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.
The study that started this debate (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a8396866.html) could have been slanted (I quote): "For the study, a team of Ohio University academics, including associate professor of psychology Christian End, analysed more than 1,500 obituaries from across the US to piece together how the defining features of our lives affect our longevity." The article goes on to explain what they looked for in those obituaries: "These records include religious affiliations and marriage details as well as information on activities, hobbies and habits, which can help or hinder our health, not otherwise captured in census data."
To become an agnostic or atheist many of us questioned our religious leaders and teachings. So it is natural for us to question polls or studies. We realize that there are people and groups that have a vested interest in studies that bring validity to their choice or claims. I have seen many obituaries in our newspapers over the years and, to me, it does not look like any scientific means to base any research. The pillars of our communities get top billing in many of these obituaries. Much of what is printed it is like their attempt to seek an easy way into their heaven; even though we know much of what was said is simply PR. People that die, without money and power, are given very brief lines in our papers.
Agnostics and atheist could have nothing to do with this study based on obituaries. Many of the poor, that died young with no apparent religious affiliation, could have been drug users or lived a risky lifestyle. The ones that overdosed or succumbed from sexually transmitted diseases seem to get overlooked when it comes to their fair share of the 'press'. But they would be lumped together with non-believers and, thus, bring down the life expectance of all non-believers.
I just think that we need better information if anybody is going to 'prove' any point about longevity and religion.
Well, while it is quite interesting to examine the reasons why God -believers seem to get a few more years extra life, the fact remains that I wouldn't swap my freedom from religion (or indeed belief in dubious supernatural claims) for four years of life of doubtful value.
Posting pictures of a 90 year old with the bod and flexibility of a teenage poledancer is no doubt a consummation devoutly to be wished, but I doubt that god -belief is going to give you that rather than assiduous exercise.
Thats been my point. God isnt giving years out as a reward, something about the lifestyle of religious people have the side benefit of adding quality years to your life. Could this be duplicated for non religious people? Certainly, if we take the time to learn from it rather than dismiss it because it upsets atheist sensibilities.
I was discussing my Grandfather, as it refuted Super Soul's position.
Nothing to do with ANYTHING I wrote.
My point was that those extra four years COULD be four more years of misery, as it would have been for my Grandfather.
Apart from showing your general studies does not apply to every case.
Actually your post about your grandfather quoted me a number of times, but we are all of us talking about the same subject matter regardless . And nothing in the study suggests that the results apply to every single case. Few studies ever do. No one expects it to. But one case does not refute a study involving large numbers of people either. The point applies across the entire population, not one individual.
Last edited by wallflash; 08-25-2018 at 07:51 AM..
It all depends on who is surveyed in these studies. People that overdose and are wrapped up in a risky lifestyle are counted as non-believers and there is a good chance they are going to die first. They can very easily tell others that they are believers; but they would hang out on the street corner instead of going to church.
Now you take affluent church goers and they have insurance or the money to take care of themselves and seek the best possible medical treatment. There is a good chance they would live longer.
But this is speculation on the other surveys. You need specifics and you always have to question where they got their figures. Never forget that religion has a vested interest in getting and keeping believers. It is like in the last election some of the polls were off considerably. The reason they were off is because they were asking other Democrats and not the general voting population. Besides that; there was/is no way to measure 'conviction'.
It all depends on who is surveyed in these studies. People that overdose and are wrapped up in a risky lifestyle are counted as non-believers and there is a good chance they are going to die first. They can very easily tell others that they are believers; but they would hang out on the street corner instead of going to church.
Now you take affluent church goers and they have insurance or the money to take care of themselves and seek the best possible medical treatment. There is a good chance they would live longer.
But this is speculation on the other surveys. You need specifics and you always have to question where they got their figures. Never forget that religion has a vested interest in getting and keeping believers. It is like in the last election some of the polls were off considerably. The reason they were off is because they were asking other Democrats and not the general voting population. Besides that; there was/is no way to measure 'conviction'.
*shrug*
Seems to me the smart thing to do would be to try and find out if the study could provide benefit to non theists by finding out the reasons why, rather than search for ways to dismiss the studies (plural) . But to each his own. I maintain it has nothing directly to do with belief but rather with the lifestyle, social and support aspects , and so can be easily adjusted to benefit non theists as well. Others , it seems, instinctively recoil at and reject anything that seems to show a positive on the part of religion , simply because religion touches the subject somehow.
Last edited by wallflash; 08-25-2018 at 07:47 AM..
I didn't get the impression that anyone was dismissing the studies, rather 'what can we get from that'. The Theist take is "Four years more life; Theism good; atheism, bad." Any looking at it to see what 'it can tall us' is what is being dismissed. " No, you have to accept what the theists get from it. Anything else is 'dismissing the evidence'.
Seems to me the smart thing to do would be to try and find out if the study could provide benefit to non theists by finding out the reasons why, rather than search for ways to dismiss the studies (plural) . But to each his own. I maintain it has nothing directly to do with belief but rather with the lifestyle, social and support aspects , and so can be easily adjusted to benefit non theists as well. Others , it seems, instinctively recoil at and reject anything that seems to show a positive on the part of religion , simply because religion touches the subject somehow.
Which is basically what I have been saying. If we could prove that reciting mantras 10 times a day improves ones chances of longevity; great! It is this notion that if you do pray you will receive five extra years that I am against without serious studies. What are you praying for, how long, to whom, are you serious or do you just want the extra time? If I say ten times a day: I believe in oblivion; does that count for my extra five?
To me the extra five are silly. By the time you reach your 70's most of us are prepared for the end. If we get extra time; fine (as long as we are not suffering). Our younger years were the ones that we had to really enjoy life (although it is hard to while one is working). In the grand scheme of things what is five years or even a lifetime?
I didn't get the impression that anyone was dismissing the studies, rather 'what can we get from that'. The Theist take is "Four years more life; Theism good; atheism, bad." Any looking at it to see what 'it can tall us' is what is being dismissed. " No, you have to accept what the theists get from it. Anything else is 'dismissing the evidence'.
Actually I would say that some immediately jumping to the "who cares, they'll just be sucky years full of misery " response indicates animosity to the study simply because it seemed a small plus for the religion side , which is just as bad to me as the "theism good because it makes you live longer " take on it.
Reasoned thought suggests that religion might be conducive to a healthier physical and mental lifestyle, and that we could learn from this .
As to the benefit of 4 more years, as a grandfather approaching 60, I would love 4 more years of good health to spend with my grandkids and possibly see some great grandkids . My elderly relatives have been absolutely overjoyed with spending time with the 4th generation down . In addition, for most these extra years will be years of leisure free from the 9-5 grind . Time to fish and play golf as some of my friends do, to travel around to festivals and avoid the heat and cold as others do . If I was given an extra 4 years I would certainly want them to be years I didn't have to get up at 5 every day to go to work
The study that started this debate (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a8396866.html) could have been slanted (I quote): "For the study, a team of Ohio University academics, including associate professor of psychology Christian End, analysed more than 1,500 obituaries from across the US to piece together how the defining features of our lives affect our longevity." The article goes on to explain what they looked for in those obituaries: "These records include religious affiliations and marriage details as well as information on activities, hobbies and habits, which can help or hinder our health, not otherwise captured in census data."
To become an agnostic or atheist many of us questioned our religious leaders and teachings. So it is natural for us to question polls or studies. We realize that there are people and groups that have a vested interest in studies that bring validity to their choice or claims. I have seen many obituaries in our newspapers over the years and, to me, it does not look like any scientific means to base any research. The pillars of our communities get top billing in many of these obituaries. Much of what is printed it is like their attempt to seek an easy way into their heaven; even though we know much of what was said is simply PR. People that die, without money and power, are given very brief lines in our papers.
Agnostics and atheist could have nothing to do with this study based on obituaries. Many of the poor, that died young with no apparent religious affiliation, could have been drug users or lived a risky lifestyle. The ones that overdosed or succumbed from sexually transmitted diseases seem to get overlooked when it comes to their fair share of the 'press'. But they would be lumped together with non-believers and, thus, bring down the life expectance of all non-believers.
I just think that we need better information if anybody is going to 'prove' any point about longevity and religion.
And I'll say what I would say about any topic studied -- okay, that's one poll. Now let's see corroborating studies. That's what we do in medicine and the rest of "real" science.
However, to me the fault in the study is that it was impossible to control for other variables. A good study tackles one variable. But, it's clear from the study that the Buddhist religion/philosophy is best (see how we can use a study like that to say what we want?).
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.
