Most people consider lying in a research document to be wrong. Some of us just don't need to rely on ancient foreign law to tell us whether it is right or wrong - we just use common sense.
New Study confirms Religion good for kids..
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Which word in: "I'm not making claims" did you not understand? You gave a link, but it lacks info. Then you ask me to find that info for a claim you made. How very intellectually honest of you
You could at least be truthfull. I provided a link....you made assumptions in regards to that link...I told you to go find your own answers if you were that interested in the details of it.
Who? Me? Where did I ever do this? No, I dont suggest that at all, not seriously anyway.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Nope, I dont think they are any less capable, but I think it shows that the non-religious lifestyle and lack of belief does impact their kids far more than they realize. I think it opens up the conversation about religion and family health and stability quite well and proves pretty much what religious people have known all along....familys that go to church together and interact are far more stable and good for kids than families that dont.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No, you be truthfull. I did not make assumptions (otherwise be so kind to point my asumption out to me), I asked questions. You again are the one making assumptions by accepting the conclusions of the study without question because the outcome suits your view. All I said is that it's plausible. Are you as willing to accept the outcome of the study I posted and you ignored? Of course not. And you shouldn't be.
It's telling that you disregarded those questions and still are ignoring them and are tapdancing around the issues I brought up.
And you are telling me I make assumptions. You haven't got a clue about the way the study was conducted, but are willing to accept it as proof.
You disregard anything that puts the study in perspective. Which means, about the entire content of every post I made in this thread. You need to twist my words so you can tell me to back up my claims, when I'm not making any.
You call the method in which the study is conducted "details" while they are essential.
edit: Removed some assumptions I made about your intentions. Nothing too abusive, don't worry, but out of line. Also I realised that what I'm asking, I don't think it will happen. I will continue to read this thread, but I think it's useless continuing our ... conversation.
Cheers
What if you make your kids and family go to actuarial ethics conferences to bond with other kids and people?
Yes. Nominally they do share the same goal of objectivism though.
One would hope so but in today's world scholar titles can be bought, researches are bought to give "scientific" backing to ideological views and other such things. It is very naive to assume a single study on a field like sociology will automatically define truth.
It is very honest of you to demand proof from others while you on the other hand can just declare things as biased. Especially as I'm not saying this study is biased but instead that such an option should be considered as a viable option. And I don't find it very encouraging that John Bartkowski and his studies seem to be almost unknown outside USA.
So much for the intellectual honesty then? Thank you for showing, once again, what true christians are like
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Talk about Pavlovian reactions!
You both do understand that this story comes from a company (Imaginova) founded by CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, don't you?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually, let me shock you in saying yes, I think that study has some merit to it and I will tell you why. Just like in the other thread ongoing that references americans knowledge of the bible, those studies bring to the forefront one of the most disturbing things in modern christianity today: The pure fact that the vast majority of people that claim to be christian, are not interested in actually keeping the tenants of the christian faith. They are CHINOs - Christians in Name Only and only give minimum face time to actually living a christian life.
If christians DID adhere to the word of God, then they SHOULD have a far lower divorce rate, crime rate, abuse rate, what have you. If people actually honored their covenents with God you wouldnt see such data.
So your study doesnt surprise me at all.
Nope. Not tapdancing around it at all. There are those that walk their talk...and those that dont. Unfortunately there are far, far more that dont walk their talk as those type of studies show.
Thus far I have not seen any viable or real reason to discount it. Certainly no such proof has been provided in this thread.
Nope. But I do aim to do both of those things. Debate the issue...and in turn win the debate.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I'm afraid you don't understand me, my failure to get the point across. Check out the edit in that post.
Take care
Take care
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Ah...no, they dont. One is a form of entertainment, one isnt.
I am not being naive. I am fully willing to consider any refuting study or evidence to the contrary.
Since when is it a standard that you must be known outside the USA in order to be legitimate?
So much for the intellectual honesty then? Thank you for showing, once again, what true christians are like
Well, if most 'true' christians had my standards those numbers from that study Ziggy linked too would be a lot better. Am I perfect? No...but at least I take my faith seriously and keep my convenents with my God.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
.
.
.Cu Chulainn
The Unoriginal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,377
Somehow I think the bolded part is the significant factor here. If this data did not properly control for nonreligious family interaction then it is completely invalid from a scientific standpoint at worst or at best it merely says interaction is good for kids.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Are you saying that non-religous parents dont interact with their kids to the extent religous parents do? I think you are.
No, that's not what Cu is saying.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Indeed I think it is. If interaction is given as the main reason for kids doing better, and kids from religous parents do indeed do better as the study indicates, then ergo.......the data indicates that religous parents interact with their kids more.
Perfection
The Great Head.
To be frank, the amount of support it bears is minimal. The data just doesn't support such a broad conclusion.
After Chernobyl the regional wildlife population grew significantly, that does not make radiation good for wildlife.
There is far too much neglected here for you or FOX to make the conclusions that you and them did.
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
Cu is saying that unless the studies looked at families that go to church and interact to a certain level AND families that do not go to church and interact to that same level (as opposed to families that do not go to church and may or may not interact to any level), than any conclusion reached by the study cannot statistically be attributed to church-going.
You can only eliminate interaction as a factor (or equivalently in this case, claim church-going as the factor) if
1. families that go to church and interact to a certain level tend to have "well-behaved" kids
2. families that go to church and do not interact to a certain level tend to have "well-behaved" kids
3. families that do not go to church and interact to a certain level tend not to have "well-behaved" kids
4. families that do not go to church and do not interact to a certain level tend not to have "well-behaved" kids
So did the study tackle these 4 cases or only 2 of them? As Cu says, if it's the latter, something's wrong with the methodology. And the conclusions while still possibly true (I don't think them to be the case, but that's me) is not reliable: it cannot be reached from that study.
You can only eliminate interaction as a factor (or equivalently in this case, claim church-going as the factor) if
1. families that go to church and interact to a certain level tend to have "well-behaved" kids
2. families that go to church and do not interact to a certain level tend to have "well-behaved" kids
3. families that do not go to church and interact to a certain level tend not to have "well-behaved" kids
4. families that do not go to church and do not interact to a certain level tend not to have "well-behaved" kids
So did the study tackle these 4 cases or only 2 of them? As Cu says, if it's the latter, something's wrong with the methodology. And the conclusions while still possibly true (I don't think them to be the case, but that's me) is not reliable: it cannot be reached from that study.
Do you think there is anything, aside from suddenly becoming religious, that atheist and non-religious households could do to 'fill the void' that this study asserts is created by lack of religious activity?
Personally, if I have children, I do not plan on forcing them to be an atheist like myself; as I believe that would be just as bad as forcing a child to be a certain religion. I plan on informing them of all the options out there and let them form their own opinon, like my parents did with me.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
This is a really stupid thread.
If X is true, refusing to believe it because it will make me unhappy makes me a coward.
If X is not true, believing it because it will make me happy makes me an idiot.
So what are we supposed to make of the assertion that "religion is good for you"? Is it a tacit admission that Christianity is not true (because otherwise, what other defense would it need)?
I took Mobby off Ignore to read this thread, but... man.
This thread is one huge honking logical fallacy. It's like a CFCOT self-parody.
Ugh, I feel sorry for MobBoss's kids. Well, at least they're not homeschooled.
If X is true, refusing to believe it because it will make me unhappy makes me a coward.
If X is not true, believing it because it will make me happy makes me an idiot.
So what are we supposed to make of the assertion that "religion is good for you"? Is it a tacit admission that Christianity is not true (because otherwise, what other defense would it need)?
I took Mobby off Ignore to read this thread, but... man.
This thread is one huge honking logical fallacy. It's like a CFCOT self-parody.
Ugh, I feel sorry for MobBoss's kids. Well, at least they're not homeschooled.
