• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Non-religious children are more generous than religious kids.

The thing about humans is that each one's unique, just like the all the others. People in large numbers are predictable.
 
ksu_aviator said:
The author of this study revealed his bias when he predicted the outcome of his next study. If you study something with the belief you'll achieve a result that is skewed. Since the observation are somewhat arbitrary, his bias likely played a part in achieving the results attained.
Click to expand...

By all means, conduct a study with more objective observations and confront the findings of this study. Otherwise, claiming a hypothesis before a study comes up is standard practice because the numbers that show up do not and cannot ask what one's bias may be.
 
Manny said:
This makes sense. Religious people, as much as they do good work such as supporting charitable organizations like the Salvation Army, or even "soup kitchens" at the corner church, also believe that each of us is responsible for ourselves and that charity should only be given where it is truly needed...
Click to expand...

... Which according to the article is only the religion that one is affiliated with, and not others. Compared to atheistic children not valuing humans based on religious BS that they may believe the conclusion is still the same that atheistic children are more generous.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Case studies are always somewhat biased and that isn't my opinion.
Click to expand...

First, how is this study a "case study?"

Second, from the source:

This method of study is especially useful for trying to test theoretical models by using them in real world situations. For example, if an anthropologist were to live amongst a remote tribe, whilst their observations might produce no quantitative data, they are still useful to science.
Click to expand...

So, bias may apply for qualitative data in a case study. The data are quantitative and as such care less of bias.
 
Captain Adverse said:
They work in certain hard sciences, but when applied to human interaction they have no more real value than a voodoo priest waving his ju-ju stick, or psychic reading your palm.

No "la la la" about it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

They work because probability is used. Questions?
 
Let's not forget all those kids brought up in religious households that are extremely nice, caring, and generous. The world is full of all kinds of wonderful people.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Let's not forget all those kids brought up in religious households that are extremely nice, caring, and generous. The world is full of all kinds of wonderful people.
Click to expand...

Very true. I think that generosity is something you learn and develop based on your interactions with other people. It's a function of maturity and empathy. Religious people are no different in this respect than anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom