By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Religious Children Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

Aura7541 on 30 August 2014
badgenome said:

The study is hardly convincing because of the methodology used. Every single fictional story used was a slightly altered Bible story (e.g., "John" parting the sea instead of Moses), and of course Christian kids inclined to believe stories they already believe even if you change the names of the participants. It doesn't prove that religious kids are more inclined to believe fictional stories that fall outside of the mythos of their particular religion.

I think the study altered the stories for blindness, which is one of the most important aspects in biostatistics. Moses is a widely known name while John is a generic name. If the children hear the name, Moses, they will instantly know that it's the Moses that parted the Red Sea. However, by substituting Moses with a more generic name, it gives a more fair test. It would be theoretically harder for non-religious children to categorize John parting the sea as religious or Biblical, but they still found out.



Around the Network
akhmenhawk on 30 August 2014
Rawrerer said:

It is a fact that God is more probable. The probabilty for something to be created from nothing is the same probabilty as 0 = 1. Now the probabilty of a God who can manipulate physics into what he wants is far more probable. Just look at the math.

Dna and Rna have been compared to a computer code. What computer program do you know that created itself? A computer program is created by a programmer. That is the factual reality that God is more probable. Not saying God is 100% but i am saying that God is more likely then chaos.


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html



jigokutamago on 30 August 2014
akhmenhawk said:
Rawrerer said:

It is a fact that God is more probable. The probabilty for something to be created from nothing is the same probabilty as 0 = 1. Now the probabilty of a God who can manipulate physics into what he wants is far more probable. Just look at the math.

Dna and Rna have been compared to a computer code. What computer program do you know that created itself? A computer program is created by a programmer. That is the factual reality that God is more probable. Not saying God is 100% but i am saying that God is more likely then chaos.


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html

The title says otherwise, "Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule"

It says the biologists did it.

Computer programs the replicate itself are very common.

For something to create itself from nothing, that would be physically impossible.



MTZehvor on 30 August 2014
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
MTZehvor said:

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.


So, what you're essentially saying is that there are billions of people all over the world believing that they will win the lottery, despite knowing how unlikely that is to happen.

 

That, if anything, strongly suggests that their ability to distinguish probability is skewed.

Again, this is simply taking us into a debate onto the validity of religion or not, which I really don't feel like getting into at the moment because it's always a clusterfuck and a half.

My point is that this study is a moot point at best. Even if you believe that religion is utterly stupid and pointless, and people are stupid for believing in it (which I would argue is not the case, but again, different argument), there is no connection behind the link this study attempts to draw and the actual beliefs of adults.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 30 August 2014
Rawrerer said:

It is a fact that God is more probable. The probabilty for something to be created from nothing is the same probabilty as 0 = 1. Now the probabilty of a God who can manipulate physics into what he wants is far more probable. Just look at the math.

Dna and Rna have been compared to a computer code. What computer program do you know that created itself? A computer program is created by a programmer. That is the factual reality that God is more probable. Not saying God is 100% but i am saying that God is more likely then chaos.


Just because something can't be created from nothing that doesn't mean that something hasn't always been there. After all, that's how people explain God's existence. So why not be open for the possibility of matter always existing?



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII on 30 August 2014
MTZehvor said:

 

My point is that this study is a moot point at best. Even if you believe that religion is utterly stupid and pointless, and people are stupid for believing in it (which I would argue is not the case, but again, different argument), there is no connection behind the link this study attempts to draw and the actual beliefs of adults.


Then allow me to make one: Only religious adults believe that prayers can alter the chances of different outcomes, which is a clear case of religious people having difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.



PigPen on 30 August 2014

Who knew, not to say this study is right or anything.



highwayuni on 30 August 2014
whatever said:
VXIII said:

Children with imagination have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction. Which is about every child. That's why they are children.

Ummm, what?  Having a vivid imagination has nothing to do with distinguishing fact from fiction.  You must not have kids.

I teach kids. Kids at that age are gullible and will believe a lot of stuff you tell them.



jigokutamago on 30 August 2014
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Rawrerer said:

It is a fact that God is more probable. The probabilty for something to be created from nothing is the same probabilty as 0 = 1. Now the probabilty of a God who can manipulate physics into what he wants is far more probable. Just look at the math.

Dna and Rna have been compared to a computer code. What computer program do you know that created itself? A computer program is created by a programmer. That is the factual reality that God is more probable. Not saying God is 100% but i am saying that God is more likely then chaos.


Just because something can't be created from nothing that doesn't mean that something hasn't always been there. After all, that's how people explain God's existence. So why not be open for the possibility of matter always existing?

I do agree that the universe always existing is very possible.

What I wonder about is the statistical probability of the universe making sense. If there was in fact no planning done in the universe, what is the chance that the outcome would be what we have today. The laws of physics just stay too consistant for absolutely no reason. It would make more sense to have a being beyond our understanding and the laws of the universe to have planned this whole thing out.



greenmedic88 on 30 August 2014
Seece said:
MTZehvor said:
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.

Have to start with a disclaimer that anything I have to say in this thread should be interpreted as tongue in cheek, but...

You seriously find it easier to believe in flying reindeer that can pull a giant sled at near light speed (or faster depending on how much time Santa Claus spends in each house that he visits worldwide) than in talking animals?!