WARNING - Religion is bad for your health

[RedAnarchist]

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

(I know it's from the Times, but it was the only source I could find on the Internet)

[Elect Marx]

What can I say; I'm feeling "God's" love :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This sort of thing has has been known for a while of course.

Of course the reason why religion is so damaging to modern democracies is because it represents a retarding influence on the spread of scientific and intellectual ideas, for example you compare evolution theory with Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism, and you will find that the latter has a lot more in common with religious dogma than the former, despite what post-modernist anti-science types might tell you.

And of course, if you don't give your children proper sex education, they're gonna be absolutely clueless when it actually comes to it. "Abstinence only" is worse than useless.

What disappoints me though is that the fight against such illogical aspects of our society is left to the left-of-the-centre democratic liberals and the libertarians, rather than being attacked wholesale by the more radical elements of the Left.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:09 PM
What disappoints me though is that the fight against such illogical aspects of our society is left to the left-of-the-centre democratic liberals and the libertarians, rather than being attacked wholesale by the more radical elements of the Left.
I couldn't agree more. What you have is the center-fascists that don't want to work with "extremists" and your ultra-leftists (mostly anarchists I think, no offence) that refuse to do anything until "the revolution comes," (critical mass people). These people make me sick (!!!); it is one thing for ignorant people to not act, but those that should fucking know better!?

The far left needs to take to the streets and the communities; get active! Show that you care more than fucking guilty yuppies!

[Latifa]

Churchs that burn candles also have extremely high concentrations of PM10 ( microscopic particles less than 10 microns across ), up to 10 times more than regular street levels.

[tantric]

uh, that is NOT good science. science tests for one variable at a time. likewise christianity != religion, DAMMIT. how's china doing? cuba? is china more crime free than the UK? could that have something to do with the chinese "justice" system? the USSR was a pit of corruption and greed, yet mostly Godless. what's the crime rate in iran or saudi arabi? minimal. you, NiXion, should at least notice that the study is nonsense, even if the overall premise is true. ;-)

nevertheless, best to withhold total disapproval until i see the article. that's how science does it.

some religions oppose science, some support it.

there are LOTS of studies showing that sick religious folk, who pray and have people pray for them, get better faster.

HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:

you find a new island (TikiTiki) with a tribe of agarians with a religion that denies the existence of personal property, encourages a gift economy, and generally requires that everyone "sacrifice" everything they don't need to the common good, all in the name Madame Tiki-Tiki, volcano goddess. people caught hording or profiteering get thrown into the volcano, in the name of GOD. what do you do?

this is why the whole anti-religion motif is moronic. only religion has the power to change society on a fundamental level. political ideology does not - when it tries, it just becomes a religion. religion is a lever to move the human world. it just has to be the right religion. likewise, you cannot oppress religion - it just gets stronger. if you are right, and your beliefs are useful, in time, people will change. bury it, however, and it just goes deeper.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:41 PM
nevertheless, best to withhold total disapproval until i see the article. that's how science does it.
Not even close; science is empirical, not prejudicial.


there are LOTS of studies showing that sick religious folk, who pray and have people pray for them, get better faster.

Could you tell us where to find one of them?


HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:

you find a new island (TikiTiki) with a tribe of agarians with a religion that denies the existence of personal property, encourages a gift economy, and generally requires that everyone "sacrifice" everything they don't need to the common good, all in the name Madame Tiki-Tiki, volcano goddess. people caught hording or profiteering get thrown into the volcano, in the name of GOD. what do you do?

First, you run for your life if you are a missionary :lol: What I would do, is commend them on their society and try to figure out why a society that cooperates so readily and lives very peacefully would need to kill anyone or praise an imaginary deity.


this is why the whole anti-religion motif is moronic. only religion has the power to change society on a fundamental level. political ideology does not - when it tries, it just becomes a religion.

Hmm, what could I possibly say to prove you wrong? Maybe technology; technology is all I really need to say. Are you going to argue religion has changed human society more than technology?


religion is a lever to move the human world.

Leveler? Are you a proponent of genocide? The Native American people had a much more natural and socially constructive religion then their murderers; how did that level out?


it just has to be the right religion.

Perhaps if material proof exists to validate it but otherwise, what benefit does delusion have?


likewise, you cannot oppress religion - it just gets stronger.

Questioning the validity of baseless assertions and refusing to follow unjustified moral premises is not oppression, it is in fact liberation.


if you are right, and your beliefs are useful, in time, people will change. bury it, however, and it just goes deeper.

Not really; historically entire belief systems have been eradicated and cultures have faded away, even if they were quite prominent at one time. Religion cannot touch material conditions, because it is governed by them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

One again tantric is running out to defend superstitious reactionary bullshit. No surprise there.

[Dark Exodus]

there are LOTS of studies showing that sick religious folk, who pray and have people pray for them, get better faster.

Ever heard of placebos? Give someone with a disease a bottle of water and tell them its the cure and their condition improves. It's state of mind.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 28 2005, 11:31 AM

there are LOTS of studies showing that sick religious folk, who pray and have people pray for them, get better faster.

Ever heard of placebos? Give someone with a disease a bottle of water and tell them its the cure and their condition improves. It's state of mind.
Right; if I honestly thought I was no longer going to die from some horrible disease (an example), I would have quite the "bounce in my step," and would have great hope. The sad part is the faith that people have in doctors, as if they were magical <_< I suppose that if you are running out of options, you might be desperate to believe in a cure and I couldn&#39;t blame someone for that.

[tantric]

there are LOTS of studies showing that sick religious folk, who pray and have people pray for them, get better faster.

Could you tell us where to find one of them?

will do, coming up. in the mean time, try google. won&#39;t help - you are most likely a fanatic and not interested in evidence.



First, you run for your life if you are a missionary :lol: What I would do, is commend them on their society and try to figure out why a society that cooperates so readily and lives very peacefully would need to kill anyone or praise an imaginary deity.


consider the shakers, et al - the only time communism has EVER worked is when coupled to religion.



Hmm, what could I possibly say to prove you wrong? Maybe technology; technology is all I really need to say. Are you going to argue religion has changed human society more than technology?


well, no - i just argue that science is a religion.

the placebo effect is one of the most powerful tools in medicine. it can, and often does, cure things medical science cannot touch. would you rather be deluded and live or right and die? welcome to evolution. and you wonder why religion is still around...



Leveler? Are you a proponent of genocide? The Native American people had a much more natural and socially constructive religion then their murderers; how did that level out?

lever, n

1. A simple machine consisting of a rigid bar pivoted on a fixed point and used to transmit force, as in raising or moving a weight at one end by pushing down on the other.
2. A projecting handle used to adjust or operate a mechanism.
3. A means of accomplishing; a tool: used friendship as a lever to obtain advancement.

my point is, the way you get a large number of people to make a sudden change in their essential way of life is through religion, specifically, a messiah.



likewise, you cannot oppress religion - it just gets stronger.

Questioning the validity of baseless assertions and refusing to follow unjustified moral premises is not oppression, it is in fact liberation.

what if the assertions are well grounded and the moral premises useful? you, like niXion, have defined a religion as "a false set of beliefs". this is pointless semantics. assuming all religions are wrong and "liberating" people from them is prejudice and tyranny.

why this study is stupid:

the USA has more latinos than the UK. the USA has more crime. latinos cause crime, the lack of latinos is better. SOCRATES IS NOT GREEN. the USA has more crime because it has no supportsystem/welfare state and no gun control. duh.

consider: why is the UK less religious than it used to be? because of the oppression of religion? did that work in the USSR? no. if you are right, time will tell.

[Latifa]

the USA has more latinos than the UK. the USA has more crime. latinos cause crime, the lack of latinos is better.

Ok just shut up.

[Severian]

OK just read the post and try to understand what&#39;s actually being said.

Tantric is pointing out the flaw in this study by comparing it to an obviously false conclusion reached by the same method.

He&#39;s right: correlation is not causation. Just because A is correlated with B, that doesn&#39;t mean A causes B. Maybe B causes A. Maybe A and B are both caused by C. Maybe there&#39;s no causal relationship at all.

I suppose the study been successful in that "The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted." as someone puts it in the article.

However, it does not prove the reverse, that a godly citizenry must experience societal disaster&#33; That religion is the cause of these social problems, rather than say capitalism, the breaking of unions and slashing of the social wage in the U.S., etc.

I suspect the causation is in reverse...that people turn to religion in response to societal disaster. Poverty, ignorance, uncertainty, and the seeming lack of any earthly help are among the material roots of religion.

As Marx pointed out.

***

Tantric wrote:




there are LOTS of studies showing that sick religious folk, who pray and have people pray for them, get better faster.
Could you tell us where to find one of them?
will do, coming up. in the mean time, try google. won&#39;t help - you are most likely a fanatic and not interested in evidence.

Well, here&#39;s a study, the largest conducted so far, which showed the opposite. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/15/MNGEODOHHQ1.DTL) Double-blind to nullify the placebo effect.

So are you interested in evidence or are you a "fanatic", Tantric? (Your word.)

(And I didn&#39;t even have to go to Google, just a past thread in this subforum.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Severian is right, but it goes deeper than simple correlation.

Abstinence-only education does leave one unprepared for STDs, and doesn&#39;t inform one about the use of condoms (Which do more than prevent babies, btw)

Abstinence-only is perpetuated by social conservatives, most of whom happen to be religious. In fact, religion enforces those who promote AO by giving them a "holy directive" which is "greater" than the reckonings of mere mortals.

The point is that religion is used to buttress ruling class "superiority" while real-world facts tend to do the opposite.

[tantric]

refs: Dr. Dossey and Dr. Loehr have books on prayer. there was a british study showing that prayer has no effect on cultured cancer cells. both Dossey and Loehr have positive results. Loehr is a priest, but most of the other scientists are atheists, so go figure.

the jury is still out on this. it is very possible that focused attention has measurable effects. why not?

you are talking about christianity, not religion. how much of this happens in japan? buddhists and shintoists have creation myths, and i&#39;ll bet both are taught in some form in school in japan. it&#39;s just not a conflict - the nihonshoki and kojiki are literature, a very important part of japanese society. it would be stupid not to teach the kids about the cultural heritage that dominates their country.

i propose: add, as a basic subject, Religion, Ethics and Philosophy, taught from grade one. teach it all, Allah to Zarathrusta, Christ to Kant. how is it you can graduate from public school in the USA and have no idea of biblical genesis? it&#39;s freakin&#39; important to how people think. they can factor a polynomial, but have no clue who mohammed was. if you teach kids about all religions, they will see that what their parents are pushing on them is gibberish. i would like to see how a christian conservatives would react to this - i bet they&#39;d hate it just as much as y&#39;all will.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:58 PM
if you teach kids about all religions, they will see that what their parents are pushing on them is gibberish.
I am completely okay with kids learning about mythology, as long as they are not indoctrinated we don&#39;t have a problem but can you name a religion that doesn&#39;t represent idealist fantasy as fact to children? They simply wouldn&#39;t exist otherwise; there are two possibilities:

1) There is some sort of magical creature to praise

2) They brainwash children by avoiding/rejecting material reality


i would like to see how a Christian conservatives would react to this - i bet they&#39;d hate it just as much as y&#39;all will.

Says the prejudicial hypocrite... stereotype us all you want but you are the one that came here playing the stereotypical-persecution card.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:58 PM
refs: Dr. Dossey and Dr. Loehr have books on prayer. there was a british study showing that prayer has no effect on cultured cancer cells. both Dossey and Loehr have positive results. Loehr is a priest, but most of the other scientists are atheists, so go figure.
C&#39;mon. Source? Specifics? A link? That kind of info is meaningless unless one can examine the details of the study.

And you&#39;ve ignored the study I linked....exactly as you predicted atheist "fanatics" would ignore the sources we&#39;re still waiting for.


the jury is still out on this. it is very possible that focused attention has measurable effects. why not?

Gee, that&#39;s not what you said earlier. You said: "there are LOTS of studies showing that sick religious folk, who pray and have people pray for them, get better faster." Clearly seemed to imply that the evidence was on your side.

Additionally, if you&#39;re going to claim scientific support for your beliefs, then they have to meet the same standards as anything else being tested scientifically.

Nobody gets a pill approved by the FDA, just by saying "it is very possible" that this pill "has measurable effects." They have to prove it does, and that it&#39;s more helpful than a placebo. "Prayer therapy" has not met this test.

It&#39;s one of the great ironies of the world, that some people claim their religious beliefs are "science" - for example, "creation scientists" - and that scientific theories are a religion. By doing this - saying things they like are scientific and things they don&#39;t are religion - they&#39;re admitting the superiority of science to religon.


i would like to see how a christian conservatives would react to this - i bet they&#39;d hate it just as much as y&#39;all will.

Great. If you know what everyone else thinks without reading their posts, why should anyone bother to post in response to you? That is, why bother posting something you won&#39;t read anyway?

As it happens, I don&#39;t have a problem with teaching comparative religion as part of social studies. I&#39;ve done more reading about comparative religion than most.

I only have a problem with teaching religion as science&#33;

***

I agree, Noxion. Religion is one of the weapons of the ruling class and right-wing political groups, and the "inertia of history." I doubt that it&#39;s the main cause of the differences described in the article, though.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I read the initial post... but none of the subsequent posts... and I have to say that it&#39;s not religion that causes shitty societies, it&#39;s shitty societies that cause religion.

[Severian]

Thanks for summing up what I&#39;ve been trying to say here.

[Black Dagger]

I couldn&#39;t agree more. What you have is the center-fascists that don&#39;t want to work with "extremists" and your ultra-leftists (mostly anarchists I think, no offence) that refuse to do anything until "the revolution comes," (critical mass people).

Are you joking? What are you talking about? I can&#39;t make sense of it. Anarchists refuse taking immediate actions? Direct actions (&#33;)?



The far left needs to take to the streets and the communities; get active&#33; Show that you care more than fucking guilty yuppies&#33;

Anarchists are &#39;guilty yuppies&#39; who need to &#39;take to the streets and the communities&#39; and actually do SOMETHING, ie. &#39;get active&#33;&#39;? Right...

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 3 2005, 07:44 AM

I couldn&#39;t agree more. What you have is the center-fascists that don&#39;t want to work with "extremists" and your ultra-leftists (mostly anarchists I think, no offence) that refuse to do anything until "the revolution comes," (critical mass people).

Are you joking? What are you talking about? I can&#39;t make sense of it. Anarchists refuse taking immediate actions? Direct actions (&#33;)?
Do you really think most anarchists are for direct action? That would be nice, but I haven&#39;t seen it. Many "leftists," do sit on their asses and say "when the revolution comes..." Can you really deny that?



The far left needs to take to the streets and the communities; get active&#33; Show that you care more than fucking guilty yuppies&#33;

Anarchists are &#39;guilty yuppies&#39; who need to &#39;take to the streets and the communities&#39; and actually do SOMETHING, ie. &#39;get active&#33;&#39;? Right...

I wasn&#39;t talking about just anarchists; could you stop making irrational assumptions? Yes, SOME anarchists are guilty yuppies&#33; Anarchism isn&#39;t divine you know.

I have to say, on a discussion board you should really reply with more than "I disagree" <_<

[Black Dagger]

Do you really think most anarchists are for direct action?

Yes. How about this, if &#39;most anarchists&#39; are not for direct action, what are they for? No-action? Electoralism? Expand the point.



That would be nice, but I haven&#39;t seen it.

Shall we trade personal experiences?



Many "leftists," do sit on their asses and say "when the revolution comes..." Can you really deny that?

That&#39;s clearly not what i doing in my post. I was defending anarchists (in general) from YOUR irrational assumption.

You said "What you have is the center-fascists that don&#39;t want to work with "extremists" and your ultra-leftists (mostly anarchists I think, no offence) that refuse to do anything until "the revolution comes," (critical mass people)"

Then said: "The far left needs to take to the streets and the communities; get active&#33; Show that you care more than fucking guilty yuppies&#33;"

With &#39;ultra-leftists&#39; and &#39;the far left&#39; clearly being used as synonyms, i took this logically to mean that you think anarchists are nothing more than &#39;fucking guilty yuppies&#39; who need to &#39;take to the streets and the communities&#39; and actually do SOMETHING, ie. &#39;get active&#33;&#39; How am i misrepresenting your statements?

And of course there are plenty of paper-leftists, anarchists and marxists included, can you really deny that? Criticism or even mention of the latter group is abesent from your post.


have to say, on a discussion board you should really reply with more than "I disagree"

Once you flesh out your points i can respond in more detail.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Black Dagger, I think his point is that we hardly see anarchists (And Leninists for that matter&#33;) disrupting public christian fundamentalist events, we never see them heckling preachers and assorted christian fascists, etc.

The revolutionary portions of the Left as a whole need to do more than simply turn up at the G8 Summit and anti-war protests - they need to attack other reactionary elements of capitalist society, fundamentalists included.

The trouble is that in America religion is typically treated in that flabby liberal manner typically known as "Well it&#39;s their point of view"

[Elect Marx]

Thanks NoXion; that does fit right in with the point I am making.


Originally posted by Black [email protected] 3 2005, 08:56 AM

Do you really think most anarchists are for direct action?

Yes. How about this, if &#39;most anarchists&#39; are not for direct action, what are they for? No-action? Electoralism? Expand the point.
Well; many of them are critical mass proponents, as I said. They like to "bid their time" (sitting on their asses) and WAIT for something to happen, as if some great opportunity will just come about.



That would be nice, but I haven&#39;t seen it.

Shall we trade personal experiences?

I&#39;m game if you are Spock ;)



Many "leftists," do sit on their asses and say "when the revolution comes..." Can you really deny that?

That&#39;s clearly not what i doing in my post. I was defending anarchists (in general) from YOUR irrational assumption.

I never attacked anarchists and if you would stop defending your ideology from phantom bogeymen, you would know that. I only made the statement that I have seen this to be prevalent in "anarchist" sects.


You said "What you have is the center-fascists that don&#39;t want to work with "extremists" and your ultra-leftists (mostly anarchists I think, no offence) that refuse to do anything until "the revolution comes," (critical mass people)"

Then said: "The far left needs to take to the streets and the communities; get active&#33; Show that you care more than fucking guilty yuppies&#33;"

With &#39;ultra-leftists&#39; and &#39;the far left&#39; clearly being used as synonyms, i took this logically to mean that you think anarchists are nothing more than &#39;fucking guilty yuppies&#39; who need to &#39;take to the streets and the communities&#39; and actually do SOMETHING, ie. &#39;get active&#33;&#39; How am i misrepresenting your statements?

Where do I start&#33;? I don&#39;t even know if I can catch all of your wild assumptions.

1) &#39;ultra-leftists&#39; and &#39;the far left&#39; are in no way synonyms; how the fuck could you assume that?

2) &#39;fucking guilty yuppies&#39; has nothing to do with either of those terms but was a part of a later point.


And of course there are plenty of paper-leftists, anarchists and marxists included, can you really deny that? Criticism or even mention of the latter group is abesent from your post.

Is this about slandering everyone equally with what you identify as?
Okay, let us start:

Socialists can ultra-leftists
Marxists can ultra-leftists
Marxist-Leninists can ultra-leftists
Unspecified leftist can ultra-leftists
Anarcho-syndicalists can ultra-leftists
Anarcho-communists can ultra-leftists
Anarcho-feminists can ultra-leftists
Also, followers of: Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc. can ultra-leftists

Is that enough or did I forget someone on your list?



have to say, on a discussion board you should really reply with more than "I disagree"

Once you flesh out your points i can respond in more detail.

Why didn&#39;t you just ask for more detail before you went on an assumption rampage?