Topic: Health and Religion - page 132. (Read 211013 times)

And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong...

Well, for those who want to look, it was the slight tendency towards atheism that brought Adam and Eve into the sin of doubting God and eating the "apple." Today atheism has fully blossomed and bloomed. It is only by the grace and mercy of God that we have a little peace, and little destruction. But God won't put up with the cancer of atheism forever.

Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that.

However, this isn't always true. One needs to consider the size and weight of the vehicle as well. Neanderthals, being generally smaller with bigger brains, would naturally have a far greater thinking ability and capacity.

If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it.

Perhaps but the best outcome might result from successfully reconsidering your assumptions.

It is hard, usually impossible, to induce a re-examination of fundamental assumptions. What you currently regard as 'evidence' is in large part choice and dictated by assumptions, which are not compelled. Looked at this way, to choose modern nihilism rather than the natural, spontaneous, 'biological' tendency to religious explanations is not just foolish, but incoherent - since the choice of nihilistic assumptions makes that choice itself meaningless.

Ah, well then it seems I'd be better off taking medication than being superstitious, eh?

organofcorti you mentioned you wanted more evidence to look at. Moloch has kindly provided us with more studies to look at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe


In the interest of full disclosure this approach would be a bad idea.

Both the Gallup data I linked upthread and the analysis provided by Moloch above indicate that only the highly religious are better off.

In the Gallup poll only those who reported that religion was an important part of their daily life and regularly attended worship services had the reported substantial advantages in wellbeing. The religious who were lax in their beliefs scored lower than the atheist.

Perhaps pretending to have a code but not really following it is the worst choice? If that is the case maybe the reason Mormons do so well is because they are observant. More than eight-in-ten Mormons report that they pray daily. Orthodox Jews are also very observant.


Thanks for sharing that link. I had not heard of Pascal’s renewed wager before but I agree it is a similar argument to the one provided in this thread.

Pascal's renewed wager states that, all other reasons aside, it is better to believe, rather than disbelieve in God because such belief has tangible benefits. Pascal's wager appears incomplete due to the requirement for true observance I mentioned above.

The argument presented in this thread is the following:

If you are able to wholeheartedly believe in God and follow his guidance do so for such belief is natural and healthy.

In the end it does not matters if you cannot prove whether Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is ultimate truth. What matters is finding a healthy moral and spiritual code that will protect you and can be reliably passed on to your children.

I have little advice to give on which denomination to choose as I have yet to make this choice myself. I have determined only that I am capable of belief and that I will make a choice.

Others have argued that above-replacement fertility is necessary (but not sufficient) for a valid religion.

As long as having this "faith" that he mentions doesn't actually change anything I do or think, then why not have one? I'd also faith the shit out of goblins if I had incontrovertible proof that it would grant my grandchildren a long and prosperous life.

What is the point believing in anything without proof?  That just makes a person look foolish... particularly when they claim to know it as fact, and they can't prove shit...

Why would I waste 1 second on religion?

Don't give me Pascal's Wager, because it's a bullshit argument... basically a fallacy... you could say the exact same thing about Hinduism, or Islam... what if they are right, and Christianity is wrong?  What if the great Ju-Ju of the mountain is the real God? I can't possibly follow the thousands of different religious beliefs, hoping one of them is true...

Why waste time on speculation without a shred of evidence?



Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

If it can be proven without a doubt that by adopting that POV and none other my lifespan would increase and it didn't actually require me to do anything that might be detrimental to my quality of life or take up my spare time, then why not?

If I found a medicine that has been proven to "improve both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well" then I'd probably try that too.

Instead of looking for proof consider asking yourself a question.

Are you willing to embrace a worldview you cannot empirically prove i.e. requires faith if you can prove that adopting such a worldview improves both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well?

I have seen several studies that show Atheists have higher well-being, quality of life, etc...

http://smithandfranklin.com/current-issues/Atheism-Wellbeing-and-the-Wager-Why-Not-Believing-in-God-With-Others-is-Good-for-You/9/16/120/html



Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands... all highly Atheist countries (America did not even make the list)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

"All studies that present potentially important results deserve evaluation."

You're not really evaluating here, just collating and commenting. To evaluate, you'd need to replicate the studies in question.

There are lots of studies that suggest hugely important advances in physics and medicine. Before we begin to assess the validity of their claims, what do we do? We wait for results to be replicated.

Without relying on independent replication of experimental results, Cold Fusion would still be the Next Big Thing.

All studies that present potentially important results deserve evaluation.

What I have shown is that there are are studies that show a correlation between atheism and reduced wellbeing and fertility.

I have also highlighted several pieces of anecdotal evidence that suggest this correlation may be causation.

I do not claim to have proven that atheism is poisonous. What I have done is gathered sufficient evidence to convince me personally that atheism is unhealthy to many who adopt it. Everyone's threshold of evidence is different and if yours is not met that is not unreasonable.

The purpose of this post is to share the information I have gathered and let people come to their own conclusions. The data needs to be shared even though though it is not perfect because its implications are so profound.

I wouldn't do it if it got boring, but otherwise it's good practice when it comes to debating with those who are anti-logic.

No you haven't. I understand your ideas quite well, but they're not science and not factual.


There is no need to prove God doesn't exist. What's the need? Bertrand russell illustrates why, but simply put the burden of proof  lies with the claimant. Otherwise, why not start with the tooth fairy? Or invisible pink unicorns? Can you prove either don't exist?



I don't have faith in a religion. You call me atheist because I often argue against organised religion, but the truth is I just don't care about the supernatural. I do however care about logic and truth, so if you really need to label me with a religion, call it Truth or Logic, not Atheism.

I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.

I dunno... it really is a waste of time even reading BADecker comments, much less responding to them...

I imagine those hours are better spent elsewhere

Religious. I cannot believe that someone could be so keen as to keep up this sort of charade for so long. Only some very motivated person could keep posting the way he does. Also, BADecker's views are actually pretty tame compared to another forumite BitNow, who actually promotes murder of atheists as a a net positive and not a sin.


I wouldn't. You're missing out on a bunch of fun. You just can't take him too seriously, is all.

Well it was a nice conversation until someone came along promoting the values and morals of the inquisition.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm


This type if thinking represents the misguided and horrific idea that embracing evil will lead to good.

BADecker I do not know if you are a misguided zealot or a clever atheist promoting his true beliefs by deliberately peddling falsehood.

In the end it does not matter. In the 2+ years I have followed this forum I have seen many bad posts. However, prior to you my ignore list was empty. Congratulations you now have this space entirely to your yourself.