Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 7:01:44 GMT 10
Interesting... Summary:
Children from religious families are less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families, a new study suggests. A religious upbringing is also associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior, researchers find.www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 10, 2015 11:40:54 GMT 10
"Short shrift" ... interesting choice of words! "Shrift" is a very old noun and the verb is "to shrive". To "shrive" someone is priestly talk - or rather used to be priestly talk some several centuries ago until England went Protestant and abolished the practice as "popery" - for to hear someone's cofession. So the penitent would go to confession in order to be "shriven". There's also the adjective "shrove" so the Tuesday of Holy Week (or Easter Week) is called Shrove Tuesday because it was traditionally the day on which good Christians would be shriven in preparation for the solemnities of Good Friday. So what about "shrift"? It's the noun from "shrive" and is a backformation from the past participle "shriven". If a priest gives you"short shrift" it means that you've presented yourself to the priest for confession only to be turfed out of the confessional with a "gedoutahere you reprobate!" It's the sort of thing I could imagine Cardinal Pell doing to a gay penitent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 11:43:54 GMT 10
Good luck with this one Grim ... I received short shrift from Pim over this story.
I didn't see your earlier post before posting this one. Sorry to repeat, even though it came from a different source.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 10, 2015 16:19:39 GMT 10
Oh trust me you don’t want long shrift! Means you have lots of sins to confess and the priest wants details. Lots and lots of details ...
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Nov 10, 2015 17:09:31 GMT 10
Become an Atheist, then you only have to report your sins to your wife. :-)
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 10, 2015 17:49:03 GMT 10
"Details! I want details!"
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Nov 10, 2015 22:35:42 GMT 10
Yeah, the size is about right.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 15, 2015 4:38:22 GMT 10
By definition, Atheists are without sin. A rather convenient, self-serving definition. ..Considering they are still able to call someone 'immoral', if they don't like what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 15, 2015 4:42:30 GMT 10
Yeah, the size is about right. So the 'shrift' used on you was that long, eh? I'm so sorry that happened to you, Slarti. Condolences.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 15, 2015 6:42:49 GMT 10
When I said the OP was a bullshit article for a bullshit thread I meant it. I should have added that it was a scurrilous piece of bullshit but the point was made. Here's the counter argument. The paleo atheists won't like it. Tough. So religion makes you meaner? Not according to the evidencewww.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/smart-so-religion-makes-you-meaner-no/6938636A new theoretical study might claim that non-religious kids are more altruistic and less judgemental, but the real-life evidence suggests that having faith provides an impetus towards generosity, writes Simon Smart.As if we needed another reason to ditch church on Sunday mornings and head for the beach instead, it turns out that plonking the kids in church, mosque or synagogue will more likely produce mean, judgmental little prigs, compared to the more generous sprogs of secular households. A study out of the University of Chicago this week produced hand-rubbing headlines confirming what many have suspected for a while now - religion wrecks most things and we are right to think we've grown out of it, moved on and better days lie ahead as a result. Sunday school teachers all over the country must have choked on their Weet-Bix reading reports of children from secular homes behaving in more altruistic and less judgmental ways than those raised in religious homes. A total of 1,170 kids aged from five to 12 years from six countries took part in the study. Of them, 23.9 per cent identified as Christian, 43 per cent were Muslim, and 27.6 per cent from non-religious households. (Other faiths represented were too few for the stats to count.) Children were shown a set of stickers and were told there were not enough to go round for all children in the school to see if they would share. They were also shown images depicting interpersonal harm like pushing and bumping to see how they would respond. The researchers say their results "robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households." This finding is more pronounced for children who are older and have thus been exposed to religious activity for longer. Further, they say, children "frequently appear to be more judgmental of others' actions", with Muslim children considering harsher punishment appropriate for those causing interpersonal harm than those from Christian families. Children from non-religious homes were the least "judgmental" according to the study. What to make of all this? Every study has its limitations and, of course, this one is no exception. Leaving aside the criticisms being made from various quarters of the study's methodology and apparent biases, it does still seem odd that at no point in this research is there an attempt to define altruism or religiosity. What is considered "judgmental" could, from another angle, be merely considered empathetic. I would be pleased if my own children were concerned about kids mistreating others. But the research comes from a reputable institution and makes some interesting theoretical findings. The sample size is not insignificant. It shouldn't be summarily dismissed by the devout. The researchers make the fair point that the relation between religion and morality is a contentious one. It ought not to be controversial to say that people of no faith are capable of and frequently do live extremely admirable lives. In some cultures those who are not religious are thought of as morally suspect. In the US it is still very hard for non-believers to be elected to public office and this is rightly challenged by the researchers in this case. But it does feel like overreach when they claim that "our study show(s) ... that religious people are less generous and not only adults but children too." Or when they suggest that the secularisation of moral discourse would "increase rather than decrease human kindness". That's quite a grand historical global-scale claim to make from a study of this size and scope. The problem is, despite the theoretical experiment that produced these results, the weight of evidence for real world experience looks completely different. One might recall Robert Putnam's American Grace: How religion unites and divides us (2010), which emerged from two comprehensive surveys conducted into religion and public life in America. Putnam reports that on every measurable scale, religious Americans are better volunteers, more generous financial givers, more altruistic and more involved in civic life, than their secular counterparts. Religious people are better neighbours, more community-minded, more likely to volunteer, and not just for church activities. They are more likely to give blood, to give money to a homeless person, to provide financial aid to family or friends, to offer a seat to a stranger and to spend time with someone who is "a bit down". The list goes on. America is a generous nation, but there is a sharp difference between religious Americans and secular Americans in terms of giving. Putnam reports that: Virtually every part of the American philanthropic spectrum benefits disproportionately from giving by religiously observant men and women, but this is especially true for organisations serving the needy. Putnam is impressively credentialed and highly regarded in his field. He is not a religious believer in any conventional sense. Moreover, his findings were so striking he decided to repeat the research and indeed replicated the results - not a bad idea for this recent University of Chicago study! The religious landscape is very different in Australia compared to the US and there is far less data to work with. What we do have, however, points in a similar direction to what Putnam found. In terms of measures of generosity religious believers score highly. A Roy Morgan poll of 2014, drawing on a sample size of 16,809 found: The average Australian gave $288 to charity in the year to June 2014. Those who did not identify with a religion donated on average $221 while those who identified with a religion gave an average of $331. That's 50 per cent more giving to charity by religious Australians. In his book Disconnected (2010), which examines the fraying of Australia's social fabric, Labor MP Andrew Leigh, who is an atheist, with a PhD in social science from Harvard, writes of the undeniable benefits to the community of church attendance. Among churchgoers (those who attended a religious service in the previous month), 25 per cent also participated in a community service or civic association over the same period. By contrast, among non-churchgoers, just 12 per cent participated in a community or civic association. Regular churchgoers are 16 percentage points more likely to have been involved in a voluntary activity, and 22 percentage points more likely to have helped the needy... ...Churchgoers are more likely to build friendships with people from a different social class. Those who attend church regularly are more likely to say that they can count among their friends a business owner, a manual worker, or a welfare recipient. Few other institutions in America or Australia are as effective in fostering this "bridging" social capital between rich and poor. There is no doubt that the impact of religion matters a great deal. The world is becoming more religious, not less, so it is a fair question whether the impact is, overall, positive or not. The recent study of religious children should make believers think carefully about what they teach kids, how it is interpreted, and how that impacts behaviour. But it might be a little too early to declare that without religion we'll all be better off. It's still the case that almost all the major charities in this country are faith based. There's every chance that if you go to visit your Grandma in the dementia ward this weekend, the organisation in which she is cared for emerged from a deeply held Christian understanding of charity. For those unfortunate enough to have a brother lost to homelessness, it's more likely than not that when he is picked up off the street or accesses help at a soup kitchen, those caring for him will be attached to a Christian institution. Outside of experimental conditions, these are the real world experiences of countless thousands. Plenty of people today do this kind of work without any faith, but it remains the case that a grounding in the Christian faith and, importantly, commitment to a faith community, continues to provide an impetus towards generosity, mercy and kindness. All of us are beneficiaries of that. Simon Smart is the director of the Centre for Public Christianity. He is the co-author with Jane Caro, Antony Loewenstein, and Rachel Woodlock of "For God's Sake - an atheist, a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim Debate Religion".
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 16, 2015 3:57:28 GMT 10
A rather convenient, self-serving definition. ..Considering they are still able to call someone 'immoral', if they don't like what they do. As covered numerous times before ... morals are not an invention of theists. Morals vary between cultures and change over time within cultures. Actually as I recall, you covered it then closed down the discussion when I questioned it. Cognitive dissonance. Your actions don't reflect your words, Ed. Two-hundred (200) years ago slavery was socially acceptable and correct. Now it is not. What if slavery becomes acceptable again in the next 200 years, under your definition, who is to say if it is right or wrong? Fathom this: Slavery was ALWAYS wrong; it's our understanding of it that changed.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Nov 16, 2015 7:11:42 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Nov 16, 2015 9:44:04 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 16, 2015 15:58:07 GMT 10
I believe (<sigh> the B word again!) That these days we'd quite rightly say that poster is offensively racist.
But you're in complete denial about these things and won't be told.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Nov 16, 2015 16:06:23 GMT 10
If you click on the poster all will be revealed.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 17, 2015 13:02:05 GMT 10
No I think I'll exercise my power of choice and decline to click on that offensive racist poster. You see, it goes to levels of meaning. There's the immediate racist impact of the poster and when you're challenged on its obvious and evident racism you cower behind a hidden meaning that, so you claim, can only be revealed by clicking on the racist poster. Thereby making the viewer complicit in validating the racist poster by engaging in the lie that it’s merely a link.
A link it may be, KTJ, but if you insist that's all it is then you lie. It is what it is: a racist poster and you're no different from Stellar, Caskur, Matt and Skippy. Nice company!!
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Nov 17, 2015 13:32:06 GMT 10
If you have a problem with that poster being freely available online, then complain to the National Library of New Zealand, because that is where I got it from.
It is archived online at their website, along with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of other historic documents, photographs, maps, charts, letters, etc.
Censoring history is always the first step down a very slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 17, 2015 13:37:28 GMT 10
So what! That's all "hidden meaning". Where on your offensive racist poster is that data given? So we're left with the first impression which is of an offensive racist poster gratuitously posted by your ignorant and grossly offensive self. You're a peasant who loves his ignorance and rejoices in being an uncouth yobbo.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Nov 17, 2015 14:39:58 GMT 10
As I've already clearly stated....click on the poster and ALL will be revealed.
And it isn't just that poster either....virtually every image file I post to these groups is a hotlink which takes you back to the online source when you click on the image. I have been doing that for years and making no secret of the fact that I link my images back to any online source they were obtained from, even though in 99.9% of those cases, the images are downloading from one of my PhotoBucket accounts and not from the original source (that is done to avoid bandwidth theft).
The only exceptions are where I have created an image myself, or where I have scanned an image because it isn't already available online.
However, in case you are too ignorant to click on the poster to reveal its source (including any conditions on its use), here is an excerpt from the page that hotlink opens....
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 17, 2015 16:16:52 GMT 10
"ignorance profound" - ignorance that runs so deep and indeed is so abyssal in its depth that it’s not even aware of itself. The person in the grip of this condition is so ignorant he doesn't even realise that he's ignorant.
The bishop sat in lordly state and purple cap sublime, And galvanized the old bush church at Confirmation time. And all the kids were mustered up from fifty miles around, With Sunday clothes, and staring eyes, and ignorance profound. Now was it fate, or was it grace, whereby they yarded too An overgrown two-storey lad from Tangmalangaloo?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 20, 2015 10:52:44 GMT 10
Interesting... Summary:
Children from religious families are less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families, a new study suggests. A religious upbringing is also associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior, researchers find.www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htmWell, until I see an Atheist soup kitchen, I'll remain unconvinced.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 20, 2015 12:33:45 GMT 10
'Non-religious' and 'atheist' are not synonymous.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 17, 2016 22:55:42 GMT 10
Fathom this: Slavery was ALWAYS wrong; it's our understanding of it that changed. If it was ALWAYS wrong ... why did a large number of Christians support it? Hint: Morals are not absolute, they are fluid. p.s. We still have slavery today ... they're called "interns". ...Because a Christian is just as capable of being flawed as a non-Christian? Your explanation doesn't make morality fluid; putting 'common' in front of 'error'; only makes it a 'common error'.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 17, 2016 23:00:27 GMT 10
"Religious" and altruistic are not synonymous. Neither is altruism and 'non religious."
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 18, 2016 7:22:06 GMT 10
Well... some facts need reiterating
|
|