PureX
Well-known member
Yes. Don't you? Or is the concept of mercy made irrelevant before the "law"? (This appears to be what many religionists believe, and teach their children.)
New Study Contradicts Religious Bias
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
Huckleberry
New member
No. To be kind is to care about others. Allowing them to be harmed is neither caring nor kind.
Mercy doesn't protect anyone. The law should not be merciful.
It appears to be what you claim they believe and teach. Anyone can make claims in accordance with their prejudice.
PureX
Well-known member
That isn't even close to what you were asking.
That is sad. But typical of many religionists, who are far more interested in controlling others than they are in showing them love, or mercy, or kindness. They talk about love and mercy and kindness, but their primary desire is to punish, so as to control. They live from fear, not love; as they like to imagine and so often proclaim.
Well, now there is a study. But since it illuminates something you don't want to see, you will have to find a way to dismiss it. As I'm sure you already have.
Huckleberry
New member
I was answering your question, which was in response to mine. I see no contradiction between being kind and the desire to punish bad behavior for the reason I just provided. "To be kind is to care about others. Allowing them to be harmed is neither caring nor kind."
Or you're just making claims out of prejudice and religious people actually care about victims of bad behavior.
It illuminates your inability or unwillingness to see justice as good for people, something kind person would desire for others.
PureX
Well-known member
Everyone cares about victims and bad behavior. But most people understand the universal need for mercy, and forgiveness, as expressions of kindness and love. The religious "lawyers" do not. For them, obedience to the law means everything. Because obedience is control. And disobedience is loss of control. And the "lawyers" are all about control. They talk of love and mercy, but they rarely show any.
There is no justice. Justice is the lie that the "lawyers" use to rationalize their endless need to control everyone.
Huckleberry
New member
Hebrews 10:28
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Are you kinder than God?
Prejudiced and bigoted opinion, backed by nothing.
Do you suppose we should legalize all crime then? If not, why not, if there is no justice?
More prejudice and bigotry.
Huckleberry
New member
Also, this particular point.
Do you suppose this is why the violent bad guy never, ever gets killed at the end of the movie? Or when the bad guy is universally granted mercy and forgiveness by the protagonist, he never, ever, ever immediately tries to kill someone and gets killed in self defense?
Bad guys always get theirs at the end of the movie not because "people understand the universal need for mercy, and forgiveness, as expressions of kindness and love" but because the viewing audience understands that the evil bad guy has to be put down for the common good.
You know, that justice thing you say doesn't exist.
Thats because all liberal skeptics are nicer than God.
Son of Jack
New member
First of all, it would seem to me that empathy and altruism are directly related to one another. Second, someone who is willing to violate another person, whether it be as simple as pushing/shoving them or full-on assault, should be punished to some degree. Something that isn't mentioned in the study was the type of punishment the kids thought the violators deserved. But, the problem I had with the study was the odd idea that people should look the other way or act as if it is no big deal when someone is being bullied.
Not at all, really. I was questioning the study's definition of altruism. How would I know if non-religious children are more or less empathetic than religious children? I think it's a huge waste of time to label an entire group as one thing or another. How about we deal with people on an individual basis?
See above.
That's you putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I claim that non-religious children "looked the other way". What I did was question the researchers' definition of altruism.
Huckleberry said:
I agree with these statements. :up: And good question about the type of punishment.Son of Jack said:
For the part of the study about punishment, something I'm curious about is if answers would change if the children were answering about being harmed themselves instead of watching strangers. I'd like to think that if the Christian children were answering about that then they'd be more likely to give mercy. But when it's someone else? Some kind of punishment is understandable.
The part about altruism is disappointing. I mean, it's only stickers so I'm not sure how easily you can extrapolate that to more serious situations, but it's still something.
PureX
Well-known member
"Allowing them to be harmed" has nothing to do with wanting maximum punishment after the fact.
Neither does maximum punishment. Because we need to be protected from each other, through the law, as much as we need to be protected from each other by the law.
I think it's especially interesting that the moment this threat focussed on punitive excess, the zealots jumped in from every corner with all manor of defense. All the while trying to claim that punishment is a form of kindness. Exactly as the study predicted.
Punishment is kindness. Its kind to put a murderer behind bars for example, so they cannot harm others.
Its kind to teach people that their actions can harm others, so others aren't harmed and the child doesn't grow up with a false sense that what they do doesn't affect others or that what bad happens as a result of their choices isnt actually their own fault.
Do you think only the punished is affected by what led to its need?
Are you getting maximum punishment from the study?
PureX
Well-known member
I'm getting a general tendency toward judgment and punishment associated with religion both from the study and from the people, here.
Aren't you reading these posts?
brewmama
New member
Problems with the study:
The first major problem is that the study says nothing about atheists. The study compares people who say they aren’t religious with people who say they are. However, it turns out that when Pew surveyed Americans on their religions 68%, of those who identified as non-religious believed in God. Pew also found that only 2.4% of Americans identify as atheists that means that the majority of those “nones” who don’t say they believe in God believe in something else in the spiritual domain. The reality is that people who say they are non-religious are making a statement about their lack of affiliation with a given organized religion not about their belief in some higher power.
Further, in the dictator game used in this study, the child who was allocating the resource had no reason to believe that by “winning” the game he’d be hurting the other child. So any competent sociologist would know that the dictator game could not be used as a viable proxy for real world altruism -- a child sharing their lunch with another child who forgot theirs for example.
Which leads us to another problem with the paper. The authors are neuroscientists, not sociologists. That’s like a structural engineer writing a biology paper -- the engineer is one smart guy, but he doesn’t really know much about biology.
It also makes one wonder about why neuroscientists would conduct a sociology experiment -- a bit of bias or an axe to grind, perhaps? Further, the article was published in Current Biology, which appears to be a biology subject matter journal not a sociology journal, raising the question of who were the peer reviewers and what is their competence vis a vis sociology?
It’s fairly clear from the study that the authors had an ideological axe to grind. They state:
More generally, they [the results] call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that the secularization of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness -- in fact, it will do just the opposite
That alone indicates the difference between the credibility of this study and say a study such as “Evolution: Anti-speciation in Walking Sticks” where the authors are unlikely to have any ideological axe to grind.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...kids_arent_less_altruistic.html#ixzz3r4iyvyfu
Plus they used almost twice the number of Muslim kids as Christian ones. Maybe atheists can't tell the difference, but Christians sure can.
The first major problem is that the study says nothing about atheists. The study compares people who say they aren’t religious with people who say they are. However, it turns out that when Pew surveyed Americans on their religions 68%, of those who identified as non-religious believed in God. Pew also found that only 2.4% of Americans identify as atheists that means that the majority of those “nones” who don’t say they believe in God believe in something else in the spiritual domain. The reality is that people who say they are non-religious are making a statement about their lack of affiliation with a given organized religion not about their belief in some higher power.
Further, in the dictator game used in this study, the child who was allocating the resource had no reason to believe that by “winning” the game he’d be hurting the other child. So any competent sociologist would know that the dictator game could not be used as a viable proxy for real world altruism -- a child sharing their lunch with another child who forgot theirs for example.
Which leads us to another problem with the paper. The authors are neuroscientists, not sociologists. That’s like a structural engineer writing a biology paper -- the engineer is one smart guy, but he doesn’t really know much about biology.
It also makes one wonder about why neuroscientists would conduct a sociology experiment -- a bit of bias or an axe to grind, perhaps? Further, the article was published in Current Biology, which appears to be a biology subject matter journal not a sociology journal, raising the question of who were the peer reviewers and what is their competence vis a vis sociology?
It’s fairly clear from the study that the authors had an ideological axe to grind. They state:
More generally, they [the results] call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that the secularization of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness -- in fact, it will do just the opposite
That alone indicates the difference between the credibility of this study and say a study such as “Evolution: Anti-speciation in Walking Sticks” where the authors are unlikely to have any ideological axe to grind.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...kids_arent_less_altruistic.html#ixzz3r4iyvyfu
Plus they used almost twice the number of Muslim kids as Christian ones. Maybe atheists can't tell the difference, but Christians sure can.
Yup! A study may be designed to conclude the authors bias no matter what the facts may be! That is why I am very suspicious of them.
genuineoriginal
New member
It is bogus.
The method of testing is to ask the child if the child wanted to donate some of his/her stickers to another interviewer who would pass them out to anonymous children who were not interviewed (received no stickers).
Altruism is not the same as charity, it is the opposite.
Altruism is about you going without so someone you don't know can share what you gave up. So, sharing stickers with a random stranger could be a valid test of altruism.
Charity is sharing what you have with a person you have seen that is in need.
Isaiah 58:7 7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? |
Nobody is in need of stickers and charity requires helping someone that is visibly in need. So, sharing stickers with a random stranger is not a valid test of charity.
genuineoriginal
New member
Children that do not give up their valuables to random strangers and insist that there be rules and punishments against shoving people and breaking objects is the worst outcome?
I think children being taught to redistribute their wealth to random strangers and children being taught that shoving people and breaking objects are to be given no punishment is a much worse outcome.
Lon
Well-known member
Couple of points. 1) it is sad that a few are 'not surprised' and simply go for it regarding bias 
2) No one study is going to portray a clear picture, despite assertion otherwise, especially regarding human behavior.
3) I have been a public school teacher, and for a time, a prolific substitute teacher. Such a sampling indeed confirms to me that Christian kids portray a better love and ethic than their nonChristian counterparts, as least in this city but other subs I've spoken to, confirm this in other areas.
4) You can make statistics say whatever you want them to say with some authority, even if the information is bogus. I'd rather see individual instances in news stories than see bogus results of confirmation bias. Christians aren't the ones growing into teens who shoot up their schools, often targeting Christians. Those are pagans doing that. The #'s don't add up, so "BE" surprised instead of easily duped and led blindly to places you already want to go with 'not surprised.' :think:
2) No one study is going to portray a clear picture, despite assertion otherwise, especially regarding human behavior.
3) I have been a public school teacher, and for a time, a prolific substitute teacher. Such a sampling indeed confirms to me that Christian kids portray a better love and ethic than their nonChristian counterparts, as least in this city but other subs I've spoken to, confirm this in other areas.
4) You can make statistics say whatever you want them to say with some authority, even if the information is bogus. I'd rather see individual instances in news stories than see bogus results of confirmation bias. Christians aren't the ones growing into teens who shoot up their schools, often targeting Christians. Those are pagans doing that. The #'s don't add up, so "BE" surprised instead of easily duped and led blindly to places you already want to go with 'not surprised.' :think:
PureX
Well-known member
Lon, anyone with eyes and a shred of common sense will not doubt this study because they already know the results are accurate.Couple of points. 1) it is sad that a few are 'not surprised' and simply go for it regarding bias
2) No one study is going to portray a clear picture, despite assertion otherwise, especially regarding human behavior.
3) I have been a public school teacher, and for a time, a prolific substitute teacher. Such a sampling indeed confirms to me that Christian kids portray a better love and ethic than their nonChristian counterparts, as least in this city but other subs I've spoken to, confirm this in other areas.
4) You can make statistics say whatever you want them to say with some authority, even if the information is bogus. I'd rather see individual instances in news stories than see bogus results of confirmation bias. Christians aren't the ones growing into teens who shoot up their schools, often targeting Christians. Those are pagans doing that. The #'s don't add up, so "BE" surprised instead of easily duped and led blindly to places you already want to go with 'not surprised.' :think:
Religions encourage judgmentalism and retribution. Religious parents tend to be obsessed with obedience and therefor likewise obsessed with punishing disobedience. Five minutes on TOL will provide AMPLE evidence of this. Even this thread is a shining example of it. And if religious parents behave this way, it's only natural that their kids will behave this way as well. Which is what this study is pointing out.
So no one is falling into any bias, here. They're simply stating what is easily observable to anyone with eyes. Religionists think they are kind and merciful toward others, because of their religion. When in fact, they tend to be less kind and less merciful toward others because of their religion. And the reason is because religions stress obedience as a means of influence and control. They tend to become authoritarian above all else. Adherence to their rules becomes their most important condition. Not mercy, or forgiveness, nor kindness toward others.