Atheists and health (morality, origin, moral, best)

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

Peer-reviewed doesn't mean "accepted science". It means others within the discipline reviewed it for methodological issues and the like. There's very little in science that is "accepted" in way of it just being accepted as fact and not open to discussion given new and rigorous studies.

A correlational study may be done correctly and contributes knowledge, but not to the same level as a study using a control group that can show causality. Please read up on different types of research and the conclusions that can be drawn from each.

"A word to the wise."

[Hayle White]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

Peer-reviewed doesn't mean "accepted science". It means others within the discipline reviewed it for methodological issues and the like. There's very little in science that is "accepted" in way of it just being accepted as fact and not open to discussion given new and rigorous studies.

A correlational study may be done correctly and contributes knowledge, but not to the same level as a study using a control group that can show causality. Please read up on different types of research and the conclusions that can be drawn from each.

I take it that you are among those who were offended by the second half of the study. The study's evidence speaks for itself.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Hayle White

I take it that you are among those who were offended by the second half of the study. The study's evidence speaks for itself.

it is the case of a mindset which claims to be evidence based and rational and relies on data and science.
except when they don't like what the data shows.
and then they don't like evidence at all, no matter how credible the source is.
and the thin veneer of purported rationality goes out the window.

this happens regularly on CD.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

it is the case of a mindset which claims to be evidence based and rational and relies on data.
except when they don't like what the data shows.
and then they don't like evidence at all, no matter how credible the source is.

this happens regularly on CD.

No, what usually happens is the religious misrepresent the study, or ignore the valid point being made, of fail to see the problem with the study.

That happens all the time.

[reneeh63]

Originally Posted by Hayle White

I take it that you are among those who were offended by the second half of the study. The study's evidence speaks for itself.

"Offended"? Not if it's a good study - I guess you were offended by the first half regarding physical health?

I can cherry-pick with the best of 'em - what about there being no sig. difference in fear of death? I'd expect believers to be far less anxious than atheists.

[Hayle White]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

"Offended"? Not if it's a good study - I guess you were offended by the first half regarding physical health?

I can cherry-pick with the best of 'em - what about there being no sig. difference in fear of death? I'd expect believers to be far less anxious than atheists.

So, I supposedly represent the theist, you represent the atheist, and I have a fear of death? I didn't get that understanding from the posted study, so you will have to fight with yourself. These types of posts only serve to reinforce what the study concluded. Carry on.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Hayle White

So, I supposedly represent the theist, you represent the atheist, and I have a fear of death? I didn't get that understanding from the posted study, so you will have to fight with yourself. These types of posts only serve to reinforce what the study concluded. Carry on.

Considering you were corrected about the study with regard to sample size, content, and the difference between religious affiliation and religious belief, I doubt you have actually read the paper.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by Metamorphosis69

Baptist - Christians from let's say Kentucky love 12 pack of Mountain Dew.

From the perspective of an European these people are underclass.

In their defense, that stuff is addicting. My husband got off it only to have them lure him back with delicious new flavors.

[Hayle White]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Considering you were corrected about the study with regard to sample size, content, and the difference between religious affiliation and religious belief, I doubt you have actually read the paper.

Harry's rulebook: 1.) Try to make it personal when all else fails.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by mordant

That doesn't mean either that some people don't try to make me their victim, or to define me on their terms, or that I should not reject those attempts. What would make me a victim is passive acceptance of other people's judgments and demands (you are unworthy, you should shut up and go away, etc).

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

It depends on who you’re fighting or for what purpose. If every Joe Blow on the internet can rile you (relative to their personal opinion of atheism or religion), that’s (going to be) a problem regarding your psychological health - and perhaps physical health as well.

Key point being, your ‘worthiness’ does not/should not rely on others. There’s a huge difference between fighting for something (relative to the community or law) vs. fighting a personal opinion to defend one’s ego. Do you think (healthy) atheists, as a whole, make everything a personal battle relative to our professional and social lives? Of course we don’t. :-)

Originally Posted by LearnMe

At a bare minimum, however, simply to reply to any comment demonstrates some level of emotion or the inspiration for the reply and the reply itself would never be posted or expressed in the first place...

It’s not about simple replies; rather, per the thread, my point is relative to anger/personal battles and viewing oneself as a victim (per Mordant, above) if one ‘passively accepts’ another’s view or judgment (or they perceive it as a demand, for that matter). In other words, a psychologically healthy person will not be affected i.e. they do accept others’ beliefs (no matter how nonsensical or wrong they may be); in fact, they are able to laugh-it-off or simply address it matter-of-factly vs. aggressively posturing to defend one’s ego. Key point being, they know what others think has no relevance to their life/happiness/wellness. Regarding (psychological) health, it is necessary to distinguish that which matters (as a society and relative to law or personal safety) vs. individual belief/opinion (and how anger affects health relative to such, per the thread).

Originally Posted by LearnMe

As I have been considering your comments in much the same way, I am forever having difficulty figuring out your "bottom line."

My ‘bottom line’ or point being, atheism is not the problem relative to the thread i.e. we simply don’t believe in the existence of any gods. As such, atheism can’t be blamed for a lack of compassion, morality, (psychological) health or anything else, for that matter. Much of health is relative to genetics anyway; and it certainly is no secret uncontrolled/unresolved anger can have long-term physical and emotional effects on one’s health (and life), no matter what they believe in or not.