Children are harmed when raised into religion. (Page 5)

Corwin: Lori says -- "I was raised Catholic...didn't harm me."

THAT statement... Lori... could bear further examination.

(But it's on topic at least, and thank you for that... it was Colin's railroading of this thread towards his preferred topic which was what I meant by "as bad as Lori"... it was a reference to your thread crapping tendencies, not a statement quantifying your perceptive ability.)

Now... you, by the criteria laid out in the study that Ork posted in the OP, would fall into the category of the tested subjects as one who would put "fictional" or "mythical" characters into the "real" box. (You did read the study, didn't you? If not, read it before you answer.) Thereby demonstrating an inability to distinguish between accounts of events which are grounded in reality and those of a nature which would be described as "impossible".

And, you admittedly were raised with religious indoctrination. Is this a coincidence? Or further confirmation of Corriveau, Chen, and Harris' hypothesis regarding how the religious indoctrination of children hinders their ability to discern reality from fantasy later in life?

Hmmm?

lori100: I do not thread crap as you do...you post jokes and unicorn, flying lawnmower junk often....you and others mention illum, conspiracies, aliens often ....not me...someone talks about energy or life before life and I respond....studies are made to prove biased beliefs.....I know what I and others have experienced.....I don't need a scientific peer review to tell me if it was real or not....

Corwin: No... but you need scientific peer review to convince a skeptic that it was real. You obviously do not look at even your own experiences with objectivity.

It should be obvious that many people have just as many ideas about what is "real" or not... just ask a schizophrenic what they think is real.

And a study is not made to intentionally prove a biased belief... a study is designed and conducted with as little bias as possible to achieve an accurate outcome... which will either support or not support a proposed hypothesis.

Seriously... read the study Ork posted on Page 1... you can see for yourself that they went through GREAT lengths to ensure that the study was unbiased and that the data would be uncorrupted by desire for a preconceived result.

It's a bit of a read, but don't make judgements on it until you've combed over the data yourself.

CoIin: @ Orkanen

I'd like to elaborate on recent events in your thread. This may get rather lengthy, but I feel it's important for two reasons:-

(1). I don't believe ridiculous, false, empty, or unsubstantiated grandiose truth claims should be left unchallenged, regardless of who advances them, religious or not. Do you agree?

(2). The poster in question (Corvin) is clearly anxious to misrepresent my challenge, and I object to my words being distorted in this way, just as I know you hate Zanjan doing to you (and everyone else). Exactly as with Zanjan, the poster in question does this to me regularly and I'm never quite sure whether (i) he/she understands the challenge perfectly, recognizes he/she is in trouble, and thus disingenuously endeavors to obfuscate the issue, or (ii) simply doesn't understand.

In this particular case, said poster is apparently eager to make it appear as if I'm denying there are good reasons for us to believe current optical theory. This is not true. The objection I AM making is directed at said poster's distinction between that which is only theory and that which has been proven. Here's the objectionable claim again:-

"No... light consists of particles called photons... photons that travel at a fixed speed. This is not just some theory, it is proven." [bottom of page 3]

"Okay... here ya go then.... when you have a theory about something, but have no proof of it... then it is only a theory. Once you have proven it, then it's proven and not just a theory anymore. " [page 4]


Orkanen, I have absolutely no intention of being disrespectful or of derailing your thread. If, however, you find this post inappropriate somehow (or too long ), just remove it. If you don't want me posting in your thread, just say so, and you have my word I will post nothing more.

I'll now continue...

I'd point out first of all that the part about photons travelling at a fixed speed is simply untrue, as I'm sure the poster in question, and most of the rest of us, know already. The speed of light depends, of course, on the material through which it passes. This is clearly an error of carelessness and I have no wish to quibble on this account. The core of my objection lies in the metaphysical claim that light is essentially photons, and that this is not just theory, but has been "proven".

The first problem here is what exactly the poster means by "prove". I can think of two possibilities. If I've missed any, be sure to shout.

(i) Prove means to provide us with good reasons for belief
(ii) Prove means to demonstrate conclusively that a certain proposition is true

It matters not. Each of these will turn out to be problematic. Assuming it's (i) then the claim 'it has been proven that light consists of photons' amounts to claiming that scientists have provided us with good reasons for accepting that light consists of protons. I have no objection to this claim. We are now, however, forced -- if we wish to maintain the putative theory/proof distinction -- to conclude that proponents and adherents of the corpuscular and wave theories of light -- pace Newton, Maxwell et al -- had no good reasons for believing their theories. (for if they DID have good reasons then their theories are proven and the theory/proof distinction breaks down).

I hope we can all agree this is an absurd result.

We must now, then, turn to (ii). Said poster's theory/proof distinction thus applied yields the result that the corpuscular and wave accounts of light were (just) theories. There were, doubtless, good reasons for believing these accounts, but they never attained the status of truth. And again, I voice no objection. But the photon account, on the other hand, has apparently transcended good reasons for belief and now enjoys that status which young lovers, religious nuts, and the occasional misguided science nut, are apt to call "Truth".

Well, now we'd need to ask the question: in virtue of what fact or facts can the photon account be said to be TRUE while the corpuscular and wave accounts are mere theory, providing only (one assumes) good reasons for belief?

First of all, the answer : "Because we've PROVED it" is clearly not helpful at all, although it's the kind of question-begging justification on display daily in less salubrious threads than this one.

If the answer is : "The corpuscular and wave theories turned out to be wrong. That's why they're only theories." then, once again, we're clearly arguing in a circle. If theoryhood is conferred only in hindsight then we are obviously in no position right now to assert that the photon account has transcended theoryhood.

So, the question remains: in virtue of what fact or facts can the photon account be granted -- while the corpuscular and wave accounts are denied -- truth status? What exactly is it that makes the photon account of light INCORRIGIBLE? What makes it immune to revision? Noli me tangere! What fact or facts can possibly justify the dogma that the photon account of light hereafter can never be contradicted by experience or experiment? Has there been some qualitative shift in the nature of the manner in which evidence supports theory during the interim?

Answer : Of course not. The theory/proof distinction vis-à-vis the essence of light is an invention of the fanatic. It is, in a word, nonsense.

Corwin: @Colin -- I took this discussion on scientific proof into PM so as not to continue crapping on Ork's thread, which is regarding the religious indoctrination of children.

Yet you wish to continue crapping on Ork's thread with an extremely lengthy and equally off-topic post based on your own agenda. As far as I can tell, you are still attempting to discredit me publicly??
Was taking this off-topic discussion off the table and into PM unsatisfactory?

I will respond to all of the points you have just brought up, and any further arguments... in the PM thread that I have recently created specifically for you, and my thoughts on this... which you have refused to respond to.

Or are you afraid of a one-on-one discussion of a scientific nature?
Perhaps... you are a f@#king coward when you don't have an audience to impress.

Bring it on, hound (in PM)... but I will no longer crap on this thread for your sake... even Lori was keeping it somewhat on topic.

orkanen: You two bickering, is crapping in my thread.

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: I know, Orkanen. Few people today, seem to know what the word "respect" means. Notwithstanding, all of the yammering to the contrary..

trust1g4e: Matthew 7:13,14 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

orkanen: How is quoting scripture relevant to the discussion concerning harms done to children when raised into religion?

trust1g4e: Who said I was trying to be relevant.

orkanen: I understand now. You're displaying yourself as extra evidence to the study presented in the beginning of this thread.

orkanen: If the opposition is right, use nonsensical scripture against them.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

In case you didn't notice, this thread is about the detrimental effect religion has on children. You are so far proving it right by your actions.

Corwin: And WTF exactly does that have to do with children being harmed by religion??

orkanen: Trust1's posts are deleted because they were irrelevant. Spamming with Bible quotes does prove that one is harmed by Religion, but I expect him not to be a child.

chay chayi: Truth is not harming, evil instincts called -sin- is harming, and God who created you and everything guides you in the right way for your own benefit

orkanen: That would of course be a valid argument, if your version of truth coincided with facts. Did you read the study, Chayi?

chay chayi: The study is based on false education and problematic souls

orkanen: Did you read the study, Chayi?

chay chayi: Who's study ?...

Corwin:

I'm guessing that's a "no".

orkanen: This study:
ttp://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/2012/05/Corriveau-Chen-Harris-in-press.pdf

orkanen: Asserting something, like you tend to do, never makes it true, Chayi. You should try reading up on other stuff than religion, a bit more, try figuring out why we say your claims are wrong all of the time. If Electrical Theory followed your assertions and whims, we wouldn't even get near to understanding Zanjan's lemon, "Nature's own battery". We'd instead rely on your assertions, and wonder why they never work.