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.
It's completely different subject matter. Maybe start your own thread on it?
The post was partly in response to your post. You mentioned your well-being in association with your belief system. I recanted how I had always thought atheists were among the physically fit members of society, but I had no proof.
For what it's worth, it's a peer-approved scientific article. `
Religious belief or the lack of, and its effect on mental health, has always been part of psychological analysis and threapy and has now become even more important.
For some odd reason, I've always thought atheists were more physically fit than most of society. After a quick search, I found an abstract from the National Institutes of Health that addresses the notion.
Religious non-affiliates did not differ overall from affiliates in terms of physical health outcomes (although atheists and agnostics did have better health on some individual measures including BMI, number of chronic conditions, and physical limitations), but had worse positive psychological functioning characteristics, social support relationships, and health behaviors. On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference. If current trends in the religious composition of the population continue, these results have implications for its future healthcare needs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26743877/
Yes, people including atheists are not always healthy, and religion provides social support, so naturally the socially religious have a slight benefit over those atheists who do not socialize. But there are spiritual practices that sell bogus 'cures', and there are some religions that reject some modern practices, such as the JWs and blood transfusions.
The picture is complicated, and one must be careful about correlations and alleged causation.
One of the reasons I think those outside of religion may be better physically fit is how certain religious schools of thought have interpreted religious doctrines and made declarations for their adherents. For example, 1 Timothy 4:4 is utilized by many to consume a see-food diet which often leads to poor health. Those outside of (certain) religions may be more apt to realize that high-cholesterol foodstuffs are unsafe and nothing will magically reduce their LDLs.
I thought about pasting the results but they go on for more than 4 pages, so it is best if you read it for yourselves.
However this section seems to summarise things somewhat:
Quote:
A striking finding was that, contrary to predictions,the overall multivariate results indicated no significant group differences in health outcomes, whereas the means estimates for its constituent elements indicated tha tindividuals with religious affiliations tended to do somewhat worse in terms of
some physical health outcomes than members of the non-affiliated groups. These differences emerged
even after controlling for disparities that might be expected to arise due to age, gender, race, education,
and region.One possible interpretation of these findings might be that people with more health problems
are more likely to be motivated to become affiliated with a religious group as a means of coping and
support. Alternatively, religious affiliates may be less likely to seek health care, perhaps due to a
tendency to defer health-related control to God (Schieman, 2008), or because of group-specific
prohibitions in groups like Christian Scientists (Simpson, 1989). The collection of longitudinal data on
health and religious affiliation will be helpful in testing these hypothesis.
However, consistent with expectations, the same affiliated group appeared to do better in terms
of psychological well-being, health behaviors, social relationships, and dimensions of positive
psychological functioning.These differences are particularly remarkable in the context of the findings
that atheists and agnostics in particular tend to fare better on certain key dimensions of physical health
(obesity, presence of chronic conditions, and physical limitations). This fact would otherwise seem
likely to reduce religious individuals’ well-being and opportunities to engage in social relationships in
comparison to these relatively advantaged non-affiliates. These findings support previous evidence
regarding some of the functional aspects of religious involvement. Psychological well-being effects may
be indicative of the impact of psychological coping resourcesprovidedby religious beliefs (Pargament,
1997). Health behaviors may be improved as a result of the social control exercised by specific tenets of
religious belief (Ayers et al., 2009; Montgomery et al., 2007), or by more general self-control impacts of
religion (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Social benefits are likely to accrue due to the availability of
support networks based in religious communities (Krause, 2006a), in which both receiving and giving
emotional support has been found to positively impact individuals’ health outcomes (Brown, Nesse,
Vinokur, & Smith, 2003). The positive psychology impacts of religion are less fully-researched and
more contentious, but these findings may lend some support to the notion thatreligious groups can
inculcate characteristics that have been termed “character virtues”.
It is worth noting that in a study of 3010 individuals, only 83 people in the study were atheists. I'm not sure if this is proportionate to the general population.
I thought about pasting the results but they go on for more than 4 pages, so it is best if you read it for yourselves.
However this section seems to summarise things somewhat:
It is worth noting that in a study of 3010 individuals, only 83 people in the study were atheists. I'm not sure if this is proportionate to the general population.
Mental health is another benefit religion yields by providing pathways to spirituality which helps resilience in the face of adversity. Strength, courage, and effort come from within, not form outside of us. The findings only support what believers always knew, just as science keeps discovering what ancient sages knew.
Ha, well, atheists are less likely to have some kind of belief in supernatural healing.I’m am atheist who has no belief in anything supernatural, so science and doctors are where I go for health. However, I was formerly a Christian and I did back then take to praying when I began having health issues. I am not the healthiest of people even though NOW I am going to doctors for my issues.
It is worth noting that in a study of 3010 individuals, only 83 people in the study were atheists. I'm not sure if this is proportionate to the general population.
That's about 2.75%, which is probably in the ballpark. But it doesn't change that 83 is a small sample from which to draw conclusions, compared to the religious sample.
That's about 2.75%, which is probably in the ballpark. But it doesn't change that 83 is a small sample from which to draw conclusions, compared to the religious sample.
Sample size depends on the diversity within the population. It just needs to contain a randomly acquired sufficient number of each variety to estimate an error term. Sampling error can be estimated quite accurately with small samples even for very large populations.
Sample size depends on the diversity within the population. It just needs to contain a randomly acquired sufficient number of each variety to estimate an error term. Sampling error can be estimated quite accurately with small samples even for very large populations.
Yes but I'd feel better with a few hundred atheists rather than relying on non-randomness creeping into their recruitment. Is 83 "sufficient"? Maybe to a statistician, assuming it's truly a random sampling. IDK. Not my field. Are the atheists self-identified or vetted to some agreed definition? How many are deconverts vs lifers? I would think these things would matter.
I'm not saying the study is invalid, just that I'd rather see a bigger sample. Probably just an idle thought, given that atheists just aren't a huge percentage of the populace.
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.
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.
