Decent post.

On Pope Francis. He may believe some of the 'same old rubbish' but what of it. His stance on homosexuality is considerably more tolerant than those of others in the Church. Based on statements, I've heard him make about the issue, it's difficult to criticise him too much on that. As for abortion, (even though Pope Francis undoubtedly looks at it through a scriptural prism), there are scientifically-informed moral arguments for and against it. This has been discussed on another forum. I'm not arguing against it but I can see the validity of opposing abortion from various points of gestation. The Pope and the Catholic Church seem to view abortion as state-sanctioned murder. Given they think that, they can't be blamed for opposing it so vehemently. In fact, given the premises of their belief on abortion, it would be immoral if they did not make a hue and cry. When you see wrong, you're morally obliged to take a stand (no matter how uncomfortable it make others).

To paraphrase one of the best historians, the road to Auschwitz was paved by indifference. And no, I have not just suggested abortion is akin to or as bad as the Holocaust. I'm just explaining that the Catholic Church seem to think it's evil and thus cannot be blamed for taking a stand there.

Personally, I don't agree with the premises they believe about abortion. But I can understand their stance.

Then Pope Francis' views on things like climate change, the death penalty and inequality are very progressive.

I don't subscribe to his Church's beliefs. But if he can drastically improve the rhetoric of an organisation which has been, for a long time, toxic. Then that's something to be commended.

Edited by quickflick: 14/11/2015 04:59:58 PM

It's not really forcing...

Also, why are you always wrong? Your hit rate for being wrong is well above 98% :lol:

yeah so those young kids at church choose to be there and choose to follow that religion. Absolute bullshit

And I think you're always wrong :)

Well they can't really stay home can they?

I got three kids. My wife and i dont force our religious views into our children (im catholic and wife is muslim) I got two of three baptised for my grandmothers wishes which i dont mind. I dont belive indoctoring them

Yeah but if you and your wife went to church they'd go with you.

Nope havent been to church or mosque in a long time. Last time we went was for my middle childs baptism which was 6 months ago. Hell the last time we went to a mosque qe just sat at the cafe there

That was a comment in line with what BET was saying. If you, or anyone, went to church the kids would go along.

That's what happens 99% of the time.

It's not a criticism or a dig at you just an observation.

Ah fair enough.

All good.

In da hood?? Or is that too politically incorrect:lol:

In a way, but I would argue the parents don't know any better.
Remember the majority of adults were raised to believe, thanks to primary & secondary school education and indoctrination from their own parents, that it is fine to have 'equivalency of beliefs' in that events written in ancient scripts are fact, like things we discover through many areas of scientific investigation, despite the key issue that these ancient events are not submitted to anywhere near the same rigorous levels of critique and investigation or, more specifically, the same level of logic, evidence and reasoning is not demanded of the claim of these events as being factual.
Religious belief is a form of narcissism. Knowledge of one's impending obliteration form the existence of the universe forever, can be rather damaging to the ego. So, thanks in part to 'equivalency of beliefs' indoctrinated during childhood, one can assuage this narcissistic puncture by propagating magical thinking aided by wilful ignorance, so as to 'sear' the conscience.

This article is interesting because morality and religion is usually studied in adults and there isnt a lot of study on children
Having said that a few things should raise red flags about the study
1. It is published ina biology journal rather than a social science journal even though none of the authors are biologists. Are there methodlogical flaws in the study that prevented it from being published in a social science journal?
2. It contradicts a very large body of research admittedly on adults on religiosity vs religion. If you dont believe me go to google scholar and type religiosity and any moral indicator and see what results you have. Specifically the methodology that find different conclusions are
A. Survey results including ones that control for social desirability show positive relationships between religion and morality
B. Unobtrusive observation which shows positive relationships between religiosity and morality
C. Game experiments which show neutral or positive relationship between religiosity and morality
An incomplete list of moral indicators are
1. Altruism
2. Volunteering in religious causes
3. Volunteering in non religious causes
4. Giving to religious causes
5. Giving to non religious causes
6. Not commiting a crime
7. Not raping
8. Neutral effect on rape myth acceptance
9. Not commiting domestic violence
10. Niceness
11. Chance of divorcing
This list of course is incomplete but raises the question. Why is there so much media coverage of this one paper that cant even be published within its field when there is an article every week showing the opposite albeit in adults

We "force" our children to do a lot of things, like go to bed on time and eat their vegetables. Some people believe not letting your children be "free" thinkers and do as they please is a form of child abuse. As Rusty said



I believe parents have the right to raise, nurture and impart values they believe to be in the best interest of their own flesh and blood in accordance with the laws of the land they reside.

sleep is something people need to do, eating healthy is something people do for their health

both of your examples are for health, religion is not for health so try talking about a non ridiculous example