Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzer1,Someone being

Wowzer1,

Someone being executed by crucifixion is not evidence for God loving us. If that is your best 'evidence' for a loving God, you have nothing.

Any perceived benefit of such an action requires a massive set of assumptions which are without foundation themselves. Even if he himself did come back, that proves nothing other than that he had mysterious powers, nothing about his ultimate motives.

Your persistent failure to understand the maths of geometric series means you have way insufficient understanding of the subject to make meaningful comments on 'infinite regress'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Wowzer1,

Someone being executed by crucifixion is not evidence for God loving us. If that is your best 'evidence' for a loving God, you have nothing.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Someone

BobSpence1 wrote:

Someone being executed by crucifixion is not evidence for God loving us. If that is your best 'evidence' for a loving God, you have nothing.

The fact of Jesus' execution alone say nothing.  But the teachings of Christianity are corroborated by the facts.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Any perceived benefit of such an action requires a massive set of assumptions which are without foundation themselves. Even if he himself did come back, that proves nothing other than that he had mysterious powers, nothing about his ultimate motives.

How so? If you want to maintain this kind of thinking, one cannot use action to corroborated motives in the court or the like...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your persistent failure to understand the maths of geometric series means you have way insufficient understanding of the subject to make meaningful comments on 'infinite regress'.

You keep insisting ad infinitum that you can some how ascertain some value without estimation and without iteration... All you have a is a form... nothing more. And in any case, you're analogy breaks down when considering justification and explanation, so you still haven't solved your initial problem.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think you

TGBaker wrote:

I think you may miss my point on inerrancy. If one begins with such a presupposition. It will effect ones historical approach. If one has not suspended the idea that the text is without errors one will not in a historical reseach see errors if they are there. It is an important precursory issue to resolve prior to any research or at least the ability to suspend it as a subjective belief in ones process of analysis. The same goes for the presupposition of inspiration. It taints the objectivity of historical research with a limiting factor that forbids a possible conclusion that the text is NOT inspired. That is what I typically see going on with such discussions as ours about the infancy narratives. The consideration of less plausible conclusions are arrived at ( Ramsey for example or A. T. Robertson on "eis&quotEye-wink because of a necessary property of the conclusion ( inspriation)....of Quirinius . It seems a simple This  first enrollment there came to be ( when [ genitive])   the governing of Syria is by Quirinius OR when Quirinius is governing Syria. The idea is that it is this enrollment that Mary and Joseph are traveling for by context. .  The corroboration  of those many people seem to fall in line with what I am saying about the presuppostion of inerrancy or inspiration again... the move to the straining of this gnat or strawman as you say to a swollowing of the camel of inspiration or infallibility. 

My point was that it is not a slam dunk argument as one would to think it is concerning historicity of Luke.

But to think that someone cannot be objective because of beliefs about inspiration, inerrancy etc. is a circumstantial ad hominem. What there to prevent a someone with such convictions accusing the infernal skeptic of being the polar opposite, saying they will only accept material that would show something. Insofar as I can tell, there isn't. I do not see it as a detractor from the validity of the case I was suggesting.

TGBaker wrote:

Again I have seen no historical evidence  that puts Quiriius or a census within 10 years of Jesus birth. Ramsey's attempt is a notice of the emperor's appreciation of Quirinus but he then speculates the reward of a govenorship. But there is not room in the attested list of governors.  Secondly the change from local ruler by designation of Rome to direct rule by Rome seems to be the reason for the census in the first place. Again is there any census prior to 6CE  after 125 BCE that would approximate the hypothetical harmonization of the text? That is my dilemma with seeing any plausibility of going with your translation. Not just the grammar and syntax itself but the context and the history and 2000 years of translating it rightly I think.

I'm not talking about an earlier date for Quirinius' reign, but an earlier census that "became first" also translatable to "became chief" while Quirinius was gov of Syria. The census during the days of Quirinius was perhaps the second attempt at an earlier census, as Dio Cassius made note of.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think you may miss my point on inerrancy. If one begins with such a presupposition. It will effect ones historical approach. If one has not suspended the idea that the text is without errors one will not in a historical reseach see errors if they are there. It is an important precursory issue to resolve prior to any research or at least the ability to suspend it as a subjective belief in ones process of analysis. The same goes for the presupposition of inspiration. It taints the objectivity of historical research with a limiting factor that forbids a possible conclusion that the text is NOT inspired. That is what I typically see going on with such discussions as ours about the infancy narratives. The consideration of less plausible conclusions are arrived at ( Ramsey for example or A. T. Robertson on "eis&quotEye-wink because of a necessary property of the conclusion ( inspriation)....of Quirinius . It seems a simple This  first enrollment there came to be ( when [ genitive])   the governing of Syria is by Quirinius OR when Quirinius is governing Syria. The idea is that it is this enrollment that Mary and Joseph are traveling for by context. .  The corroboration  of those many people seem to fall in line with what I am saying about the presuppostion of inerrancy or inspiration again... the move to the straining of this gnat or strawman as you say to a swollowing of the camel of inspiration or infallibility. 

My point was that it is not a slam dunk argument as one would to think it is concerning historicity of Luke.

But to think that someone cannot be objective because of beliefs about inspiration, inerrancy etc. is a circumstantial ad hominem. What there to prevent a someone with such convictions accusing the infernal skeptic of being the polar opposite, saying they will only accept material that would show something. Insofar as I can tell, there isn't. I do not see it as a detractor from the validity of the case I was suggesting.

TGBaker wrote:

Again I have seen no historical evidence  that puts Quiriius or a census within 10 years of Jesus birth. Ramsey's attempt is a notice of the emperor's appreciation of Quirinus but he then speculates the reward of a govenorship. But there is not room in the attested list of governors.  Secondly the change from local ruler by designation of Rome to direct rule by Rome seems to be the reason for the census in the first place. Again is there any census prior to 6CE  after 125 BCE that would approximate the hypothetical harmonization of the text? That is my dilemma with seeing any plausibility of going with your translation. Not just the grammar and syntax itself but the context and the history and 2000 years of translating it rightly I think.

I'm not talking about an earlier date for Quirinius' reign, but an earlier census that "became first" also translatable to "became chief" while Quirinius was gov of Syria. The census during the days of Quirinius was perhaps the second attempt at an earlier census, as Dio Cassius made note of.

I think you have those who begin with the presupposition that the text is not history.  A case in point are those who think that Jesus was not a historical person.  In my case I began with the assumption that the text was inspired. So yes you can come to the opposite conclusions. But I am talking about the fact that these do cause lens before the exegete and in looking at the actual examples of interpreting this text I find that the presentation of the implausible is because of the presupposition of Luke being historical 0or the text infallible. That is why you have Ramsey straining for a hypothetical. It seems that the four or five competing apologies fall inline with the one your presenting. And that is all I meant by the straining of a gnat.  As I have asked before what earlier census was taken prior to 6 CE and after 125 BCE?  As far as is reflected inthis was the first from Rome since 12Also the indication that this was an enrollment because it was at this very time that Quirinius becomes governor that Rome assumes direct control of the province. It was governed and the taxes were taken by local governing authories prior to that. The whole intro is pointing to Roman action: Augustus, Quirinius etc.  I understand giving the position a benefit of a doubt but it is not as persuasive as the exegesis which causes the historical issue.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think you

TGBaker wrote:

I think you have those who begin with the presupposition that the text is not history.  A case in point are those who think that Jesus was not a historical person.  In my case I began with the assumption that the text was inspired. So yes you can come to the opposite conclusions. But I am talking about the fact that these do cause lens before the exegete and in looking at the actual examples of interpreting this text I find that the presentation of the implausible is because of the presupposition of Luke being historical 0or the text infallible. That is why you have Ramsey straining for a hypothetical. It seems that the four or five competing apologies fall inline with the one your presenting. And that is all I meant by the straining of a gnat.  As I have asked before what earlier census was taken prior to 6 CE and after 125 BCE?  As far as is reflected inthis was the first from Rome since 12Also the indication that this was an enrollment because it was at this very time that Quirinius becomes governor that Rome assumes direct control of the province. It was governed and the taxes were taken by local governing authories prior to that. The whole intro is pointing to Roman action: Augustus, Quirinius etc.  I understand giving the position a benefit of a doubt but it is not as persuasive as the exegesis which causes the historical issue.

I don't feel that it is straining at gnats really...

I do not know of an exact day... I know of at one other census that predates the  census of Quirinius in 6 CE. I think it is the earlier one mentioned by Dio Cassius. I think this historical data fits the translation too...

To me, this debate is turning into the minimalist/maximalist debate in biblical archeology. The minimalist assumes the Bible is false until show otherwise, and the maximalist do just the opposite. I think either position is bad when one begins to addresses historicity as an academic.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think you have those who begin with the presupposition that the text is not history.  A case in point are those who think that Jesus was not a historical person.  In my case I began with the assumption that the text was inspired. So yes you can come to the opposite conclusions. But I am talking about the fact that these do cause lens before the exegete and in looking at the actual examples of interpreting this text I find that the presentation of the implausible is because of the presupposition of Luke being historical 0or the text infallible. That is why you have Ramsey straining for a hypothetical. It seems that the four or five competing apologies fall inline with the one your presenting. And that is all I meant by the straining of a gnat.  As I have asked before what earlier census was taken prior to 6 CE and after 125 BCE?  As far as is reflected inthis was the first from Rome since 12Also the indication that this was an enrollment because it was at this very time that Quirinius becomes governor that Rome assumes direct control of the province. It was governed and the taxes were taken by local governing authories prior to that. The whole intro is pointing to Roman action: Augustus, Quirinius etc.  I understand giving the position a benefit of a doubt but it is not as persuasive as the exegesis which causes the historical issue.

I don't feel that it is straining at gnats really...

I do not know of an exact day... I know of at one other census that predates the  census of Quirinius in 6 CE. I think it is the earlier one mentioned by Dio Cassius. I think this historical data fits the translation too...

To me, this debate is turning into the minimalist/maximalist debate in biblical archeology. The minimalist assumes the Bible is false until show otherwise, and the maximalist do just the opposite. I think either position is bad when one begins to addresses historicity as an academic.

 

I really don't want it to be a debate. I do not think it is a question of minimalist/maxiamalist  views. I really think that looking at the methodologies on which WE are both dependent shows presuppositions and/or intentions  that can be isolated. WE moved into this area regarding the historical Jesus and methodology if you look back at the thread. I think this is an example of how we go about it.  There were censuses held in 28 BCE, 8 BCE and 14 BCE by Augustus but they were to count Roman citizens.  Some apologetics attempt to fit the 8 BCE into service. (Dio Cassius) It is not really a matter of academia though that is the methodology employed. It is an example of why and how we believe or do not believe in god.

Academically I think it is the accumulation of information and facts for interpretation. I would simply add a WIKI moment:

After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6 AD, Iudaea (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius as prefect; at the same time Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes. One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this.

 

The Jews already hated their pagan conquerors, and censuses were forbidden under Jewish law. The assessment was greatly resented by the Jews, and open revolt was prevented only by the efforts of the high priest Joazar. As it was, the census did trigger the revolt of Judas of Galilee and the formation of the party of the Zealots, according to Josephus.

 

The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This is thought to be a reference to the census of Judea in 6/7 AD; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew, dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. According to Raymond E. Brown, most modern historians suggest that Luke's account is mistaken.

 

Quirinius served as governor of Syria with nominal authority over Iudaea until 12, when he returned to Rome as a close associate of Tiberius. Nine years later he died and was given a public funeral.

If you feel there's no more to add we could talk about something else. You still on the road? 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ZeroSignal
atheist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Its just a bad idea to lie

Its just a bad idea to lie to kids anyways.  Period.  They will hate you for it later when they find out they've been duped.  Especially when they don't ask for that knowledge.   Which no kid comes up with religion without some jack ass adult forcing it down their throat.

____

The bible, good fiction? A 3 year old can write a better story.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Someone being executed by crucifixion is not evidence for God loving us. If that is your best 'evidence' for a loving God, you have nothing.

The fact of Jesus' execution alone say nothing.  But the teachings of Christianity are corroborated by the facts.

That's the problem - there are no facts to show any benefit - the 'benefits' are all based on the unwarranted and unjustified assumption of the whole God and afterlife scenario.

{/quote]

BobSpence1 wrote:

Any perceived benefit of such an action requires a massive set of assumptions which are without foundation themselves. Even if he himself did come back, that proves nothing other than that he had mysterious powers, nothing about his ultimate motives.

How so? If you want to maintain this kind of thinking, one cannot use action to corroborated motives in the court or the like...

Court proceeding requite corroborating evidence - not 'motives'. Motives are proposed reasons for action which need corroborating evidence.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your persistent failure to understand the maths of geometric series means you have way insufficient understanding of the subject to make meaningful comments on 'infinite regress'.

You keep insisting ad infinitum that you can some how ascertain some value without estimation and without iteration... All you have a is a form... nothing more. And in any case, you're analogy breaks down when considering justification and explanation, so you still haven't solved your initial problem.

You continue to demonstrate your fundamental lack of understanding. An equation is not just a form. The equation for the sum of a geometric series is rigorously derived without iteration, and can be evaluated in any specific case without 'iteration' or integration.

Is your committment to your ungrounded belief so embedded that you cannot concede any error which has been part of a 'proof' for God?

Infinite regress cannot be used as an argument against any position unless you demonstrate that it is necessarily a divergent system, which is only a problem for the religious assumptions that assume a God is necessary as a cause of human existence or the Universe itself.

I'm done with arguing with an intellectually impaired individual. I am sorry for you, I hope your delusion keeps you happy, and doesn't drive you to harm others in any way,physically or emotionally.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I really don't

TGBaker wrote:
I really don't want it to be a debate. I do not think it is a question of minimalist/maxiamalist  views. I really think that looking at the methodologies on which WE are both dependent shows presuppositions and/or intentions  that can be isolated. WE moved into this area regarding the historical Jesus and methodology if you look back at the thread. I think this is an example of how we go about it.  There were censuses held in 28 BCE, 8 BCE and 14 BCE by Augustus but they were to count Roman citizens.  Some apologetics attempt to fit the 8 BCE into service. (Dio Cassius) It is not really a matter of academia though that is the methodology employed. It is an example of why and how we believe or do not believe in god.

My issue was simply the possibility of an explanation that would harmonize the scripture, but I cannot, as a matter of fact, say anything about it, nor can anyone else for that matter. But to dismiss such harmonies because one is an inerrantist is fallacious.

TGBaker wrote:
Academically I think it is the accumulation of information and facts for interpretation.

Interpretation of facts is where things get mirky....

TGBaker wrote:

Quirinius served as governor of Syria with nominal authority over Iudaea until 12, when he returned to Rome as a close associate of Tiberius. Nine years later he died and was given a public funeral.

I've read Quirinius' history... interesting guy. Smiling

TGBaker wrote:

If you feel there's no more to add we could talk about something else. You still on the road? 

I don't feel that there is anything to add to the subject. What's been said has been said and repeated...

Let do talk about something else though. I'm back home. For a person that doesn't like to travel, I do a lot of it...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That's the

BobSpence1 wrote:

That's the problem - there are no facts to show any benefit - the 'benefits' are all based on the unwarranted and unjustified assumption of the whole God and afterlife scenario.

unwarranted and unjustified assumptions about what? The warrant to any sort of claim should be a fact. I think you've got your claim-warrant scenario turned around backwards...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Court proceeding requite corroborating evidence - not 'motives'. Motives are proposed reasons for action which need corroborating evidence.

So, how is Christianity any different from that?

BobSpence1 wrote:

You continue to demonstrate your fundamental lack of understanding. An equation is not just a form. The equation for the sum of a geometric series is rigorously derived without iteration, and can be evaluated in any specific case without 'iteration' or integration.

Ok... Deriving a equation does not forego iteration either unless you integrate it. But you can't see that for some reason...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Is your committment to your ungrounded belief so embedded that you cannot concede any error which has been part of a 'proof' for God?

What ungrounded beliefs?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Infinite regress cannot be used as an argument against any position unless you demonstrate that it is necessarily a divergent system, which is only a problem for the religious assumptions that assume a God is necessary as a cause of human existence or the Universe itself.

In orders of explanations, you bolstered your position with an analogy from mathematics, but you have failed to show a pattern of explanation as to derive some sort of analog to an equation, and why I said your analogy broke down.

And for that reason using that as an argument against God because God is a "divergent system" is also faulty.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I'm done with arguing with an intellectually impaired individual. I am sorry for you, I hope your delusion keeps you happy, and doesn't drive you to harm others in any way,physically or emotionally.

Ad hominems do not serve you well.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal