how deep the pudding skin is.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:31:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 9:12:56 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:05:29 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I think this was a very unfairly designed study. In the first study, the "supernatural" stories were so closely based on biblical stories that the churchgoing children were familiar with and the non-churchgoing children weren't, that it's ridiculous. They even used biblical characters in their magical stories

Here's an example of a magical story they used:

"This is David. One day, he fought a nine-foot-tall monster who was protected in armor. David had no armor on so he didn't know what to do. David had a magic stone and when he threw the stone, the monster was killed instantly! David won the battle!"

These children were only 5 and 6 years old, so I think it's just trying to trick them. There was nothing about talking animals, by the way.

In the second study, they tried to fix it by using stories that weren't so closely tied to biblical stories. Here's an example:

"This is John. John led his people when they were escaping from their enemies. When they reached the mountain, John waved his magic stick. The mountain separated into two parts and John and his people escaped through the pathway in the middle."

When would these 5 and 6 year olds have heard about "John" and "his people" escaping from enemies except in a biblical context? Of course such narratives would feel more familiar to children who read the bible than to those that don't. This study seems set up on purpose to deceive churchgoing children.

I think research like this is problematic, yes, but I don't think we need to be concerned about churchgoing children on the basis of this research.

For real?!
...Well, it's easy to see why some people on the Left would benefit from pulling a dirty trick like that.

yeah here is the study: http://www.bu.edu...

The religious stories were adapted from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, in which an ordinarily impossible event was brought about via divine intervention. In the fantastical stories, the same Bible stories were modified to exclude any reference to divine intervention, so that the impossible event was effectively presented as magical rather than miraculous.

So same bible stories but replaced with "magic" stone of David.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 10:16:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 9:00:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:16:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/6/2015 7:56:26 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 6:22:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Of course if the way they teach math and science is any indication; Schools would probably mess kids up more by filling their heads with stupid ideas passed off as logic.

Any examples?

I'm saying if the way they teach math and science is an indication then the curriculum for decision making and how to reason would a be a travesty of fallacious ideas... probably atheist passing off stuff as rules of logic.

At first I thought this was a dig at the common core curriculum but now it's clear it's just anti-atheistic. The cool thing about logic and its rules is that it's not monopolized by either side of the religion debate.

yeah I'm saying it. If a class on logic was taught in high schools it would be permeated by Atheist agendas and passing crap like "default position" as the 5th rule of logic.

Default position is a valid state. As you grow up you're told things, you learn, you do not come into the world with presuppositional beliefs. You can't know something before it's even presented. And it makes sense to examine what is presented. If the evidence for a claim is not sufficient you remain in your original position, which is not knowing.

I know when an Anti-theist is called out on making claims about God, atheist tactics says refer back to the definition of Atheism and play like an agnostic.

Atheism does not make a theological claim (or at least should not), but it is a refutation of theistic claims. If you see a so called atheist say they can disprove God they are just as foolish as the person who says they can prove God.

It's a fair critic to say atheism and agnosticism blend together. Both ideas can certainly lean towards the idea of there not being a God (one more than the other obviously), but there is a difference between the 2. Mainly because definition of agnostic is not uniform. What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic who hasn't been convinced of God? At the very least, to put into context the atheist claim as you probably understand it; God has not been proven yet, so there is not yet compelling evidence to believe, therefore I am w/o God. This in contrast to the other kind of agnostic who would be more open to the idea, who perhaps may think evidence is 50/50.

And your argument stinks. babies know of pain before it is presented. Pain is a presuppositional knowledge.

Is it? Animalia learned what pain is over millennia of evolution. Pain only began to exist when we adapted to perceive it, natural selection can be seen a natural teacher of sorts. Besides, pain is not knowledge in the classical sense like logic or reason. It is a biological response, a person could potentially go a whole lifetime w/o pain unless they are forced to experience it.

Plus you are making a case that there is no A priori knowledge. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience.

How convenient that disproving a presupposition relies on a presupposition. It's almost as if the validity of presuppositional arguments is fallacious to begin with.

And no understanding of the logical difficulties of asserting a universal negative; because you have to have knowledge of the entire universe to make such a statement. Reasonable people do not turn around and say it is not a claim, or some default position. To conclude a universal negative is to show it is impossible.

You're right, because we don't know the entire universe a negative assumption would be fallacious. By the way, there is a magic tea pot floating around in space. It tells me to cut off my children's foreskin and blame the gays for bad weather. What are you going to do? Assert that there isn't a teapot? Such a negative assertion can't be claimed without knowing every inch of the universe! How convenient that the only being capable of knowing the whole universe in order to disprove the teapot is the teapot itself which proves the teapot exists! Good ol' atheist logic, am I right?

You didn't define "magic teapot" as omniscient. But given the universe is so big and time so long, I'm sure there is a teapot that spontaneously emerged from natural causes by chance.

Magic is the descriptor which gives all necessary attributes to the glorious teapot (pbuh). It's clear you wonder where the good teapot came from. You are on the right track; given such great lengths of space and time the infinitesimal almost impossible chance of the teapot emerging came about, it was inevitable in fact. As such this transcendent being, bound neither by space nor time retroactively created the universe and all in it. In other words, the glorious teapot (pbuh) willed itself into existence. And don't worry about any causality loops, the teapot is a necessary being.

Good, now that I've explained it (because I know) and you've accepted it (because questioning my presupposition is a fallacy) it's time we mutilate your children and kill the homosexuals.

And when I say if science or math is a indication is because I often supplement the pathetic education my children get with accurate and more info. My oldest is in college and was a grade A student, my next 2 oldest are in gifted programs and my youngest is starting kindergarten.

Congratulations.

They work hard at it, and I help where and when I can. I'll be sure to pass on the grats.

lol I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear a random internet atheist said hello.

You want examples of the pathetic Math and Science? the Natural science teacher telling my son the Aurora Borealis was light reflecting off the snow. Which is just stupid. But why are we not introducing negative numbers earlier. Simple enough whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers and complex numbers? Why are we teaching electrons orbiting a nucleus as if they are solid balls? Why are we teaching them to be good little consumers and so dumb they can't add the change right in there head when I give a penny on top of the dollars.

Now these are valid criticisms against public education. Why you have to bring up atheism is beyond me. Despite the stereotype of college academia being an atheist stronghold I don't think K-12 is the same way.

Well I'm presenting my thoughts on the matter. I think the way the schools have handled other issues I can just imagine that any curriculum teaching decision making skills or critical thinking would be full of erroneous statements taken directly from atheist secular proselytizing.

Would you prefer they take from preaching of theologians? I would like to say such a choice, between atheistic or theistic preaching, is a false dichotomy. But it's not. You either get an education with God involved or get one w/o. That's what the A in atheism means. It means w/o.

A Christian is w/o Islam. Does it make sense to refer to Christians as aislamic? It does, except it goes by another word, infidel.

On a side note: I enjoyed writing this. Lately I've be getting pessimistic about this forum. Hopefully I've addressed you contentions well enough with sarcasm and seriousness (although I hope you don't confuse the two!)
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 10:25:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I don't think a sample size of 66 is really enough to warrant significant claims. I'd also like to see their methodology.

However, I think if further studies reveal pretty much the same information, which most likely they will, than we can conclude a few things.

1. Brainwashing is reeeaaaaly easy.
2. Any other myth can be just as convincing as god
3. Maybe we shouldn't teach children religion. If god really existed he could reach out to kids, regardless of whether or not they had been brainwashed
4. If you teach your kid one false thing about reality, they are more likely to disbelieve other elements of reality. (If you believe in god, then if you teach one supernatural thing, children are more likely to expect that other things can defy rationality.)
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 10:30:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:52:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:52:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Do you think this is a problematic concern? Why or why not?

I agree with Skepticalone, I would love to see this same test (with less obvious points of fiction) done with older children, possibly teens.

While I don't think adults would have exactly the same problems, there certainly exists in certain adults a propensity for the fantastical which was bred into them as children and that they never managed to escape. Tolkien's stories, as an offshoot of Christianity, are an example of this. In contrast then, it is rather common that the more hardship a person has suffered in life, the more down to earth they are. Now, are either of these preferable? That is hard to say. But this escaping into stories is certainly something that could do with serious consideration.

I do think, however, that this shows that raising a child with religion will cause them to lack critical thinking skills, or at least not have them at the level that they should.

I don't think the intellect is stunted at all, but rather its application. If anything this study shows us just how much children will believe.