Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2014, 11:53 AM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,098,228 times
Reputation: 2014

Advertisements

Now you're just making an ad hominem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2014, 11:55 AM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,098,228 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm not sure now whether you were saying the author of the book wasn't a good authority or Dawkins (who reviewed the book) wasn't.
I'm saying Dawkins isn't an authority. He is not a good thinker in terms of philosophy and theology. I've read his book, and the arguments he uses were defeated years ago. He brought nothing new to the table.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 12:44 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Now you're just making an ad hominem.
Yes perhaps we are. But we have seen examples of your dismissing as untrue what you happen not to want to believe, never mind the evidence. So we wonder whether you are not merely doing the same thing here in rubbishing either the Book or Dawkins or both. Without, I might observe, actually making a case for your view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I'm saying Dawkins isn't an authority. He is not a good thinker in terms of philosophy and theology. I've read his book, and the arguments he uses were defeated years ago. He brought nothing new to the table.
Were they really? I have to say that I have never read Dawkins, (though I have seen a dew you -tube discussions and debates about his arguments) but I should be fascinated to see a thread where you set out the refutations of the points he makes. I have never up to now seen any sound refutation of his arguments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 12:48 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,098,228 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Yes perhaps we are. But we have seen examples of your dismissing as untrue what you happen not to want to believe, never mind the evidence. So we wonder whether you are not merely doing the same thing here in rubbishing either the Book or Dawkins or both. Without, I might observe, actually making a case for your view.

I honestly believe Dawkins is not a great theological or philosophical mind. He brought no new arguments up in his book....nothing that hasn't been dealt with and dismissed by greater theological minds than him. That was my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Well, he is a biologist not a theologian, but you may remember a point about Nye, the science guy. He is an engineer, so I gather, not a scientist, but his arguments about science stood up very well against creationism, because they were good.

Dawkins doesn't have to be a theologian to come up with some good arguments. But it is possible that some of his arguments didn't go far enough. Maybe I could do better.

I haven't seen Dawkins' review of the book, and it's irrelevant anyway, though it would be egg on his face if the survey turned out to be flawed. But so far, that isn't shown. What is shown is that some theists don't want to accept the findings of the book and are simply rubbishing it (and dawkins) on the basis of insufficient credentials.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2014, 06:38 PM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,344,365 times
Reputation: 2988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyzbo View Post
I really appreciated this study as it was double-blind, had a large sample size, and was extremely scientific. I was wondering if there were any other great studies around religion and it's effect.
LOADS.

And in both directions.

And much of it depends on what you mean by "religion" and "effect".

My advice for you is to do a course..... 4 years if you have the time..... but if not at least read books on.... epidemiology..... and learn how to read, interpret and even DO a "good" study.

There are studies in the world that prove whatever you want them to prove. The skill is in learning to read such studies and spotting validity and flaws.

As I said I recommend a 4 year course..... but anyone reading the thread as a TOTAL lay man I strongly..... and I mean strongly in that if i was made master of the planet tomorrow my first decree would be to put this book on the preteen school curriculum of every child on the planet...... recommend you read the book "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre. And then try to read every single source he cites in the back pages.

Asking for a study is like asking random people for "good music". You will get lots of recommendations. But until you understand or learn about music and music theory..... you will never quite sift through the recommendations either.

Or to use a more base analogy.... ask a blind man for a color scheme for your bedroom. Then "cure" his blindness and ask him again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 04:19 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Yes. In fact 'good music' is a very relative term and personal taste is justified. Personal science is not 'you are not entitled to your own facts' as they say.

While conducting a study can be done scientifically or methodically at least - avoiding biased sample or loded questions, the subject itself can be open to interpretation.

Religion and its effects' covers a lot of water..or maybe ground. I suppose I need someone to read the book and Dawkins' review and report back. I don't have time, right now and really I don't read books arguing for atheism or against religion. I'm trying to write one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,769 posts, read 13,299,066 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike View Post
... and the counterpoint here: Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey - RationalWiki

The thing is that atheists are a much smaller minority of the population, so even if they are actually losing such a high percentage from childhood to adulthood, it's about 700,000 atheists becoming unambiguously religious as over against 35 million Christians becoming non-religious (with some of those being atheists, I'm willing to bet, far more than 700,000). The percentages look sucky, but the raw numbers tell another story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 03:21 PM
 
1,292 posts, read 3,457,867 times
Reputation: 1430
Atheists turn to a greater belief in "science" as a substitute for religion during periods of high stress, which may be part of an overall human tendency to increase one's dependence on a personal worldview in times of anxiety.

A team of psychologists led by Miguel Farias at the University of Oxford asked 52 rowers to fill in a "belief in science" questionnaire just before taking part in a competitive regatta. They gave the same test – in which participants had to score statements such as "science is the most valuable part of human culture" – to a similar number of rowers at a training session. The questionnaire also assessed self-reported stress levels and degree of religious belief.

Farias and colleagues discovered that those about to race were both more stressed, and rated their belief in science 14 per cent higher than those who were simply training.

Some caveats: the effect was modest, the team didn't measure whether the rowers' stress levels went down, and the subjects – competitive athletes who follow a rational training regime – are probably already scientifically minded. However, the findings reflect a growing body of psychological evidence that people find comfort in times of threat by moving closer to certain aspects of their world view – conservatives become more conservative, for example, liberals more liberal, religious believers more devout.

Atheists turn to science during times of stress - science-in-society - 07 June 2013 - New Scientist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 03:22 PM
 
1,292 posts, read 3,457,867 times
Reputation: 1430
A new study suggests belief in God may significantly improve the outcome of those receiving short-term treatment for psychiatric illness.

Researchers followed patients receiving care from a hospital-based behavioral health program to investigate the relationship between patients’ level of belief in God, expectations for treatment and actual treatment outcomes.

In the study, published in the current issue of Journal of Affective Disorders, researchers comment that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without.

“Belief was associated with not only improved psychological well-being, but decreases in depression and intention to self-harm,” says David H. Rosmarin, Ph.D., an instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

The study looked at 159 patients, recruited over a one-year period. Each participant was asked to gauge their belief in God as well as their expectations for treatment outcome and emotion regulation, each on a five-point scale.

Levels of depression, well-being, and self-harm were assessed at the beginning and end of their treatment program.

Of the patients sampled, more than 30 percent claimed no specific religious affiliation yet still saw the same benefits in treatment if their belief in a higher power was rated as moderately or very high.

Patients with “no” or only “slight” belief in God were twice as likely not to respond to treatment as patients with higher levels of belief.

Investigators believe the study demonstrates that a belief in God is associated with improved treatment outcomes in psychiatric care.

“More centrally, our results suggest that belief in the credibility of psychiatric treatment and increased expectations to gain from treatment might be mechanisms by which belief in God can impact treatment outcomes.”

Investigators hope that the study will lead to additional investigation on the clinical implication of spirtual life as more than 90 percent of the U.S. population hold religious beliefs.

Belief in God Can Improve Mental Health Outcomes | Psych Central News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top