Children are harmed when raised into religion. (Page 2)

orkanen: It's a peer reviewed paper, Zanjan. One doesn't get to publish papers unless there's any merit to them. And as it goes against your precious, of course you object. You can assert and object to your hearts content, but it's futile. You're not their peer, you're nothing but a layman.

Oh, it seems you've, yet again, shown yourself as a liar, Zanjan. And you wonder why I call you dishonest? It seems I'm not the only one.

Zanjan: Peer reviews, eh - their peers are students.

No, they're definitely not MY peers. They'd do better to consult somebody who has no peers.

Anyone can click on the "like" button. Anybody can publish a paper in university or on the internet. No pre-approval is necessary. The same is true for publishing any book.

Merit comes by proven practice OR acceptance by Masters - the Doctors in the field. They didn't get either.

Corwin: Zanjan didn't read the PDF from the original post, did she?

orkanen: Yes, Zanjan, I understand. You are also clueless on peer review and scientific publications.

Zanjan: This isn't science, Ork. I notice you never commented on anything in the study yourself - could that be because......oh..... you don't have the wherewithal?

orkanen: Could it be I have no archaic belief system to defend, or could it be I've long since suspected what this scientific study verifies?

You keep asserting that this isn't science, yet you never back up your assertion. Your word in such matters doesn't carry much weight, particularly because of your track record here. Let's see you produce facts, for a change.

Zanjan: Well, that's a shot in the dark - you suspect everything and every person who doesn't subscribe to your ingrained beliefs.

You want facts? Here's one - that people aren't flooding this topic with excitement over this so called new discovery you support. Is it merely an accident it hasn't made headline news anywhere? I think not.

Corwin: If you read the statistics in that study you would find that because of the high percentage of the religiously indoctrinated (particularly in the USA), the findings of a study such as that would likely be rather unpopular. The manner in which you hold it in contempt is a perfect example of this.

But if you could, why don't you go over that study with a fine-toothed-comb and tell us precisely where their methods were scientifically unsound. From what I read, they went through great lengths to ensure an unbiased and statistically valid outcome.

orkanen: What are you saying, Corvin? Isn't Zanjan's word good enough? Remember, she communicates with God, especially over important issues, like lemons, "nature's own batteries".

What ingrained beliefs would that be, Zanjan?

People who know better aren't flooding this topic, because you're here, flooding the topic with the fruits of your wilful ignorance. I found out about this scientific study through a Norwegian newspaper. It wasn't well received among our Muslim, nor our Christian population, go figure.

Zanjan: How many Muslims and Christians live in Norway? I bet a lot more of them then there are Orkanens. How many Pediatricians and Psychiatrists does Norway have? Do any approve?

I have a feeling you were searching for such a study and didn't accidentally trip over it. Was it located in the religious section of the newspaper?

Corwin: You're really reaching, aren't you Zanjan?

Why not just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la la la la la la la..... ".

orkanen: She's been doing that since she arrived here 2 years ago, Corvin.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims, Zanjan. Here goes:

1) You claim you made your own study. Did you make one, or didn't you?
2) You claim the study isn't scientific. How do you figure?

I could try deleting irrelevant posts from you. Nothing else has so far worked, in extracting any valid information, whatsoever.

chronology: orkanen. This sounds like the old debate of 'does violence in the Media dispose people who watch the violence mimic the violence themselves'. The debate became particularly heated after a child in England was beaten to death by two children described as 'Ferrell Street kids'. It was accompanied by tabloid stories of the under age murderers watching endless videos of horror movies and 'slasher movies'. When such 'entertainment' is consumed by undeveloped social outcasts living in impoverished and blighted surroundings, the 'entertainment' was claimed to be the primary factor in disposing such persons to extreme and grotesque violence.

However, Psychologists specialising in the effects of violent Movies on consumers objected strongly to this explanation. They insisted that normal children, living in competent families, properly supervised would never watch such movies, nor would they be roaming the streets preying on vulnerable victims. The Psychologists insisted such movies do not create violent people. A Senior Police Officer disagreed, but the Psychologists insisted that violent adults are attracted to violent entertainment, in the case of children it was a failure to supervise the children's viewing habits not the movies they watched.

The same could be suggested for children in religious homes. While you can argue their environment disposes them to be gullible, later in life their credulity can only be explained by the cretinising effect of regular attendance at whatever religion they follow.

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: " in the case of children it was a failure to supervise the children's viewing habits not the movies they watched."

I agree - lack of parenting is the cause of many problems with children.

Corwin: @ Ms Maff -- It's not the "lack" of parenting that is in question here.. but rather the "wrong" kind of parenting.

As far as I am concerned, indoctrinating your children with beliefs of supernatural beings that control the Universe, is.... a lie.

To further tell them that these "beings" are standing next to you and hear every word you are saying, is..... a lie.

To tell them that you can ask for "wishes" and they will be "granted"...
... that's "prayer", right?.... is.... a ..... lie.

Should I continue?

Lots of lies when it comes to religious indoctrination.

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: My point was, though, that it's super easy just to plunk a kid down in front of "tard-box" (television) or give them an i-phone and "have done with it"; parenting usually seems 2 involve a bit more.... You catch my meaning, methinkz..

Corwin: Oh yeah.. I agree with that.

I would rather plonk my kid down in front of a TV, or give them an electronic device, than leave them in the hands of someone like Zanjan.

I would get my kid back from Zanjan and they would be waiting until I went to sleep, and then strangle me to death whilst they chant strange hymns of some religion that I nor nobody else have ever heard of before...

... then Zanjan would drink my blood... that the children collected from my dripping veins...
... and she would hold the chalice high and proclaim "I AM ZANJAN!!".


And then the cops would probably come... you can't just go around killing people and indoctrinating children like that... people will catch on.

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: Moral: Stay away from humans.. Far away.. Ebola is bad enough.

Corwin: You said mouthful, Ms.

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: ma' kittehs ma'self

orkanen: It's not the same debate, chronology. How does one test whether or not violence on TV creates violent children? The study in question went about to find if a religious influence causes changes in a child's perception of reality. You might as well bring forth the claim that violent games make people violent, presenting Mr. Breivik as an example, of course disregarding all his other issues, like his mental ones.

Generally, as the study states, if you're raised to believe that magic exists, there's a chance you will believe magic to be part of reality, irrelevant of what you call it.

chronology: Interest observations orkanen, but we then find ourselves examining closely what you mean by 'believe'. If you ask the average 'Conspiracy Theorist' in America when they began to believe in their 'conspiracy of choice', you will not find the roots for their beliefs in the way they were raised as children.

No offence at all to folks in Georgia or Louisiana, but if we use your theory that people raised in enthusiastic religious families are for the rest of their lives condemned to believe any nonsense that has no basis in reality, then we would expect to find Southern accents everywhere in the Truther Movement, that is not the case, most hard core conspiracy theorists seem to be ambivalent about their childhood and in particular their relationship with their parents. Mr Jonathan Key in his book 'Among the Truthers' always found it interesting just 'when' exactly some people began to distrust the orthodox explanation for historic events. For example, we know that 'The Gulf of Tonkin' incident was definitely 'not' a 'false flag incident' there was a clash of some sort between the U.S. Navy and North Vietnamese Forces, but conspiracy theorists are totally convinced it was a 'false flag' without even looking at the facts. Why?