Secular Children are more likely to Share

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Secular Sanity, Nov 14, 2015.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    To put it bluntly, they found that children with a religious upbringing were more likely to believe in stories or scenarios that were more religious based while children from more secular and non-religious backgrounds were able to recognise the stories as being just that, stories and not real. In short, children from a religious upbringing were marginally more gullible.

    If you have any study to counter the one in the OP or the one I linked as a side form of discussion about the effect of religion on children, please do so. Otherwise, stop trolling.

    Depends on the religion and religious community and what you are looking at. How many LGBT kids are expelled and shunned, commit suicide or forced into denying their sexuality because of said religious adherence and the communities and religious families they belong to? How much sexual abuse have religious organisations spent decades hiding and fostering, causing irreparable harm to victims and their families?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. birch Valued Senior Member

    The part that is telling and insane is how there is less acknowledgement of 'gradients of wrongness'.

    Let me tell you this is no accidental oversight. I grew up with religious people who upheld this black/white, non-contextual, perverted, hypocritical, non-sensical dichotomy. Basically, this is a way to indulge in immoral behavior with less punity since all sin is a 'sin' and all is forgivable as long as you do the rituals and outward social facade.

    They are morally shallow with the dogma.

    Having punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses can be necessary for consequences but the problem lies in the lack of understanding of what morals are.

    If its just focused on conformity and appearances, you are essentially breeding immorality too. This is where you have those proverbial pillars of the community who have skeletons in their closet and dirty secrets hidden behind four walls.

    Then you've got the extreme left which is just as equally unhealthy and is just an outward personification of the immorality, debauchery and hedonism of the extreme right (hidden) and with all the destructive consequences. The difference being with the right is choosier about their victims and more self-protective ironically making them more deft or sly predators (not more moral).

    This is why the right can at least outwardly criticize the extreme left for its seemingly lack of morals and backbone, family values etc when in some lurid way that is who they are as well.

    The real opposition would be those who uphold morals, family values, laws and altruism for true and real meanings.

    Not the extreme right who only care primarily about their own well-being with morals or appearances or the extreme left that is stupidly frivolous and that everything goes. I've found these two to have more in common than it seems. Right wingers are often dogmatic and harsh but not necessarily moral and can be quite amoral, animalistic and licentious in their real nature. This is probably why some hold to some dogma and structure because they would be out of control.

    The only thing is society shouldn't be taking cues of moral leadership or insight from them because they are the ones least likely to understand what morality is except as a matter of control and the extreme left an embarrassing symptom of fakery of the right exposing itself with its complete disregard, disrespect or lack of understanding of morality. 'If it feels good, do it' is the children of the extreme right who have no morals but about power and appearances with the appearances stripped off.

    No one should be taking cues from either side.

    For example, those dumb hippy lefties who oppose the death penalty for heinous crimes with a misplaced bleeding heart are just as destructive. Strangely, what they are saving are the future right-wing who will view morals as shallow in meaning and only as pain/punitive necessity.

    For example, a extreme lefty like a prostitute or slut who secretly sleeps with a married republican or not who has a reputation as a christian family man is no different from the extreme right. One is the outward personification of an inward.

    The scapegoat and those who have to pull it or keep it together or change it will be in the middle, not these two worthless actors and opportunists of society.
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    This is not surprising, neither taking the study at face value nor the sample skewed toward Muslims.

    The non-religious and atheist are more likely to be raised under more socialist ideals, where ownership is de-emphasized and forced (or socially coerced) sharing normalized. Since the only measure of altruism in the study was accompanied by telling the children "these ... are yours to keep", is follows that those from a more ownership-oriented upbringing would take that more seriously. "Sharing", in general, is not a religious tenet, and this is what this study used in lieu of altruism.

    Punitive tendencies are also unsurprising. Those taught a greater degree of personal responsibility for their actions tend to find more culpability in others who do wrong, because they generalize their own intentionality versus knowledge of wrongdoing to everyone. And this is only accentuated by a larger Muslim sample, where severe penalties are codified.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Can you support this assertion, please?
    I was raised in a religious family (Catholic) and we were encouraged not only to share among ourselves but also with others. Ownership was also emphasised: one can not share with others what one does not own, and when one owns something one is responsible for it, etc.
    So the way I was raised seems to be counter to what you are asserting. I may well be an exception, but please can you provide some support for what you have claimed here.
    When you say that it is not a religious tenet, I have yet to come across any religion that does not advocate some form of charity, which is by it's very nature a form of sharing (what you have with those that don't).
    Further, there are verses in the Bible that encourage sharing:
    Hebrews 13:16 "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
    1 Timothy 6:18 "They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share"
    Luke 3:11 "And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”
    2 Corinthians 9:7 "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

    ... to give but a few.
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Well, you've explained it right were raised Catholic. Catholics are one of the most accommodating of secularism (the church accepting evolution and homosexuals [though not same-sex behavior], rejecting the death penalty, and placing great authority on a centralized power structure and leader). And in terms of salvation, Catholics believe it can be lost and must be regained, which can make charity more a necessity, closer to the compulsion of 2 Corinthians 9:7. Considering frivolous things were rarities in biblical times, it's not a stretch to assume that charity spoke to necessities (like clothing, shelter, and food). So seeing if children share stickers is not as apt a test as, say, sharing food when someone is clearly hungry. Perhaps this distinction is too subtle for some.

    The study also found religious children to be reported as more empathetic.
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    As I said, this is my experience but you have yet to actually support your assertion. Simply dismissing examples to the contrary (whether validly or not) is not the same as actually supporting your assertion. Please can you do so?
  10. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    In the US, with it's "gospel of prosperity", I have noticed an attitude of "We have material wealth because God has blessed us". The implication being that others are poor because they don't have God's favor.

    Just a personal observation that I have no data to support, nor numbers to crunch.
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, I didn't think this opinion would be controversial. Which of these do you not consider common knowledge?
    • The non-religious are more likely to be raised under more socialist ideals
    • Atheists are more likely to be raised under more socialist ideals
    • Socialism de-emphasizes ownership
    • Socialism holds sharing as one of its highest virtues
  12. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Are politicians and capitalists more commonly atheist than religious?
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    As a start perhaps you can support the first two, please. I don't see either of them as "common knowledge".
    Further, just because you might think non-religious and atheist "are likely to be raised under more socialist ideals", and that "socialism holds sharing as one of its highest virtues" does not mean that non-religious and atheists are actually more sharing. Religion (Christianity at least), as exampled, also promotes sharing, charity etc. So please support your assertion that atheists / non-religious will be more sharing when it seems that both sides promote the notion.
    If you're not able to, perhaps simply say as much. At least then we can take your assertion for what it is.
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Well, Dostoyevsky sure seemed to think atheism and socialism were a package deal:
    In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth. - The Brothers Karamazov​

    And atheists (which are a subset of the non-religious) overwhelmingly favor democrats (which have a self-avowed socialist as one of its two top presidential candidates):

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nonreligious is a fairly nebulous term, so I hope the subset of atheists suffice...and the fact the socialism has always had largely secular policies.

    If you would like to oppose these, it is your turn to provide support for any counter-assertion. Otherwise, just concede that these are fairly trivial associations.

  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

  16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Are there societies governed by Christian socialism? If not, then it probably has no bearing on the study being discussed here.
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    • The non-religious are more likely to be raised under more socialist ideals.
    Is this true in Europe? In South American countries? In China?

    I also noticed your list above leaves out the considerably large group of mainstream christians. Why is that I wonder?
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Europe is largely socialist and non-religious, South America is largely capitalist and religious, and China is communist (economically socialist) and non-religious. Since socialism is mostly expressed economically, most of Europe is some variety of democratic socialism. Your point?

    What large group of mainstream Christians do you think is missing? And why would it even matter?
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    "Religion in the European Union is a diverse matter with significant levels of belief in all EU member states. The largest religion in the EU is Christianity, which accounts for 72% of EU population, with its largest denominations being Roman Catholicism, Protestantism (especially in the north), and Eastern Orthodoxy."===

    "South America has one of the largest concentration of States in the world that would call themselves socialists. Although there are other countries with left-wing governments, this political doctrine seems to have settled more strongly in this continent. With approximately as many nations that have welcomed right wing or Christian-Democratic heads of State, as those which stand-out with a radical left-wing government, overall, South America stands as a spot with a large amount of supporters of the validity of socialism."===

    "According to the most recent demographic analyses, an average 30—80% of the population in China, that is hundreds of millions of people, practice some kinds of Chinese folk religions and Taoism, 10—16% are Buddhists, 2—4% are Christians, and 1—2% are Muslims."==

    72% are also Christian. That contradicts your claim that more non-religious are raised socialists.

    "Theologically conservative critics accuse the mainline churches of "the substitution of leftist social action for Christian evangelizing, and the disappearance of biblical theology," and maintain that "All the Mainline churches have become essentially the same church: their histories, their theologies, and even much of their practice lost to a uniform vision of social progress...

    "The Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) counts 26,344,933 members of mainline churches versus 39,930,869 members of evangelical Protestant churches..."
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Try looking up some Pew figures for religious importance (or even growing prominence of non-religious) in European countries compared to the US. Yes, some European countries even have a state religion, but then religion is often viewed as more cultural tradition than social/moral significance. Considering the study only entailed Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey, USA, and South Africa, I don't know why we're talking about South America. Yes, they're largely social liberals, most have constitutional republics, and most are economically capitalist. But again, these were not accounted for in this study. So who knows how they would skew the results.

    Many otherwise non-religious people claim a religion as part of their cultural heritage. Many secular Jews and Europeans will answer such questions, that fail to make that distinction, in the affirmative, even though religion has no impact in the lives. This is actually a point most atheists tout when they are crowing about the decline of religion.

    Between Catholics and individually listed Protestant denominations, where, pray tell, do you imagine some large group went unaccounted for. Again, as if it matters to the point made.
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    If the point doesn't matter, then why are you asking about it?

    "Scholar William Hutchison refers to the seven largest mainline Protestant groups as theSeven Sisters of American Protestantism in his 1989 book, Between the Times: The Travail of the Protestant Establishment in America, 1900-1960. They are:

    • The United Methodist Church
    • The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    • The Presbyterian Church, USA
    • The Episcopal Church, USA
    • The United Church of Christ
    • The American Baptist Churches, USA
    • The Disciples of Christ"

    It's obvious that whoever you got that list from needed to skew the numbers away from religious democrats to make their point. I also notice they list both evangelical and fundamentalist christians, as if these are two separate non-overlapping groups. Another clear attempt to skew the results.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    I ask because I'm curious how far you will go just to be needlessly argumentative. Since the point was only to contrast the religious to atheists, it really makes no significant difference. The sample was enough to make the point.

    Oh, and from an atheist source at that:
    So talk to your own ilk about any skewing going on there, mate.

    Are you just that ashamed to see atheists sharing the most democrat leaning with Scientologists? Desperate to get some other group, even Christian, to share that end of the spectrum? I'm not sure you'll succeed (or even what you hope to achieve by doing so):

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But by all means, if you have data on a significant number of devote, church-goer democrats...
    I assume that list was orthodox, practicing Jews, because certainly secular Jews lean heavily democrat. Although they seem to be losing a little ground:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    You have trouble staying on topic. We've gone from the non-religious supposedly being raised with socialist values now to Christians not being democrats. I know alot of hispanics and african americans who would disagree with that. In any case, I'm totally content with having debunked your original thesis. My stats stand...
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015

Share This Page