Pages:
Author

Topic: Health and Religion - page 18. (Read 210900 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 21, 2019, 12:10:54 PM

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

This will answer your question.

Logical truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

But it doesn't say anything about how to determine whether something is a logical truth or not... how are you ever going to know that your logical truth is actually a logical truth? You simply cannot test it in ''all situations''

You are correct that it is very difficult to think of universally accepted ideas about what the generic properties of logical truths are or should be.

If you want to understand how it can potentially be done you have to dive into the topic at a far deeper level then the simplified summary I linked above.

This would probably be a good place to start if you have an interest but fair warning it is challenging and dry reading.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-truth/
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 21, 2019, 11:37:44 AM

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

This will answer your question.

Logical truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth

But it doesn't say anything about how to determine whether something is a logical truth or not, it seems basically impossible, for instance, this segment:

This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. It must be true in every sense of intuition, practices, and bodies of beliefs. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.

This is clearly impossible, how are you ever going to know that your logical truth is actually a logical truth? You simply cannot test it in ''all situations''. Logically, logical truths are not logical, LOL.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 21, 2019, 11:10:02 AM

Let me try again. Your “truth” is based on mythological fiction.

BTW, we have codified what is an acceptable behavior in our Criminal Code.  Believe it. LOL.

Sigh is that really the depth of your analysis here?

I lay out and describe a logical foundation that enables universe wide cooperation and your response is we don’t need that we have a wonderful criminal justice system?

I describe how that same protocol allows cooperation in otherwise unwinnable scenarios such as the hypothetical Platonia dilemma and your reply is that you don’t reply to Nigerian lottery emails?

Your hatred of all things Biblical is blinding your ability to reason.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 21, 2019, 10:45:54 AM

''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?

This will answer your question.

Logical truth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
July 21, 2019, 10:33:28 AM

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

The quality of your replies have been declining lately. This one in particular was especially poor.

What I have demonstrated above is that the quoted remarks of Jesus in Matthew 22 are logically true. This truth is derived from logic and does not depend in any way on an argument from authority Biblical or otherwise.

Discussions of the historical evidence of Jesus are interesting I am sure but entirely unrelated to what I wrote.


Let me try again. Your “truth” is based on mythological fiction.

BTW, we have codified what is an acceptable behavior in our Criminal Code.  Believe it. LOL.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 21, 2019, 05:13:29 AM

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

The quality of your replies have been declining lately. This one in particular was especially poor.

What I have demonstrated above is that the quoted remarks of Jesus in Matthew 22 are logically true. This truth is derived from logic and does not depend in any way on an argument from authority Biblical or otherwise.

Discussions of the historical evidence of Jesus are interesting I am sure but entirely unrelated to what I wrote.


''are logically true'' Can you explain further what logically true means?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 21, 2019, 12:42:15 AM

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?

The quality of your replies have been declining lately. This one in particular was especially poor.

What I have demonstrated above is that the quoted remarks of Jesus in Matthew 22 are logically true. This truth is derived from logic and does not depend in any way on an argument from authority Biblical or otherwise.

Discussions of the historical evidence of Jesus are interesting I am sure but entirely unrelated to what I wrote.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
July 20, 2019, 11:38:20 PM

Multiverse Wide Cooperation via Correlated Decision Making.
https://foundational-research.org/files/Multiverse-wide-Cooperation-via-Correlated-Decision-Making.pdf
Quote from: Caster Oesterheld
Superrationality is a special application of non-causal decision theories – that is, theories of rational decision making that not only take the causal implications of an action into account but also other information that making this decision would give us. In the case of superrationality, that information is always about the other agents.

Importantly, superrationality itself falls under this general rule. That is, if you do something for superrationality-related reasons, then this does not tell you anything about how people who do not accept superrationality would behave. As a trivial example, consider playing a donation game against 19 people whom you all know to make fun of superrationality whenever the opportunity avails itself. Attempting to superrationally cooperate with those people seems rather fruitless.

Superrational cooperation requires no reciprocity. That is, none of the agents who benefit from our cooperation have to benefit us. Recall the basic argument for superrationality as based on non-causal decision theories: given that we are friendly, it is more probable that other agents facing similar choices will be friendly toward us and our values. Crucially, this argument does not require that the agents whose choices we acausally affect are the same as those who benefit from our own friendliness.

Only helping superrational cooperators helps you superrationally. Cooperation usually excludes agents who are known to be unable to reciprocate. Yet superrationality does allow for cooperation with non-reciprocating agents if helping them makes it more likely that other agents help us. There is, however, at least one limitation on the set of our beneficiaries that comes without negative side-effects. We can exclude from superrational cooperation all agents who do not cooperate superrationally at all. After all, every superrational cooperator knows that this exclusion will not affect her, and the exclusion appears to be symmetrical among all superrational agents. That is, it makes it more likely that other superrational cooperators make the same choice (rather than incurring some other limitation that excludes us).

What kind of agents can join multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (MSR) at all? In particular, what sorts of values do they need to have, independent of whether or how many such agents or value systems actually exist in the multiverse? We already know that only helping superrational or correlated agents benefits us. However, the values of the superrationalists must also be open to the opportunity of gains from compromise.

In some cases, it will not be in our power to help other value systems at all. Since any will to cooperate with these agents cannot possibly be action-guiding, we do not have to help them. Other agents in the universe may have other resources available to them and thus choose to behave in a friendly way toward these values. If, on the other hand, agents know that nobody else can help them to achieve their goals, multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (in particular, any version of it in which they just give resources away) becomes less attractive to them. One example of a value system that we cannot help is the following version of speciesism:
...
The Namuh-centrists. One day, scientists inform you about a highly intelligent species of extraterrestrials known as “Namuhs”. Like us, the Namuhs have built a flourishing civilization with art, trade, science, language, humor, philosophy (including advanced decision theory research), and so on. However, the Namuhs do not live in our universe, but in a distant part of the multiverse, completely inaccessible to us. In fact, they could not even exist in our part of the multiverse, as their bodies require slightly different laws of physics to function. Knowing about superrational cooperation, you hasten to ask whether they have thought about problems analogous to Newcomb’s problem and the donation games between similar agents. A trustworthy scientist explains that their minds are indeed prone to thinking about such topics – much more so than those of humans, in fact! Understandably thrilled, you ask what values the Namuhs have, and specifically what values are held by those who have thought about acausal cooperation. The scientist then informs you that all Namuhs are very narrowly focused on their own species. They are Namuh-centrists who do not care one bit about anything that does not involve fellow Namuhs. For example, they shrug at the thought of non-Namuh suffering, the flourishing of non-Namuh civilizations, or non-Namuh well-being. In fact, they are so strict that they do not even care about simulated Namuhs or other approximations.

Learning about their values, you may be disappointed. There is nothing that you can do to help them and it is therefore irrelevant whether they use a decision theory similar to yours or not.

(They have adopted a value system incompatible with larger scale superrational cooperation)

Which moral views correlate with superrationality?

The Idea of God
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814064088
Quote from: Alexandru Petrescu

The issue of existence and justification of the Supreme Being is constantly approached by Immanuel Kant in his entire work. For Kant, the ultimate goal of the nature created by God is man as a moral being: the world was created according to man's moral needs. This is why it is said that, after Kant, teleology leads to a moral theology, one that is not about the possibility of proving rationally God's existence but which is about stating that moral life is possible only if God exists. Under these circumstances, though the “idea of God” is presupposed in most Kantian works, we insist, below, particularly on what is debated when appealing to practical reason. In the theoretical philosophy of the Critique of Pure Reason, the idea of God as Unconditioned, as a being that is absolutely necessary, is seen as a transcendental ideal determined through an idea as a prototype of perfection necessary to everything that is contingent and determined in our sensible world: what we can do to conciliate sensible experience with the Absolute Being is to presuppose an extra-phenomenal reality designated as transcendental object: we presuppose its existence but we cannot get to know it. Later, in Critique of Practical Reason, God is postulated (together with soul's immortality) as a condition of the supreme value of moral life, the Sovereign Good (union of virtue with happiness). Since in the sensible world moral conduct does not warrant proportional happiness, the virtuous ones has strong reasons to believe in the reparatory intervention of a superior power: God, as moral ideal and warranty of moral order. “Morality leads, inevitably, to religion, through which it (morality) extends over a moral Lawgiver”

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


The first command allows for the creation of universe wide not species specific morality. The second allows for superrational cooperation and the greatest good for all.

Jesus shared absolute truth here with the world. The depth of that truth is often poorly understood.

Except that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this mythological Jesus person ever existed.

And you base your “truth” on this fact, how gullible can you be?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 20, 2019, 04:32:46 PM
Multiverse Wide Cooperation

Multiverse Wide Cooperation via Correlated Decision Making.
https://foundational-research.org/files/Multiverse-wide-Cooperation-via-Correlated-Decision-Making.pdf
Quote from: Caster Oesterheld
Superrationality is a special application of non-causal decision theories – that is, theories of rational decision making that not only take the causal implications of an action into account but also other information that making this decision would give us. In the case of superrationality, that information is always about the other agents.

Importantly, superrationality itself falls under this general rule. That is, if you do something for superrationality-related reasons, then this does not tell you anything about how people who do not accept superrationality would behave. As a trivial example, consider playing a donation game against 19 people whom you all know to make fun of superrationality whenever the opportunity avails itself. Attempting to superrationally cooperate with those people seems rather fruitless.

Superrational cooperation requires no reciprocity. That is, none of the agents who benefit from our cooperation have to benefit us. Recall the basic argument for superrationality as based on non-causal decision theories: given that we are friendly, it is more probable that other agents facing similar choices will be friendly toward us and our values. Crucially, this argument does not require that the agents whose choices we acausally affect are the same as those who benefit from our own friendliness.

Only helping superrational cooperators helps you superrationally. Cooperation usually excludes agents who are known to be unable to reciprocate. Yet superrationality does allow for cooperation with non-reciprocating agents if helping them makes it more likely that other agents help us. There is, however, at least one limitation on the set of our beneficiaries that comes without negative side-effects. We can exclude from superrational cooperation all agents who do not cooperate superrationally at all. After all, every superrational cooperator knows that this exclusion will not affect her, and the exclusion appears to be symmetrical among all superrational agents. That is, it makes it more likely that other superrational cooperators make the same choice (rather than incurring some other limitation that excludes us).

What kind of agents can join multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (MSR) at all? In particular, what sorts of values do they need to have, independent of whether or how many such agents or value systems actually exist in the multiverse? We already know that only helping superrational or correlated agents benefits us. However, the values of the superrationalists must also be open to the opportunity of gains from compromise.

In some cases, it will not be in our power to help other value systems at all. Since any will to cooperate with these agents cannot possibly be action-guiding, we do not have to help them. Other agents in the universe may have other resources available to them and thus choose to behave in a friendly way toward these values. If, on the other hand, agents know that nobody else can help them to achieve their goals, multiverse-wide superrational cooperation (in particular, any version of it in which they just give resources away) becomes less attractive to them. One example of a value system that we cannot help is the following version of speciesism:
...
The Namuh-centrists. One day, scientists inform you about a highly intelligent species of extraterrestrials known as “Namuhs”. Like us, the Namuhs have built a flourishing civilization with art, trade, science, language, humor, philosophy (including advanced decision theory research), and so on. However, the Namuhs do not live in our universe, but in a distant part of the multiverse, completely inaccessible to us. In fact, they could not even exist in our part of the multiverse, as their bodies require slightly different laws of physics to function. Knowing about superrational cooperation, you hasten to ask whether they have thought about problems analogous to Newcomb’s problem and the donation games between similar agents. A trustworthy scientist explains that their minds are indeed prone to thinking about such topics – much more so than those of humans, in fact! Understandably thrilled, you ask what values the Namuhs have, and specifically what values are held by those who have thought about acausal cooperation. The scientist then informs you that all Namuhs are very narrowly focused on their own species. They are Namuh-centrists who do not care one bit about anything that does not involve fellow Namuhs. For example, they shrug at the thought of non-Namuh suffering, the flourishing of non-Namuh civilizations, or non-Namuh well-being. In fact, they are so strict that they do not even care about simulated Namuhs or other approximations.

Learning about their values, you may be disappointed. There is nothing that you can do to help them and it is therefore irrelevant whether they use a decision theory similar to yours or not.

(They have adopted a value system incompatible with larger scale superrational cooperation)

Which moral views correlate with superrationality?

The Idea of God
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814064088
Quote from: Alexandru Petrescu

The issue of existence and justification of the Supreme Being is constantly approached by Immanuel Kant in his entire work. For Kant, the ultimate goal of the nature created by God is man as a moral being: the world was created according to man's moral needs. This is why it is said that, after Kant, teleology leads to a moral theology, one that is not about the possibility of proving rationally God's existence but which is about stating that moral life is possible only if God exists. Under these circumstances, though the “idea of God” is presupposed in most Kantian works, we insist, below, particularly on what is debated when appealing to practical reason. In the theoretical philosophy of the Critique of Pure Reason, the idea of God as Unconditioned, as a being that is absolutely necessary, is seen as a transcendental ideal determined through an idea as a prototype of perfection necessary to everything that is contingent and determined in our sensible world: what we can do to conciliate sensible experience with the Absolute Being is to presuppose an extra-phenomenal reality designated as transcendental object: we presuppose its existence but we cannot get to know it. Later, in Critique of Practical Reason, God is postulated (together with soul's immortality) as a condition of the supreme value of moral life, the Sovereign Good (union of virtue with happiness). Since in the sensible world moral conduct does not warrant proportional happiness, the virtuous ones has strong reasons to believe in the reparatory intervention of a superior power: God, as moral ideal and warranty of moral order. “Morality leads, inevitably, to religion, through which it (morality) extends over a moral Lawgiver”

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


The first command allows for the creation of universe wide not species specific morality. The second allows for superrational cooperation and the greatest good for all.

Jesus shared absolute truth here with the world. The depth of that truth is often poorly understood.

See: Music that Illuminates the Human Condition for more.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 20, 2019, 05:02:33 AM
Science Says: Religion Is Good For Your Health

Theologists, scientists and thought leaders have attempted for centuries to understand the impact that religion can have on human beings; both mentally and physically. And it is commonly accepted around that world that religion and spirituality are among the most important of cultural factors – giving structure and meaning to behaviors, value systems and experiences.

Thus, there is ample reason to believe that faith in a higher power is associated with health, and in a positive way. For example, researchers at the Mayo Clinic concluded, “Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness.”

Cool

It's not a surprise, it probably is. Believing you are going to heaven and that you are not dying for real it's a nice way to stop depression, anxiety, etc. The only problem is that it's not real.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 18, 2019, 10:09:19 PM
Science Says: Religion Is Good For Your Health

Theologists, scientists and thought leaders have attempted for centuries to understand the impact that religion can have on human beings; both mentally and physically. And it is commonly accepted around that world that religion and spirituality are among the most important of cultural factors – giving structure and meaning to behaviors, value systems and experiences.

Thus, there is ample reason to believe that faith in a higher power is associated with health, and in a positive way. For example, researchers at the Mayo Clinic concluded, “Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness.”

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 17, 2019, 12:56:24 PM

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?

All you are saying is falsehood and 100% falsehood. Religion is simply the thing that people do to comfort themselves because the future is scary otherwise. Science is the thing that people do to change their future. Science theory is the thing that people believe in when they can't find the answers in science.

In other words, science theory believed in is religion. Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable.

Cool

"Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable"

Can you name a specific example? In what way is your religion mofe reliable?

Modern science is a development of religion, religion which has been around way longer than science.

The development of the wheel was not a modern science development. More than likely it was done with the ideals of religion behind it. Certainly the people who developed it were way more religion minded than science minded. Yet science uses the wheel in one form or another in just about everything it does.

Science is simply another branch of religion.

Cool

Can you explain which religious ideals led to the invention of the wheel?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 17, 2019, 03:20:54 AM

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?

All you are saying is falsehood and 100% falsehood. Religion is simply the thing that people do to comfort themselves because the future is scary otherwise. Science is the thing that people do to change their future. Science theory is the thing that people believe in when they can't find the answers in science.

In other words, science theory believed in is religion. Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable.

Cool

"Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable"

Can you name a specific example? In what way is your religion mofe reliable?

Modern science is a development of religion, religion which has been around way longer than science.

The development of the wheel was not a modern science development. More than likely it was done with the ideals of religion behind it. Certainly the people who developed it were way more religion minded than science minded. Yet science uses the wheel in one form or another in just about everything it does.

Science is simply another branch of religion.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 17, 2019, 03:01:58 AM

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?

All you are saying is falsehood and 100% falsehood. Religion is simply the thing that people do to comfort themselves because the future is scary otherwise. Science is the thing that people do to change their future. Science theory is the thing that people believe in when they can't find the answers in science.

In other words, science theory believed in is religion. Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable.

Cool

"Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable"

Can you name a specific example? In what way is your religion mofe reliable?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 17, 2019, 02:55:51 AM

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?

All you are saying is falsehood and 100% falsehood. Religion is simply the thing that people do to comfort themselves because the future is scary otherwise. Science is the thing that people do to change their future. Science theory is the thing that people believe in when they can't find the answers in science.

In other words, science theory believed in is religion. Religion without science theory covers far more aspects of life, and is way more reliable.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 17, 2019, 02:41:09 AM

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.

Your stupidity is actually embarrassing. Everybody lives by faith, because nobody knows for a fact that something bad won't happen the next minute. We might have good guestimations. We might even have some good estimations on occasion. But we don't know. We all live by faith, but people like you don't even know what it is that we have faith in.

Cool

Rofl you just proved my point, as you said we might have guestimations and what not but we don't know which is exactly my point, faith does not lead to the truth and you just agreed with me lol.

I went way farther with your point than you said. The point of my point was to show you that everything that you suggested is the standard way that life works, not something that is unique to anybody or any group. You and I live by faith all the time. The difference is that I know wherein my faith is placed. Yours has a lot of holes in it, showing not that you don't have faith. But that you don't know the source of your own faith.

Cool

Knowing where your faith is doesn't make it real. You place your faith in the bible and others in other religions, again, faith is not discovering the truth, which is what really matters.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. Faith in God is the thing that shows truth that is most important. Faith is science shows some truth, but there is a whole lot of falsehood in science... like, science theory... like, Big Bang and Evolution Theories.

Cool

Some falsehood is far better than 100% invented stuff, dont you think?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 16, 2019, 06:46:07 PM

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.

Your stupidity is actually embarrassing. Everybody lives by faith, because nobody knows for a fact that something bad won't happen the next minute. We might have good guestimations. We might even have some good estimations on occasion. But we don't know. We all live by faith, but people like you don't even know what it is that we have faith in.

Cool

Rofl you just proved my point, as you said we might have guestimations and what not but we don't know which is exactly my point, faith does not lead to the truth and you just agreed with me lol.

I went way farther with your point than you said. The point of my point was to show you that everything that you suggested is the standard way that life works, not something that is unique to anybody or any group. You and I live by faith all the time. The difference is that I know wherein my faith is placed. Yours has a lot of holes in it, showing not that you don't have faith. But that you don't know the source of your own faith.

Cool

Knowing where your faith is doesn't make it real. You place your faith in the bible and others in other religions, again, faith is not discovering the truth, which is what really matters.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. Faith in God is the thing that shows truth that is most important. Faith is science shows some truth, but there is a whole lot of falsehood in science... like, science theory... like, Big Bang and Evolution Theories.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 16, 2019, 12:49:17 PM

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.

Your stupidity is actually embarrassing. Everybody lives by faith, because nobody knows for a fact that something bad won't happen the next minute. We might have good guestimations. We might even have some good estimations on occasion. But we don't know. We all live by faith, but people like you don't even know what it is that we have faith in.

Cool

Rofl you just proved my point, as you said we might have guestimations and what not but we don't know which is exactly my point, faith does not lead to the truth and you just agreed with me lol.

I went way farther with your point than you said. The point of my point was to show you that everything that you suggested is the standard way that life works, not something that is unique to anybody or any group. You and I live by faith all the time. The difference is that I know wherein my faith is placed. Yours has a lot of holes in it, showing not that you don't have faith. But that you don't know the source of your own faith.

Cool

Knowing where your faith is doesn't make it real. You place your faith in the bible and others in other religions, again, faith is not discovering the truth, which is what really matters.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 16, 2019, 12:26:11 PM

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.

Your stupidity is actually embarrassing. Everybody lives by faith, because nobody knows for a fact that something bad won't happen the next minute. We might have good guestimations. We might even have some good estimations on occasion. But we don't know. We all live by faith, but people like you don't even know what it is that we have faith in.

Cool

Rofl you just proved my point, as you said we might have guestimations and what not but we don't know which is exactly my point, faith does not lead to the truth and you just agreed with me lol.

I went way farther with your point than you said. The point of my point was to show you that everything that you suggested is the standard way that life works, not something that is unique to anybody or any group. You and I live by faith all the time. The difference is that I know wherein my faith is placed. Yours has a lot of holes in it, showing not that you don't have faith. But that you don't know the source of your own faith.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 16, 2019, 11:58:34 AM
I think one reason the irreligious have less children is they don't want to risk having children that they'd later find out they can't raise, especially since they don't believe there is a god to help them through it all. They are also more likely to be pro-abortion and birth control.

With regards to "overall" health, I think it boils down to the social network. Religion provide an extra set of network in addition to friends made from school, work, etc. There's more people to hold you accountable when you say stuff like "I'm gonna quit smoking". Also some religions have dietary restrictions (for example banning alcohol or coffee) and some traditionally have fasting periods (Ramadan, Lent, "vegan Fridays") whose effects might add up in the long run.

All correct points but I would suggest that you need to go beyond this analysis and look into what is it about the social network that promotes health. Clearly their can be unhealthy social networks that make their participants worse off. It depends on what the purpose and ultimate function of the network is.

Networks that promote cooperation towards a positive end are best. Networks the maximize cooperation and minimize defection are best.  

So what organizing frameworks achieves these goals? I have my own views on the matter as i have highlighted immediately above.
Pages:
Jump to: