I'm pretty sure you could say the exact same thing about kids from households that told their kids that the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus exists.
This study is irrelevant unless there's some long term effects on these kids, and I'm going to guess that, just like people who believed in Santa as a kid, that effect is nonexistent.
Not the same, all kids grow up realising that santa ect is not real, probably at an early age too. Everything religious children are taught, are expected to believe for the rest of their lives.
And quite frankly santa clause is easier to believe in than talking animals.
Now you're not even arguing about the study, you're simply arguing about the validity of religion.
Which isn't the point. The point of the study is that religion makes it more difficult for kids to distinguish between what is real and what isn't.
My point is that it may very well do so at ages 5-6, but like the kids who believe in Santa Claus (which many do until six years old), they eventually grow up and gain the ability to distinguish between fiction and fact. If you go out on a street downtown and ask adults from all walks of life (or I guess, in your case, a street in a different country) whether a story about a flying dragon shooting space monsters was real or not, not a single one would say it's true.
Religion doesn't "obscure" adults' ability to distinguish between what's hard to believe and what isn't; I think anyone who believes in the Bible or some other religious book would tell you that it requires a great deal of faith to believe in what's written there. They believe in them knowing full well how improbable it seems, which is the exact opposite of this study. The study is arguing that kids' ability to distinguish probability is being affected, and my point is that by adulthood that effect is gone.