1
4

[–] ZyklonBen 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Shocking Discovery!: Biased studies, show biased results!

9
4

[–] guinness2 9 points 4 points (+13|-9) ago  (edited ago)

To be fair: religious children are developmentally challenged because their heads are full of religious woo-woo about talking donkeys (Numbers 22:28) and bird blood magical spells (Leviticus 14).

It must be hard for religious children to differentiate between fantasy and reality when they are surrounded by adults who claim their random gibberings are a magical language and they can faith heal and telepathically communicate with the creator of the universe... but really they are just full of shit.

2
3

[–] didntsayeeeee 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Surprise! Although Muslim children substantially outnumbered Christian children in the study (why?) people use it as an excuse to bash Christians.

5
4

[–] guinness2 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago  (edited ago)

And what is wrong with acting on an excuse to bash Christians?

Are Christians too righteous and justified and magical to be criticized?

0
1

[–] epsilona01 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

They're also taught that morality is guided by some invisible hand that will punish them if they do wrong. Instead of having their own morality, the false sense they have fades when they realize that invisible man can't actually see everything they do wrong, and there is no punishment, or self-admonishment that comes from your own discipline and moral character.

1
3

[–] GumbyTM 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Oh a study from Academia where they like religion about as much as the internet does. Honestly, as someone who just doesn't give a shit, the anti religion crowd needs to get over itself.

Anyone who has ever spent time with religious people vs the anti religion crowd knows who is more preferable.

One side is annoying because they want to share what makes them happy and the other side is annoying because they need to tear down what makes others happy, presumably so everyone is as miserable as they are or because their feelings are too fragile.

Which is worse?

4
3

[–] flapjack_charlie 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

Oh Jesus Fuck Me In The Ass H Christ... I don't know what asshat came up with this study but it's the latest hit-piece against social conservatives. I've seen this saying that they're less altruistic, less intelligent, more authoritarian, etc. Now, I'm a liberal atheist so I don't really care that much about conservatives or religion, but I DO care about science and I DON'T like it when I see science being used to flog some dipshit's tired political agenda. We get it, everyone likes to feel self superior and this is a way atheists and liberals can feel superior to conservatives, which is more likely to get them to vote in an election year.

Well hey, guess what, I feel superior to everyone else because I actually think about what I read.

God, when did the Guardian become such a rag?

0
4

[–] celadarlie 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Oh Jesus Fuck Me In The Ass H Christ

Well said.

0
0

[–] Ilikebordercollies [S] ago 

oh, stop being so mean.

0
0

[–] didntsayeeeee ago 

Like, 1822?

1
-1

[–] Drenki 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

2
2

[–] Zaqwert 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

So a bunch of people extremely anti-religious people did a study and discovered that religion is bad? I'll take that with a grain of salt.

1
0

[–] Lemongarb 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

How do you know they were anti-religion?

3
2

[–] Crashmarik 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html

And yet religious adults are more charitable which is proved by actual data at the macro level

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/28/landmark-study-suggests-most-psychology-studies-dont-yield-reproducible-results

Likely a problem with a bad sociology study in this case.

2
8

[–] Slapyousilly 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Charitable causes include churches...................................not enough dots.......

0
1

[–] Drenki 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I'm not a religious person in any way, but the headline doesn't support the "science" that was performed.

What was measured they called "altruism", not "meanness". Their definition of altruism is completely retarded. If I give away all of my shit to someone, it's called altruism. They would not factor in the burden I would place on my family to make up for my dumbass decision. In other words, they've used a term with one of the longest philosophical histories with a simple "good/bad" meaning. It didn't occur to them that people might have different concepts of what constitutes altruism.

People in the US have a tendency to think the UK publications are any better. They are not. This headline is direct proof they can't even communicate the basics truthfully.

I cannot even recommend that you wipe your ass with The Guardian or Cell (the Elsevier journal that published it) because they are made of shit.

1
1

[–] Sergei_Potemkin 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

...already learned this from playing their religious school sports teams...

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)