Belief in God correlated with better mental health outcomes

[fgalkin]

Hey dipshit, when we get a ton of stories of vegans killing their kids through neglect while being protected by law and blowing people up based on veganism you might have a point. Right now you're just a flailing shortbus resident.

Define "a ton?" Does this count? What about this? This?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey dipshit, when we get a ton of stories of vegans killing their kids through neglect while being protected by law and blowing people up based on veganism you might have a point. Right now you're just a flailing shortbus resident.

Hey, congratulations, you just demonstrated you lack reading comprehension IN ADDITION to owning a flimsy grasp of how basic logic operates. But, yeah, flaming is basically the same thing as presenting evidence.

Now, if you can figure out how to pull your head out of your own ass and actually read my post instead of knee-jerking a flame as you usually do, answer me this. Does the existence of the Ku Klux Klan indicate: A) all white people are evil; or B) there are crazy, evil fuckers that are also white? (Oh, and due to the 1st Amendment they are also protected by law!)

[Flagg]

Hey dipshit, when we get a ton of stories of vegans killing their kids through neglect while being protected by law and blowing people up based on veganism you might have a point. Right now you're just a flailing shortbus resident.

Hey, congratulations, you just demonstrated you lack reading comprehension IN ADDITION to owning a flimsy grasp of how basic logic operates. But, yeah, flaming is basically the same thing as presenting evidence.

Now, if you can figure out how to pull your head out of your own ass and actually read my post instead of knee-jerking a flame as you usually do, answer me this. Does the existence of the Ku Klux Klan indicate: A) all white people are evil; or B) there are crazy, evil fuckers that are also white? (Oh, and due to the 1st Amendment they are also protected by law!)

Oh my god you are so stupid. In your example you prove my point. Or is there a lack of institutional racism favoring whites now? I await your concession.

[Flagg]

Hey dipshit, when we get a ton of stories of vegans killing their kids through neglect while being protected by law and blowing people up based on veganism you might have a point. Right now you're just a flailing shortbus resident.

Define "a ton?" Does this count? What about this? This?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Are they protected by law? You know the way religions are? Another concession I'm waiting for with baited breath.

[Flagg]

And to expand on this, I don't believe religious people are evil, I believe religion is an evil. And it's a totally illogical one because the "bad" religious people are the ones who follow their religious texts the closest. Which is pretty funny.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Or is there a lack of institutional racism favoring whites now?

The fact that you honestly think I made this claim is indicative that you are either being incredibly dishonest or just too stupid to understand the point I am trying to make. I DO like how you carefully dodged answering my question through this horrible strawman, however. That was real classy.

So, again, I ask will ask you this question: does the institutional bias favoring whites prove that all white people are evil? If so, please provide evidence. If not, then how can you make the same claim vis-a-vis religion?

[Flagg]

Or is there a lack of institutional racism favoring whites now?

The fact that you honestly think I made this claim is indicative that you are either being incredibly dishonest or just too stupid to understand the point I am trying to make. I DO like how you carefully dodged answering my question through this horrible strawman, however. That was real classy.

So, again, I ask will ask you this question: does the institutional bias favoring whites prove that all white people are evil? If so, please provide evidence. If not, then how can you make the same claim vis-a-vis religion?

Are you blind? Where did I claim all religious people are evil you lying strawmanning cumbucket? My point is and has been that religion tolerates evil people and thus religious people are less likely to take issue with many fundamentalist ideologies. And just like the example you used to prove my point for me, the religious bitch about persecution when they are the ones who hold the cards. So again, I await your concession.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are you blind? Where did I claim all religious people are evil you lying strawmanning cumbucket?

Alright Flagg, I am getting sick of your bullshit and dishonesty.

All you have managed to do in this thread is strawman my argument, flame me, and backpedal furiously while arrogantly demanding a concession. You also keep claiming my example "proved your point for you", which indicates either incredible dishonesty or a thorough lack of reading comprehension. Just claiming that my example "proved your point for you" does not make it so. Especially since you were apparently too fucking stupid to understand what my example even was, or even what fucking argument I was making in the first place.

So I am going to make this very clear, and very explicit right now.

Highlord Laan claimed that being religious makes you crazy, and that religious people should be "bootheeled" as a result. Do you or do you not agree with this claim? If so, provide evidence that this is the case. If not, then stop flailing around like a jackass while the rest of us are actually trying to engage each other, because you are just wasting everybody's fucking time with your trolling.

[Flagg]

Are you blind? Where did I claim all religious people are evil you lying strawmanning cumbucket?

Alright Flagg, I am getting sick of your bullshit and dishonesty.

All you have managed to do in this thread is strawman my argument, flame me, and backpedal furiously while arrogantly demanding a concession. You also keep claiming my example "proved your point for you", which indicates either incredible dishonesty or a thorough lack of reading comprehension. Just claiming that my example "proved your point for you" does not make it so. Especially since you were apparently too fucking stupid to understand what my example even was, or even what fucking argument I was making in the first place.

So I am going to make this very clear, and very explicit right now.

Highlord Laan claimed that being religious makes you crazy, and that religious people should be "bootheeled" as a result. Do you or do you not agree with this claim? If so, provide evidence that this is the case. If not, then stop flailing around like a jackass while the rest of us are actually trying to engage each other, because you are just wasting everybody's fucking time with your trolling.

Is English your second language or are you just this fucking stupid? Frankly I'm sick of your shit. You keep saying I'm strawmanning yet have provided no evidence. Please show your work or fuck off.

[Singular Intellect]

OK, I've tried to cook up an analogy for how I see all this. It's religion as a walking stick.

The vast majority of people don't need a walking stick to ambulate. For most, they can either forgo it entirely or they adopt it as a fashion statement of sorts, because having one is customary at some times and places. For some people it is a necessary crutch to enable them to walk about and get on with life. Now, in some cases, it is a temporary need (and for such people we should be seeking a more permanent cure) and for others, regrettably, we can't fix what's wrong so they'll need one for life. In such cases, depriving those people of their walking stick would be cruel. For yet other people - those who entirely missing a leg, as an example - a walking stick is not the answer in any way and they need something different (an artificial limb, or a pair of actual crutches, or a wheelchair, or whatever).

You forgot to include one of the important parts, where many owners of such walking sticks will threaten, hit and even beat to death those who don't carry their particular brand of walking stick. And that the need for the walking stick is brought about by using such sticks to damage a person's legs in the first place, thus creating the 'need' for it.

Furthermore, any claim on your part that religion is necessary in any way is pure and absolute bullshit. That's a claim religion makes and is handily disproven by the existence of the non religious, both raised that way and fighting their way to that position. You don't get to pretend that the religious and non religious are different species and one can live just fine without and the other cannot. Religion isn't water, it's cigarettes. You'd have better luck trying to claim that the belief in Santa Clause is a necessary crutch for 'some people' to get around life. Good luck on that argument.

To use another analogy, what you're doing is like claiming religion is a tourniquet for the situation of severed limb and how it helps a lot of people, while conveniently leaving out the part where religion is what cut the limb off in the first place for no good fucking reason to being with.

Religion creates the problems it pretends to solve. It actually solves nothing and only creates problems. Religion is a net negative force, since there is zero positive outcome it can make claim to that any non religious position couldn't do just as well, or often, much better. However it easily has sole claim to many problems, and many horrific ones to boot, that only religion can make claim to (butchering baby dicks and terrorizing children with psychologically abusive stories about hell, as two quick examples).

The reality is much more along the lines of religion being a vicious assault upon the human mind that promotes ignorance, irrational thinking and a whole shitload of dangerous human behaviors and ways of thinking. The cure is logic, reason, evidence, science, skepticism, etc. Pointing out the different degrees of damaged inflicted upon the victims and how some handle it better (ie: can recover fully and leave it behind) while others get mind raped to the point of being unrecoverable (ie: 'need religion') does not in any way make a convincing argument of any 'good' religion does.

Any argument about the need for religion is as empty and hollow as arguing for the need for cigarettes. I'd say cigarettes actually makes a very good analogy, given it fits so many attributes. Enormous profits at the expense of those buying, obviously bad for health but doesn't kill everyone, proponents swear up and down about its positive effects and freedoms of choice on the matter, etc, etc.

[PainRack]

So, is there any research that shows why sometimes belief in a higher power is helpful, whereas in other scenarios, belief in a higher power is negative and increase the sense of hopelessness and despondency?

Is it due to a person characteristics?

[madd0ct0r]

could be.
could be the sense of community people get from singing together
could be the actual community of people doing each other favours and helping out when it's needed.

[Simon_Jester]

What I'd like to see is research seeing if religious people with mental disorders would... you know those polls that have choices ranging from "strongly agree with this statement" to "strongly disagree?" Have questions like:

1) I think that a higher power wants my life to be successful

2) I think that a higher power will ensure a positive life for me in the hereafter.

3) I think that a higher power controls everything I do

4) I think that suffering is punishment for evil acts and personal defects.

I bet that people who are psychologically helped by religion think (1) and (2) more, while people harmed by it think (3) and (4). (1) and (2) would tend to artificially combat depression by giving you faith that things are going to be all right in the end; (3) and (4) encourage people to blame themselves for their problems and sink into despair. A lot of religions contain aspects of both, so it would hardly be a surprise if they have inconsistent effects on the psychology of believers.

[Algebraist]

Some time back I saw a scientific study which demonstrated that there are psychological diferences between people that make some more open & needful of belief systems, spirituality and religion. Also more prone to "religious" or supernatural experiences or similar. I can try to find that later, although such diference are hardly big news and most of us would recognise that people have diferent needs to have a fufilling life. Personally, like many here I take great satisfaction with reason and science more than belief.

However the main point of this thread (which was in danger of being derailed by anti religion rants!) is the demonstration that belief in God can help mental health outcomes. Looking at the science on this, overall religion is generally linked with positive mental health and this can be put down to the guiding framework or social support offered to individuals and coping skills for painful times (eg death of a loved one). There are clear examples where the opposite can be true however and we can all find examples of negatives.

Note for the anti religion arguers (although I'm derailing a bit now). Its important to conceed that for most of man's history, people have had some kind of religious belief. Its difficult to point to historic figures in positions of power prior to the 20th century who didnt profess some kind of religious belief - it would be considered strange to be an athiest. It can be rather disingenuos to attempt to demonise religion by finding examples of aparently religious people doing negative things and ignore positives. Also religion was (and still is) also used as a political tool by people in positions of power but someone doing so is really manipulating religion.
Also standing against this athiests in power havent really got a great (if short) track record in the 20th century ie
Pol Pot
Chairman Mao
Hitler (he may have had some religious belief but on closer examination it appears more likely he was a materialist atheist and only referred to religion as a tool)
Stalin
Jim Jones and the temple cult

Again though you could argue that this is unfair demonisation of atheism (eg communism is a quite common theme here!).

However to convince the general world that atheism is the way to go for peaceful and properance - there is a way to go. Although the list of notable atheists doing good in positions of power is growing. In fact it seems to me that most of the problem is with Religious intolerance, particularly where taken to its extremes - both religious people intolerant of other religions and those who dont wish to be religious and atheists who are intolerant of religion (see list above). Intolerance is another whole thread though (and I've derailed enough)!

[Metahive]

Note for the anti religion arguers (although I'm derailing a bit now). Its important to conceed that for most of man's history, people have had some kind of religious belief.

O my, what a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell me that diving into water makes you all wet!

Its difficult to point to historic figures in positions of power prior to the 20th century who didnt profess some kind of religious belief - it would be considered strange to be an athiest. It can be rather disingenuos to attempt to demonise religion by finding examples of aparently religious people doing negative things and ignore positives. Also religion was (and still is) also used as a political tool by people in positions of power but someone doing so is really manipulating religion.Also standing against this athiests in power havent really got a great (if short) track record in the 20th century ie
Pol Pot
Chairman Mao
Hitler (he may have had some religious belief but on closer examination it appears more likely he was a materialist atheist and only referred to religion as a tool)
Stalin
Jim Jones and the temple cult

A so, every religious leader who committed atrocities was really an atheist cynically exploiting religion to manipulate the masses whereas alleged atheists like Stalin and Mao were acting fully in accordance to their godlessnes when they got lots of people killed. Special pleading at its finest.

FU, asshole.

Also, Hitler was a Catholic and condemned atheism whereas Jim Jones was prophet of his very own personal cult, so there.

Again though you could argue that this is unfair demonisation of atheism (eg communism is a quite common theme here!).

Communism (or rather Marxism-Leninism) is a rival secular religion to the more traditional middle eastern fare. That's why I count the crimes of Marxism-Leninism against religion too. Too bad.

However to convince the general world that atheism is the way to go for peaceful and properance - there is a way to go. Although the list of notable atheists doing good in positions of power is growing. In fact it seems to me that most of the problem is with Religious intolerance, particularly where taken to its extremes - both religious people intolerant of other religions and those who dont wish to be religious and atheists who are intolerant of religion (see list above). Intolerance is another whole thread though (and I've derailed enough)!

Religiously intolerant religionists threaten little girls with death for allegedly disposing of some holy book in an improper way. Religiously intolerant atheists...spew angry rhetoric on the web. Shove that Golden Mean BS up your expanded rectum, your doddering horsefucker.

[Algebraist]

Note for the anti religion arguers (although I'm derailing a bit now). Its important to conceed that for most of man's history, people have had some kind of religious belief.

O my, what a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell me that diving into water makes you all wet!

yes I know its obvious but just wanted to highlight it for the purpose of the next paragraph of my argument.

Its difficult to point to historic figures in positions of power prior to the 20th century who didnt profess some kind of religious belief - it would be considered strange to be an athiest. It can be rather disingenuos to attempt to demonise religion by finding examples of aparently religious people doing negative things and ignore positives. Also religion was (and still is) also used as a political tool by people in positions of power but someone doing so is really manipulating religion.Also standing against this athiests in power havent really got a great (if short) track record in the 20th century ie
Pol Pot
Chairman Mao
Hitler (he may have had some religious belief but on closer examination it appears more likely he was a materialist atheist and only referred to religion as a tool)
Stalin
Jim Jones and the temple cult

A so, every religious leader who committed atrocities was really an atheist cynically exploiting religion to manipulate the masses whereas alleged atheists like Stalin and Mao were acting fully in accordance to their godlessnes when they got lots of people killed. Special pleading at its finest.

FU, asshole.

Also, Hitler was a Catholic and condemned atheism whereas Jim Jones was prophet of his very own personal cult, so there.

think you missed the point of this - religion by definition needs to include belief in god/spirituality, so no communism isnt a religion. Communism was specific in being atheist. In the absence of religion people can still end up in "cults" and systems such as communism used to replace religion.

No I don't think that religious leaders are atheists (at all) - I didnt say that. I think that some political leaders exploit religion for their purposes.

In my original post I conceeded that the point about Hilter being atheist was contentious as there has been considerable debate on that! He certainly wasnt a religious leader anyway and I think the evidence points to no real religious conviction!

Note I'd probably put myself at present in the agnostic boat!

Again though you could argue that this is unfair demonisation of atheism (eg communism is a quite common theme here!).

Communism (or rather Marxism-Leninism) is a rival secular religion to the more traditional middle eastern fare. That's why I count the crimes of Marxism-Leninism against religion too. Too bad.

However to convince the general world that atheism is the way to go for peaceful and properance - there is a way to go. Although the list of notable atheists doing good in positions of power is growing. In fact it seems to me that most of the problem is with Religious intolerance, particularly where taken to its extremes - both religious people intolerant of other religions and those who dont wish to be religious and atheists who are intolerant of religion (see list above). Intolerance is another whole thread though (and I've derailed enough)!

Religiously intolerant religionists threaten little girls with death for allegedly disposing of some holy book in an improper way. Religiously intolerant atheists...spew angry rhetoric on the web. Shove that Golden Mean BS up your expanded rectum, your doddering horsefucker.

I think that paragraph pretty much proves my point on intolerance. For me, threatening little girls with death for allegedly disposing of a holdy book couldnt be a better example of religious intolerance.

By the way you can spew angry rhetoric on the web. I'm concerned with what happens if someone with angry intolerant rhetoric gets into a position of power.

[jwl]

Eh? From the stuff I've looked at, it seems more likely hitler was religious than not. It seems to be his own brand of religion as different from any main world religions, but not atheist.

I also find the idea of lumping all the different religions together and leaving atheism as an alternative is a bit short-sighted. They are as different from each other as they are from atheism. If someone were to put Islam in one bracket and everything else in another, would that be a fair comparison?

[Metahive]

I think that paragraph pretty much proves my point on intolerance. For me, threatening little girls with death for allegedly disposing of a holdy book couldnt be a better example of religious intolerance.

OK, first off, shithead, it was not necessary to quote my entire post for that pithy sentence. Second, too bad that it's overwhelmingly religionists all over the world who are practicing such intolerance and worse daily.

By the way you can spew angry rhetoric on the web. I'm concerned with what happens if someone with angry intolerant rhetoric gets into a position of power.

That's all you have to say, you product of explosive diarrhea? You vomit your shoddily written, shoddily formatted, poorly spelled and even more poorly-thought out posts onto this board but then don't think you actually have to debate about them? For a start you proposed that all evil rulers in history could only have been atheists, defend that! You proposed that Hitler and Jim Jones were atheists, defend that!
Don't bother coming back if you are not willing to explain yourself!

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Also standing against this athiests in power havent really got a great (if short) track record in the 20th century ie
[...]
Jim Jones and the temple cult

Skrrrrt bzzzzt BOOM! Massive logic fail.

Also Algebraist, before you begin really quaking, let me tell you a few things. You are permitted to be a jackass in this board. You are permitted to flame and swear, and do all the nicer things that would be banworthy flames in other places, if you think the other interlocutor has said something stupid. You are also permitted to flame back.

You are not permitted to wholesale ignore your opponent's points. You are not permitted to dismiss them because they are crass. Finally, you are not permitted to skip reading the rules in the Announcements section. And boy, you are going to get shredded if you cry intolerance at mere swearwords.

[Metahive]

Doctor, you should be a bit careful with that Backseat Modding, because that's not very well liked here either.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Pfff. Tried to help him.

[D.Turtle]

Metahive, (and to a lesser degree Dr.Trainwreck): Thats enough being helpful. That kind of stuff can go in PMs.

Also, I'm disappointed that in the whole argument with Broomstick, nobody was really able to point out that she is arguing for something that this study in no way at all shows. The study shows that a stronger belief in a higher power is correlated with better outcomes. It does not show that increasing ones strength of belief as part of the treatment improves outcomes.

In other words, this study does not in any way support using increased religiousness as a treatment method.

[Scrib]

Religion creates the problems it pretends to solve.

Are you telling me that dissatisfaction with the natural world and scientific explanations of said world may in fact be due to the pervasive social force telling everyone that those explanations are unsatisfactory and empty so it can justify it's existence? I am shocked.

[Tiriol]

Metahive, (and to a lesser degree Dr.Trainwreck): Thats enough being helpful. That kind of stuff can go in PMs.

Also, I'm disappointed that in the whole argument with Broomstick, nobody was really able to point out that she is arguing for something that this study in no way at all shows. The study shows that a stronger belief in a higher power is correlated with better outcomes. It does not show that increasing ones strength of belief as part of the treatment improves outcomes.

In other words, this study does not in any way support using increased religiousness as a treatment method.

I may have had a wrong impression (Broomstick may correct me if I'm wrong), but I thought she meant that if a belief in God/gods/higher power in general may be beneficial to some inviduals, that should not be discounted and ignored but rather try to understand how it might be used to keep them mentally healthy and/or improve their mental health condition if it has suffered for some reason. I didn't get the impression that she was arguing for increasing religious belief would be a way to go.

[D.Turtle]

I may have had a wrong impression (Broomstick may correct me if I'm wrong), but I thought she meant that if a belief in God/gods/higher power in general may be beneficial to some individuals, that should not be discounted and ignored but rather try to understand how it might be used to keep them mentally healthy and/or improve their mental health condition if it has suffered for some reason. I didn't get the impression that she was arguing for increasing religious belief would be a way to go.

Who it might benefit are mentally ill people who are already religious, in that a care provider could make the suggestion to become more involved in that religion even if the provider is not him or herself religious with more confidence that it will be a helpful path to pursue and not merely a meaningless or useless delusion.

IF religion is shown to benefit a subset of the affected population (let's say 30% as a WAG) then a psychiatrist would be remiss NOT to mention or suggest it if the patient in front of him or her is a member of that subset.

IF someone was, for example, raised Lutheran and still has some leaning in that direction mentioning that some people find becoming involved in church is not going to bring the world to a screeching halt.

I think its quite clear what she is advocating.