Religion harms people.

Should religion come with a health warning?

you’re struggling to develop this angle I notice, it’s possible you may have taken it as far as it can go, you’ve reached the limits of your creativity on the subject

popper might have said something like, if you can’t find the answer your looking for, maybe you’re asking the wrong question

he brought science and philosophy together, didn’t sort of impoverish physicalism by confining it to just the workings or limits of his own mind

transition said:

you’re struggling to develop this angle I notice, it’s possible you may have taken it as far as it can go, you’ve reached the limits of your creativity on the subject

popper might have said something like, if you can’t find the answer your looking for, maybe you’re asking the wrong question

he brought science and philosophy together, didn’t sort of impoverish physicalism by confining it to just the workings or limits of his own mind

if you can’t find the answer you’re looking for, maybe you’re asking the wrong question

I added a little comma there above, contracted _you are_^

Tau.Neutrino said:

Religion harms people.

Should religion come with a health warning?

All habits should.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Religion harms people.

Should religion come with a health warning?

But does it? Does believing in Santa Claus harm children? What about the tooth fairy?

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

On the other hand I never did figure out cause and effect as to why such a high proportion of people in a psych hospital are Christian.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Religion harms people.

Should religion come with a health warning?

But does it? Does believing in Santa Claus harm children? What about the tooth fairy?

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

On the other hand I never did figure out cause and effect as to why such a high proportion of people in a psych hospital are Christian.

Believing in Santa Claus makes good consumers. As does the tooth fairy create a visualisation of how capitalism works.
Four years extra for abstaining from living life?
Then you were never patted on the derriere by a priest?

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Religion harms people.

Should religion come with a health warning?

But does it? Does believing in Santa Claus harm children? What about the tooth fairy?

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

On the other hand I never did figure out cause and effect as to why such a high proportion of people in a psych hospital are Christian.

Sanctioning harm under guise of religious freedom https://theaimn.com/sanctioning-harm-under-guise-of-religious-freedom/

When Attorney-General Christian Porter proposed to prioritise freedom of religion above all other human rights which are necessary for a fair, just and humane society, he gave an orange light to the most wicked entitlement and privilege. The Australian Government’s proposed Religious Freedom Bills are out for public consultation and if passed, create a plethora of unequal rights, where those who subscribe to religious beliefs are benefited above and beyond the rest of the community. The bills weaken existing protections for LGBTIQ+ people, women, people with disabilities, and those from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds, and potentially legalise hate speech.

mollwollfumble said:

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

really? or is rather people who go to religious services live longer? or just the act of meeting with like minded people?

https://time.com/5159848/do-religious-people-live-longer/

https://theaimn.com/sanctioning-harm-under-guise-of-religious-freedom/

Along with other religious organisations, the Catholic Church’s fierce advocacy for religious freedom to the detriment of other rights, goes against the universally accepted balance of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”), proclaimed in Paris on 10 December 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly, provides the key principles for a free, just, and peaceful society and sets out the proper balance between the freedom of religion and other human rights.

https://theaimn.com/sanctioning-harm-under-guise-of-religious-freedom/

Those of faith argue for religious freedom on the basis it is a human right, yet they fail to recognise that all human rights must be balanced. Where the exercise of one person’s human rights violates another, the line has been crossed. Where one person, in practicing their religion, denies another the ability to participate fully in community life and cultural practices, the line has been crossed.

The religious freedom laws will allow those of faith to treat people as second class citizens essentially on a whim, provided they can somehow tie it in with their religious beliefs.

Allowing greater religious freedom to the detriment of other fundamental human rights violates Article 30: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

When practicing one’s religion causes harm to other people, it is unacceptable.

Tau.Neutrino said:

When practicing one’s religion causes harm to other people, it is unacceptable.

This is otherwise known as terrorism.

https://theaimn.com/sanctioning-harm-under-guise-of-religious-freedom/

However it’s Tasmanian Archbishop Julian Porteous’s statement on 12 September 2019 which provides one of the most compelling arguments as to why the concept of the proposed laws is so repugnant. Archbishop Porteous, when publicly declaring that priests will not obey the new Tasmanian law mandating that priests report child sex abuse, reportedly stated that the law is ‘at odds with the Australian Government’s religious freedom push’.

Translated into layman’s terms, Archbishop Porteous’s position is that ‘religious freedom’ means ‘mates keeping vile secrets for mates’, while children suffer. Archbishop Porteous’s stance that reporting paedophiles violates his religious freedom is an unconscionable response to the Church being exposed as a repugnant organisation responsible for immeasurable human suffering.

Tau.Neutrino said:

https://theaimn.com/sanctioning-harm-under-guise-of-religious-freedom/

However it’s Tasmanian Archbishop Julian Porteous’s statement on 12 September 2019 which provides one of the most compelling arguments as to why the concept of the proposed laws is so repugnant. Archbishop Porteous, when publicly declaring that priests will not obey the new Tasmanian law mandating that priests report child sex abuse, reportedly stated that the law is ‘at odds with the Australian Government’s religious freedom push’.

Translated into layman’s terms, Archbishop Porteous’s position is that ‘religious freedom’ means ‘mates keeping vile secrets for mates’, while children suffer. Archbishop Porteous’s stance that reporting paedophiles violates his religious freedom is an unconscionable response to the Church being exposed as a repugnant organisation responsible for immeasurable human suffering.

That could be translated to mean paedophiles within the church want religious freedom to keep sexually abusing children, over 100,000 children around the world.

Paedophiles harm children.

Various religious ideologies also cause psychological harm to children and people with mental illness.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

When practicing one’s religion causes harm to other people, it is unacceptable.

This is otherwise known as terrorism.

Yes.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

When practicing one’s religion causes harm to other people, it is unacceptable.

This is otherwise known as terrorism.

Yes.

Is it terrorism if it only affects one person e.g. rape.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

This is otherwise known as terrorism.

Yes.

Is it terrorism if it only affects one person e.g. rape.

of course.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

When practicing one’s religion causes harm to other people, it is unacceptable.

This is otherwise known as terrorism.

Yes.

no.

i’d expect most religion is soft, given it exists well into the territory of unknowns, to some extent deals with unknowns, sort of a bridging faith

but, you know, like TV, TV news, enthusiasm for sport etc, the keen don’t advertise the reality most people aren’t watching it, aren’t into it, the fire of contagion hasn’t grabbed everyone

I note too, that constantly seeing the world from an anti-religion perspective is sort of projecting from the brand of religion, through association, even with a negative spin on it

I see this quite a bit, people still even with a negative angle on something grabbing some authority from what i’d call association with it

I could parade i’m anti-fascist, tie my self to the concept of fascism, the ways, sort of a foot on Hitler’s shoulder

Boris said:

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

Attached is a simple graph of “Irreligion” as defined by the Win/Gallup report of 2017 versus Life Expectancy per WHO. Irreligion is a big bucket of “atheist”, “agnostic”, “no religion”.
Not all countries are covered by the Win/Gallup report but there is a good coverage of countries in all regions and categories.

The red line is the line of best fit.
R-squared is 30%.

There’s a big cluster of countries around 83 life expectancy and 60% irreligion, and another big cluster around 70 life expectancy and 20% irreligion.

It’s likely that there are better fits to use than linear but the news is clear enough: life expectancy and irreligion are positively correlated on a national basis.

Interestingly, while there are some countries with high life expectancy and low irreligion, there are no countries with low life expectancy and high irreligion. Indeed the data almost fits in a wedge: barring a couple of outliers you can say that a nation’s life expectancy will be at least 50 plus the level of irreligion times 0.3

dv said:

Boris said:

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

Attached is a simple graph of “Irreligion” as defined by the Win/Gallup report of 2017 versus Life Expectancy per WHO. Irreligion is a big bucket of “atheist”, “agnostic”, “no religion”.
Not all countries are covered by the Win/Gallup report but there is a good coverage of countries in all regions and categories.

The red line is the line of best fit.
R-squared is 30%.

There’s a big cluster of countries around 83 life expectancy and 60% irreligion, and another big cluster around 70 life expectancy and 20% irreligion.

It’s likely that there are better fits to use than linear but the news is clear enough: life expectancy and irreligion are positively correlated on a national basis.

Interestingly, while there are some countries with high life expectancy and low irreligion, there are no countries with low life expectancy and high irreligion. Indeed the data almost fits in a wedge: barring a couple of outliers you can say that a nation’s life expectancy will be at least 50 plus the level of irreligion times 0.3

i didn’t say that, moll did.

Boris said:

i didn’t say that, moll did.

Yeah I know, sorry about the quote issue.

Will someone please explain how my relgion affects my healh? Someone?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Will someone please explain how my relgion affects my healh? Someone?

No.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Will someone please explain how my relgion affects my healh? Someone?

We don’t know you well enough to provide an individual assessment of that kind.

Boris said:

dv said:

Boris said:

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

Attached is a simple graph of “Irreligion” as defined by the Win/Gallup report of 2017 versus Life Expectancy per WHO. Irreligion is a big bucket of “atheist”, “agnostic”, “no religion”.
Not all countries are covered by the Win/Gallup report but there is a good coverage of countries in all regions and categories.

The red line is the line of best fit.
R-squared is 30%.

There’s a big cluster of countries around 83 life expectancy and 60% irreligion, and another big cluster around 70 life expectancy and 20% irreligion.

It’s likely that there are better fits to use than linear but the news is clear enough: life expectancy and irreligion are positively correlated on a national basis.

Interestingly, while there are some countries with high life expectancy and low irreligion, there are no countries with low life expectancy and high irreligion. Indeed the data almost fits in a wedge: barring a couple of outliers you can say that a nation’s life expectancy will be at least 50 plus the level of irreligion times 0.3

i didn’t say that, moll did.

I did. I’ll read the response later.

Fairly obviously, effect of country on life expectancy has sfa to do with religion.

mollwollfumble said:

Fairly obviously, effect of country on life expectancy has sfa to do with religion.

I suppose not all that is obvious is true so you’ll need to provide supporting data, as I’ve done.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Fairly obviously, effect of country on life expectancy has sfa to do with religion.

I suppose not all that is obvious is true so you’ll need to provide supporting data, as I’ve done.

https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59929/ellison_and_levin_1998.pdf

“The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence, Theory, and Future Directions”, Christopher G.Ellison, PhD Jeffrey S. Levin, PhD, MPH., Health Education & Behavior, 1998

“This article has three main objectives: (1) to briefly review the medical and epidemiologic research on religious factors and both physical health and mental health; (2) to identify the most promising explanatory mechanisms for religious effects on health, giving particular attention to the relationships between religious factors and the central constructs of the life stress paradigm, (3) etc.”

Knock yourself out.

“How strong is the empirical evidence linking religious involvement and health outcomes? In the late 1980s, a series of review articles summarized evidence concerning religious effects on morbidity and mortality to that point. These reviews drew on several hundred studies containing one or more religious indicators and one or more physical health outcomes. Taken together, they present convincing evidence that rates of morbidity and mortality vary across religions and religious denominations, as well as less, but still somewhat consistent, evidence that, on average, high levels of religious involvement are moderately associated with better health status. etc.”

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Fairly obviously, effect of country on life expectancy has sfa to do with religion.

I suppose not all that is obvious is true so you’ll need to provide supporting data, as I’ve done.

https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59929/ellison_and_levin_1998.pdf

“The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence, Theory, and Future Directions”, Christopher G.Ellison, PhD Jeffrey S. Levin, PhD, MPH., Health Education & Behavior, 1998

“This article has three main objectives: (1) to briefly review the medical and epidemiologic research on religious factors and both physical health and mental health; (2) to identify the most promising explanatory mechanisms for religious effects on health, giving particular attention to the relationships between religious factors and the central constructs of the life stress paradigm, (3) etc.”

Knock yourself out.

“How strong is the empirical evidence linking religious involvement and health outcomes? In the late 1980s, a series of review articles summarized evidence concerning religious effects on morbidity and mortality to that point. These reviews drew on several hundred studies containing one or more religious indicators and one or more physical health outcomes. Taken together, they present convincing evidence that rates of morbidity and mortality vary across religions and religious denominations, as well as less, but still somewhat consistent, evidence that, on average, high levels of religious involvement are moderately associated with better health status. etc.”

The hypothesis is that:

• Stress has a negative effect on health, and religion reduces stress.
• Active participation in religion provides a group of friends to support you through times of physical and mental difficulty.

The word “ministry” is used to describe the positive effect of support on health. And yes, the word has given us government minister, religious minister, and administration.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Fairly obviously, effect of country on life expectancy has sfa to do with religion.

I suppose not all that is obvious is true so you’ll need to provide supporting data, as I’ve done.

https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59929/ellison_and_levin_1998.pdf

“The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence, Theory, and Future Directions”, Christopher G.Ellison, PhD Jeffrey S. Levin, PhD, MPH., Health Education & Behavior, 1998

“This article has three main objectives: (1) to briefly review the medical and epidemiologic research on religious factors and both physical health and mental health; (2) to identify the most promising explanatory mechanisms for religious effects on health, giving particular attention to the relationships between religious factors and the central constructs of the life stress paradigm, (3) etc.”

Knock yourself out.

“How strong is the empirical evidence linking religious involvement and health outcomes? In the late 1980s, a series of review articles summarized evidence concerning religious effects on morbidity and mortality to that point. These reviews drew on several hundred studies containing one or more religious indicators and one or more physical health outcomes. Taken together, they present convincing evidence that rates of morbidity and mortality vary across religions and religious denominations, as well as less, but still somewhat consistent, evidence that, on average, high levels of religious involvement are moderately associated with better health status. etc.”

not sure what the health status of deceased are, given there’s no illness after death, no possibility of illness, or another death, you could rank death as the ultimate good health. I guess one could argue from the idea of premature deaths, and what caused them. The God of extended life would make a bold appearance in the figures

reminds me that medicalization can be seen as religion, the OP demonstrates that I reckon. A secular heathen consulting the craft of the modern witchdoctors, weaving it into politics

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I suppose not all that is obvious is true so you’ll need to provide supporting data, as I’ve done.

https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59929/ellison_and_levin_1998.pdf

“The Religion-Health Connection: Evidence, Theory, and Future Directions”, Christopher G.Ellison, PhD Jeffrey S. Levin, PhD, MPH., Health Education & Behavior, 1998

“This article has three main objectives: (1) to briefly review the medical and epidemiologic research on religious factors and both physical health and mental health; (2) to identify the most promising explanatory mechanisms for religious effects on health, giving particular attention to the relationships between religious factors and the central constructs of the life stress paradigm, (3) etc.”

Knock yourself out.

“How strong is the empirical evidence linking religious involvement and health outcomes? In the late 1980s, a series of review articles summarized evidence concerning religious effects on morbidity and mortality to that point. These reviews drew on several hundred studies containing one or more religious indicators and one or more physical health outcomes. Taken together, they present convincing evidence that rates of morbidity and mortality vary across religions and religious denominations, as well as less, but still somewhat consistent, evidence that, on average, high levels of religious involvement are moderately associated with better health status. etc.”

not sure what the health status of deceased are, given there’s no illness after death, no possibility of illness, or another death, you could rank death as the ultimate good health. I guess one could argue from the idea of premature deaths, and what caused them. The God of extended life would make a bold appearance in the figures

reminds me that medicalization can be seen as religion, the OP demonstrates that I reckon. A secular heathen consulting the craft of the modern witchdoctors, weaving it into politics

So there isn’t life after death, in heaven or in hell?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Will someone please explain how my relgion affects my healh? Someone?

https://theaimn.com/sanctioning-harm-under-guise-of-religious-freedom/

transition said:

you’re struggling to develop this angle I notice, it’s possible you may have taken it as far as it can go, you’ve reached the limits of your creativity on the subject

popper might have said something like, if you can’t find the answer your looking for, maybe you’re asking the wrong question

he brought science and philosophy together, didn’t sort of impoverish physicalism by confining it to just the workings or limits of his own mind

Your using pretence as a put down again, you have a habit of doing that.

3 presumptions in one post

>Your using pretence as a put down again, you have a habit of doing that

don’t mind me, I assume a few things, I don’t inhabit the assumptions permanently, make them a home

you can go with put down, swing that way, see it that way, entirely your choice

I do soliloquize a lot, the internal monologue leaks out

technically, recombining DNA, gestation, birth and life thereafter are so evidently high risk, so exceed any damage done by religion, that recombining DNA ought be considered a potential health hazard

Tau.Neutrino said:

Religion harms people.

Should religion come with a health warning?

Welcome to infantile philosophy pre-study.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Religion harms people.

Should religion come with a health warning?

But does it? Does believing in Santa Claus harm children? What about the tooth fairy?

People with religion live longer – that’s an indisputable fact.

On the other hand I never did figure out cause and effect as to why such a high proportion of people in a psych hospital are Christian.

They may live longer because they are religious and have fellowship for help and the religion promotes moderation so they are less likely to drink alcohol, smoke, take illicit drugs and eat poorly. If you could compare that with people who look after themselves and have help especially into old age would being religious make any difference.

Are the Christian or just have your standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons

Cymek said:

Are the Christian or just have your standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons

This sentence needs work.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Are the Christian or just have your standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons

This sentence needs work.

“I talk to God. I call him Kevin”, Steven Wright

I think for good mental health it is good to talk so someone who listens. And if there isn’t anyone handy who does, then an invisible friend who doesn’t talk back suffices.

If the invisible friend talks back then that’s a negative.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Are the Christian or just have your standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons

This sentence needs work.

“Are the Christian or just have your work standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons”

how’s that?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Are the Christian or just have your standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons

This sentence needs work.

Yes

Are they Christians or do they just hear voices they say are god, Satan, angels, demons, etc which are mostly Christian deities and get classified as being Christian but aren’t. I have thought what separates a respected church leader who claims to hear god and some nutter.

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Are the Christian or just have your standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons

This sentence needs work.

Yes

Are they Christians or do they just hear voices they say are god, Satan, angels, demons, etc which are mostly Christian deities and get classified as being Christian but aren’t. I have thought what separates a respected church leader who claims to hear god and some nutter.

I did a work placement at Graylands many years ago and their was a number of your standard I hear voices people who would say it was one of those I mentioned above. I suppose with Christianity being the dominant Western religion people would use those spirits as the ones talking to them.

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Are the Christian or just have your standard voices talk to me its god, satan, angels, demons

This sentence needs work.

“I talk to God. I call him Kevin”, Steven Wright

I think for good mental health it is good to talk so someone who listens. And if there isn’t anyone handy who does, then an invisible friend who doesn’t talk back suffices.

If the invisible friend talks back then that’s a negative.

mix’t a up bit, who’s never given their internal monologue another voice, just one voice can get really tedious

people that listen can be dangerous, their internal muppet show’s not working, their stereotypes lonely and ineffectual, muppets by contrast are safe company, and happy they have a real friend, you